Transcripts For CSPAN Free Speech On College Campuses Hearing 20171030

The Senate Committee on health, labor, education, and pensions will please come to order. We are holding a hearing on exploring free speech on College Campuses. Senator murray and i will each have an Opening Statement and then introduce the witnesses. This is an exceptional panel. We look forward to learning from you. And, we thank you for coming. After your testimony we will each have five minutes of questions. Before we get into the hearing, i want to make a comment about the recommendations senator murray and i made to the senate, along with 22 other senators, equally divided republicans and democrats, for a shortterm bipartisan agreement to reduce each have five minutes of premiums and avoid chaos in the individual Insurance Market during 2018 and 2019. Individual Insurance Market during 2018 and 2019. Im very encouraged by what has happened since we introduced that a week ago. From the Congressional Budget Office yesterday which said in effect that as we believed the Alexander Murray proposal, and which would continue costsharing payments for two years, 2018 and 2019, would provide benefits to taxpayers and consumers and not to insurance companies. Senator marie and i spent a lot of time trying to think of the most effective language to make sure that would be true in our language. President trump said repeatedly he doesnt want to bail out an insurance company. We are convinced our insurance does not end the Congressional Budget Office agrees. He says cbo and the joint Tax Committee estimate implementing the legislation would reduce the debt by 3. 8 billion over 2018 to 27. Almost all areas of the country would be required to issue some form of rebates to the individuals and the federal government. In the planning that means less tax payer money for Affordable Care act subsidies. If we pass the legislation, cbo said earlier that it would be a lot more taxpayer money for the tax subsidies if we dont pass in fact they estimate 194 billion in increased debt as a result of the higher subsidies. This is why more republicans and conservatives the last week indicated their support for the continuing costsharing, the chairman of the Tax Committee senator hatch, chairman brady. Now the added other provisions to the costsharing payments that are different than what senator marie and i agreed to and if they could persuade senator murray and Democratic Senators to do that, the better. What that suggests to me is there is growing support that we need to do something and ive pointed out almost every House Republican voted for continuing costsharing payments when they voted earlier to repeal and replace obamacare. In this area as usual when its about to get a result, i think we will by the end of the gear or something close to what we proposed. I think 22 other senators, democrat and republican joined with us and i ask consent to put that in the record at this point. The Budget Office report since the committee spent so much time on the subject devoted for full hearings to it and invited not on the committee to be other meetings. I very much appreciate your remarks and i want all of the colleagues to know that we believe this is the right kind of proposal that deals with the shortterm Economic Situation of so Many Americans. Im very excited that we are getting more and more support every day. I think the cbo support is especially important as we move forward and we will keep working to get it done. Today we are talking about free speech on College Campuses to speak ones mind without being silenced. The wall that can be directed against the speech offended some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment to the constitution does not entrust the power to the governments benevolence. Instead the reliance must be on the safeguards of the free and open discussion in a democratic society. There is a long history of shouting down the speakers with whom members of the other committee disagree or take offense on College Campuses. Back in the 1930s, the Student University in chicago, the current president of the university of chicago is here today and invited William Foster and the partys president ial candidate to speak and this led to the protest criticism, the president defended the decision saying the students should have the freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself through open discussion rather than inhibition and taboo. When i was a student in the 1960s at Vanderbilt University in the society wanted my Political Science professor fired. They fought world war i was a mistake and vanderbilt defended him and he stayed. I also remembered the poet spoke out on campus, horrifying pairings and some students thatt he was allowed to speak and wrote when he was a student at the university o university of e 60s, the American Association of professors rose up because the professors were being squelched. In the mid1960s, senator ted kennedy, later chairman of the committee and leader of the Democratic Party was shouted down at the university of wisconsin not allowed to speak that he was considered as not liberal enough. The university became famous as the home of the move in the 60s and protected all sorts of leftwing causes and now the pendulum seems to have spawned in the opposite direction. Its usually voices of conservative professors and speakers that are being squelched and 2014 after rutgers students protested and held a sit in at the president s office, former National Security advisor and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice went through from speaking at the commencement berkley sought to reschedule three times fewer students would be on campus. Some liberals are reminding the left if they were the ones being shut down musician who participated in berkley sai saie blood and culture of the world have their say. University leaders into the berkeley chancellor have both taken action to reaffirm their commitment to free speech and nadine who served as a witness here today. Former Vice President joe biden said last week liberals have short memories. When i was coming up through college and graduate school, free speech was the big issue, that it was liberals that were shut down when they spoke. Shouting down speakers isnt the only issue. There is the question of political onesided miss that theres a pervasive point on many College Campuses. Statistics are hard to come by that everyone knows it is true even in the most prestigious institutions. A 2014 survey by the university of california los angeles on the ideological leanings of College Faculty members found a number of liberal professors compared with conservative professors was about 61 and a new england the ratio was 281. There are not many registered republicans in the town of cambridge either. February this year, 3. 7 for registered as republicans. When i was on the faculty at the Kennedy School of government at harvard where i was for two years before i came here, we laughed but i was part of an affirmative Action Program for republicans and conservatives. I have to give credit to the dean who actually made a significant efforts to bring more conservatives and republicans to campus. While i was there i would tell l conservative state of the best education. Liberal students could be guilty of lazy thinking because they agreed with their professors while the conservative students learned to be on their toes. Some campuses have some departments have a conservative but not many. This kind of onesided this can result in students feeling uncomfortable when confronted with new ideas and then theres the question of the inflammatory speakers and the chaos that results when they show up. We saw that in charlottesville. We saw last week at the university of florida 600,000 spent on security. The thousand Law Enforcement officials, the governor declaring a state of emergency. This is a problem in a country that prizes freedom and a familiar one. If you are a University President , what do you do about it . How do they respond to the speech and reaction to that speech . A recent survey by the Brookings Institution found nearly 20 of students believe it is acceptable to use physical force to silence the speaker who makes offensive and hurtful statements. What about a speaker that sets out just to be controversial. If you create an environment that results in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in security costs, a speaker who cant speak, and an audience that cant listen, theres not a very good result. We have a distinguished panel. We should listen to them and remember senator howard bakers admonition that the other fellow might be right. Universities especially should be the place where people of different views may speak, audiences can listen and many contrasting viewpoints are encouraged. There should be some sensible ways to limit and allow that while still protecting freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Senator mary. Thank you chairman alexander and i want to thank all of the witnesses that are here today and thank you for your commitment to protecting free speech on College Campuses and elsewhere. Everyone in this room can agree that free speech is a cornerstone of our democracy. It is what allows us to disagree and debate political ideas without fear of retribution. It allows us to speak out if the government is acting in a dishonest for an unlawful manner and allows open and honest discussions of ideas, new and old. Old. Some of civil rights leaders including doctor Martin Luther king jr. To stand up and peacefully fight for what is right. So there is no real debate about whether or not there should be free speech on campuses or anywhere else. I think that is something we can all agree on despite people trying to create a strawman by saying one side or another doesnt. But here is the issue that i think is worth discussing today. How can we protect his Constitutional Rights while also making sure that our colleges and universities are places where everyone can feel safe, so they can learn and respectfully debate ideas. And as part of the conversation, we need to discuss our elected leaders and Community Members and College University administrators can best exercise their First Amendment rights to do everything in their power to push back against those who are driving an agenda of extremism or racism or bigotry or xenophobia and misogyny. And we must also speak out against groups and organizations that are looking to use the right to fretheirright to free e us, to attack the most vulnerable among us and feed on peoples fear in the service of eight. This is a necessary discussion for this committee and all of us to have and while i believe there are a whole lot of people on campuses across the country who are doing great work on this front, recent events have made it clear we are not there yet. So heres where i want to start with what should be an obvious statement. I think we can all agree there is no place for violence on the College Campuses. But unfortunately the last ten months, we have seen more and more of this across the country. When you look at who we have in the white house right now, the rhetoric that is being used, some of the people that are being hired it should come as no surprise when we see an apparent resurgence of hate and bigotry and xenophobia and misogyny on the campuses. What we have heard coming out of the white house has been shocking at times, but what has been more disturbing is how so many others, even those who opposed him previously that allowed them to be normalized. It is based on how a person worships or who they are or where they come from seems to have somehow embolde somehow eme extremist hate groups to come out of the shadows. With that in some parts of the country weve seen reports of a rise in hate crimes and violence especially in our College Campuses. For years theres been a concerted effort to combat hate groups in the courts and in the hearts and minds of american people. As a result, those radical organizations have been pushed to the margins of our society but in 2015, they found a voice to rally behind and its no secret leadership has made some disparaging Public Comments against mexicanamericans or women or muslims, and unlike before when those individuals knew they would be shunned by their friends, neighbors and communities that rhetoric has emboldened extreme hate groups to come back out of the shadows. Of the recruitment of students on College Campuses including here in washington, d. C. And in my home state of washington. Just yesterday i met with a very bright young student named taylor from the American University and shes here today. I am so proud of you for what you are doing. Earlier this year, she was actually elected the first africanamerican female student body president. And the same day racist messages were found hanging across the campus, right here in washington, d. C. While investigating the hate crimes, taylor is speaking out now to highlight the toll its taking on the students being targeted by hate speech, and what a true leader, taylor took the experience to begin a larger dialogue about bigotry, working with the universitys administration to make the school a more welcoming and safe place for all students. Thats just one incident. There are so many more. Earlier this summer, as we heard hundreds of White Supremacists organized the country to travel to the university of virginia campus in charlottesville. Those individual marched through shouting nazi slogans and racist chants and a group of counter protesters many of whom were residents of charlottesville and students and staff and faculty at the university stood up and said he wouldnt tolerate that kind of hate in the community. They were attacked. During the clash in charlottesville, as we know a young woman described as a passionate advocate for the disenfranchised was killed and more than 30 were injured. I want to be clear both sides in charlottesville were not to blame and many people on both sides of th the aisle stood outd spoke up to condemn the act and push back against President Trumps response but it is clear that there needs to be a discussion about what is happening today on five campuses that we have not yet solved this problem and im glad we are having this hearing today. As i said at the beginning no one is debating the right to free speech at colleges and universities also have to ensure campuses are safe and welcoming to all students. Thats why the conversation has to include a discussion about the responsibility of Community Leaders and College Administrators to use their own voices to speak out against hate and refuse to normalize the viewpoints while also respecting the freespeech rights of those they disagree with. This conversation has to include a discussion about what colleges can be doing to keep students safe and how to also respect the rights of those that want to speak out against hate and extremism. College campuses have long been places to discuss and debate ideas where students learn to think outside the box and get out of their comfort zone and that is one of the greater strength for the Higher Education system. Im sure all the colleagues agree colleges can continue to challenge students views and perspectives while also doing everything we can do that to pue students and staff and faculty safety first and not allow people to endsor invoke violence under free speech. I look forward to hearing from all the Witnesses Today on how colleges and universities can do more to prove speak out against hate speech and protect free speech. By beginning the conversation we can start to once again pushed the groups back into the margins of society, combat the resurgence of extreme ideology and the hate speech that has been enabled. I appreciate this opportunity today and i do have several statements i would like and prevented a record. Thank you, senator murray. Now we will welcome the witnesses. We would like to ask each of you to summarize your remarks in five minutes which will mean more time for conversation back and forth between senators and you. First is doctor Robert Zimmer president of the university of chicago and in the role since 2006, former provost at Brown University and before that, 25 years of chicagos mathematics book more than 80 articles. Next, nadine, John Marshall harlans second professor of law at new york law school. Shes written, taught and advocated extensively in areas of the wall and liberty earning recognitiorecognition in the laf journalism is one of the most 100 influential lawyers from 91 to 2008 she served as president of the American Civil Liberties union and was the first woman to hold that position. The next witness, doctor Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center lead the center since 2003, joined the organization in 1986 a 1986 as s legal director hes litigated a variety of civil rights cases. He testified earlier from the Senate Committee on the judiciary. The final witness, doctor alison stenger, a professor of International Politics and economics of Middlebury College is currently on sabbatical serving as the Cyber Security cy fellow at the new america. Her work focuses on American Foreign policy and shes a member of the council on foreign relations. She was a consultant to the secretary of states policy planning staff from 2009 to 2011. We welcome the witnesses and lets begin with you. Thank you very much to chairman alexander and Ranking Member murray for inviting me here today. Im going to briefly address three topics related to Free Expression on University Campuses. First, why is it important, second what are the principles and finally what needs to be done to support Free Expression on campuses. So why is it important . Are all institutions of Higher Education whether public or private, Free Expression and open discourse in their companions free listening and open questioning are at the very core of fulfilling the missions of education research. Every student at the university deserves an education but deeply enriches their capability. More importantly this means acquiring the skills and habits of mind are going to enhance their approach to the future challenges. They must learn to recognize and evaluate evidence of the source, challenge their own and others assumptions effectively argue their position, power and limitations of arguments, comes with complexity and uncertainty, synthesize different perspectives, understand the context and history matter, think through unintended consequences and take account of change, tradeoffs and uncertainties. If the education we provide does not give students the opportunity to acquire the skills and abilities, they will be under prepared to make decisions and complex and uncertain world upon entering the workplace. Intrinsic is an environment with ongoing intellectual challenge with which Free Expression and open discourse is an essential part, and likewise, Research Universities to be of the highest quality unfettered investigation and a willingness to challenge assumptions in the Free Expression that goes with it is essential. To limit Free Expression is quite simply to limit the quality of education and the quality of research. This has important implications for a country. Nationwide innovation is driven by Faculty Research and an inventive alumni body foraged by a level of challenge that demands an environment of Free Expression. To be challenged is also why so many of the leading ambitious young people from around the world have come to the United States. And such is the ultimate importance at stake for the country around these issues. A Higher Education system continues to be the best in the world will our research continue to be the most impactful, will we continue to attract highly talented people or will we lose focus and allow other concerns. In the course of its history, the university of chicago has long stood for and embraced the values of expression and discourse. In july, 2014 is the campuses nationwide sole prominent speakers being disinvited disruption and violence attached to the speaking events and support for free expressio exprd universities he wrote in expression in University City road and i charged the Faculty Committee with providing a concrete statement that encapsulated our longstanding values. The resulting document is now known as the chicago principle which can be summarized briefly as follows. First, an unwavering commitment to Free Expression and open discourse allowing views to be expressed if they conform to know consensus and may be strongly opposed by any segment or even all of the University Community. Second, the university recognizes and embraces nondisruptive protests as a legitimate means of expression and supports the rights of all members of the University Community to engage in such protests. Third, disruptive protests or other means of limiting the rights of others to engage in Free Expression, bloodletting, listening to the open discourse is not acceptable and is a violation of the universitys commitment to Free Expression. So what needs to be done . The situation correctly is very fluid. Thereve been a number of University Leaders who embraced the chicago principals or otherwise made a powerful statement in support of the expression. Most however have not. Meanwhile, there continued to be inappropriate descriptions on campuses while at the same time there is much more open discussion of the topic then was taking place even 18 months ago. To repair the situation that will be utherewill be up to fac, University Leaders and trustees that felt too forcefully embraced Free Expression through clarity of their commitment to excellent education and a robust research. Otherwise we will find ourselves on a path antithetical to fulfilling our highest aspirations. Aspirations. So for the sake of the students and their future success, to develop a Impactful Research into the country remaining inactive for the most talented from around the world, we must embrace Free Expression, open discourse and challenging questioning and resistance colleges and University Campuses. Thank you very much. [inaudible] it takes a scientist to do this. A lawyer cannot. If i may start again with amplification, thank you so much chairman alexander and Ranking Member and members of the committee for holding these hearings on such a vitally important subject. I appreciated the opening remarks both of you gave, and if i could synthesize in a nutshell senator murray, you were rightfully saying on the University Campuses as in the rest of our society, we have to equally welcome and provide opportunities for everyone, no matter who they are. And senator alexander added to that no matter what they believe. And unfortunately today, senator alexander also noted there are many universities that are deeply committed to every other kind of diversity but not the kind of intellectual diversity that you saw being pursued at the Kennedy School. Senator alexander was kind enough to ask me to give some First Amendment background because as said, everybody is in favor of free speech, but they have very different concepts as to what freedom of speech actually entails and most people usually say i believe in freedom of speech, but the one exception i want to make is, and very often we have heard even voyeurs, probably not graduate of nyu law school, but others and other Police Believe the political leaders have said hate speech is not free speech. That is a statement that was made for example by howard dean. I dont mean to single him out. Many others have come u, but deg berkeleys decision not to allow anna coulter to speak, he made that pronouncement. So i just finished writing a book called hate why we should resist it with free speech not censorship if i may say so it addresses all the these concerns because i completely agree we have such a responsibility including on the campuses to combat the hateful rhetoric come attitude, conduct including violence that we are seeing. But i also passionately believe based on research and experience that the only effective way to do that is to fight censorship, to fight violence codified disruption because those are all manners of repressing speech, and to allow freedom of speech as the Supreme Court has very sensibly defined it. Interestingly enough, i get some quotes from thenpresident for r jaco, who certainly is an expert on hate speech having taught constitutional law at the university of chicago and having been subjected to it himself saying the most effective way to respond to hatred is not through repression but through counter speech. Interestingly enough, we have counter experiences and western european democracies including many european countries, canada, australia which has in fact criminalized hate speech that is disparaging and has no technical legal meaning that the common understanding is disparaging on the basis of race, gender, religion and other such factors. The european countries, canada, australia have increasingly become critical of the repressive approach. Humahuman rights activists and lawyers are saying we should move more in the american direction because our society is all of the problems we still have have been able to move forward by outlining actual discrimination by outlawing actual height of the hateful and biased crime and outlaw speech that directly causes serious commitment and the specific harm including the kind of genuine what lawyers call the genuine threat and intimidation that were targeted and also constitutes a crime that is being investigated in that way so we have those tools, but in addition, we need a civil civily to speak out and come them. When there was movement in the country about 25 years ago to suppress hate speech on campus it was advocated by a number of prominent law professors and i go back and looked at their articles. And interestingly enough, they make very important points about the enormous harm to the psyche and equal opportunities of students who traditionally were discriminated against if they are subjected to a barrage of hate speech but interestingly enough, their complaints were not so much only about the hate speech, but rather about the failure of society from University President s on down to argue against it and show support to those that were disparaged and we have seen a complete reversal in that same which has been extremely helpful and empowering and what i find most heartening is of all we are having more minority students than ever before speaking out in favor of their own rights comes with the freedom o freedom of ss empowering its best for education aneducation inthe qua. Its the kind of training that we need to welcome a fullfledged citizen of every group and every ideological persuasion into the society. It is an honor to be here. We recognized the prevalence and senator murray pointed out the current debate about free speech on College Campuses is taking place against the backdrop of the prevalence against the backdrop of the movement that has been energized by his rhetoric and is targeting the colleges and universities. As the professor right in the times piece after the incident at middlebury, the political liflife and discourse in the und states was at a boiling point, and nowhere is the reaction more height and then on the College Campuses. Over 200 colleges have been targets of white supremacist White Nationalist recruitment in the recent months. Prominent White Nationalist figures have gone on to college speaking tours. The goal is to poke a stick in the eye of what they see as the bastions of liberal multiculturalisms. Thethey will enable both themses and be able to parade around as First Amendment martyrs in the material we distribute to the schools and those throughout the country we urge students not to play into the hands of the the richer dispensers of the world but instead of attending speeches into getting a spectacle that they seek the counsel for students to hold alternative events that express our deepest Democratic Values of the students choose to protest, we urge them to do so peaceful peacefully. Some students have other ideas and have shouted down speakers. In some cases, protests have turned violent. As the members of the looseness coalitions and a selfdescribed antifascist campuses obviously. Some College Students do not have a clear understanding of the First Amendment. Part of the problem is as the professor pointed out in her article we have a crisis in the k12 level. Despite the challenges, i completely agree with the professors that they must uphold the First Amendment values. Just as the students have the right to read what they want, they have a right to listen to whatever they want, however obnoxious racist speakers may be. When universities hold the facilities open to outsiders, racists have a right on the same terms as anyone else. We emphasize this point and the resources we distribute across the country to campuses and we also emphasize that i that it is critical the voices of the College Leadership be heard. College president s need not be neutral. They can and should speak out in the First Amendment because it is among the highest value and because the presence of the speakers on campus presents a teachable moment. Just as importantly, College President s to speak out in support of the amendment to distance the universities from racism and to assure students who feel threatened that the university is committed to maintaining an inclusive environment, and the need of a prominent person in public life starting with the president to speak out in support of the same values. Unfortunately, as professor stanger pointed out in the New York Times piece, the president has not always demonstrated to the First Amendment. He suggested that the wall protecting the freedom of speech and the press that have constitutional underpinnings should be changed. Hes encouraged supporter suppof timesattimes, used violence agat those protesting. The implicit message is the silencing and a message for the professor that hasnt been lost on College Students. Posted charlottesville joint resolution, congress urged the president to speak out against hate groups that espouse racism from extremism, xenophobia, antiracism. The truth is the president has energized a White Nationalist movement that is now targeting the colleges and universities. For this reason the president has a special responsibility to take the air out of the movement. A special responsibility that uses all Resources Available to the administration to address the groups in the country. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chairman alexander, Ranking Member and distinguished members of the Senate Committee on health and education, labor and pensions it is an honor and privilege to share some thoughts with you today. Last february, several of my students asked me to moderate a talk at the libertarian scholar Charles Murray. Doctor murphy was drowned out by students to never let him speak and we were forced to retreat to another location, to live stream our conversation and he and i were intimidated and physically assaulted while trying to leave campus. Why did this happen in the United States of america on a College Campus in the Green Mountains of vermont . First it is something of a bubble from the Middlebury College in the state of vermont making it a bubble within a bubble. In that context, Charles Murray was a lightning rod that he might not otherwise have been. Second, the minority of the faculty cheered on the protest and did not encourage the students to read Charles Murray or listen to him first before drawing their own conclusions about his work or his character. Some faculty acknowledged publicly that they havent read anything shes written but still knew everything they needed to know about him from what the Southern Poverty Law Center website had to say about him. Third, some students believe shutting down speech was the means for social justice. Some middle very faculty shared that view thereby encouraging radical action. We can and must do better. We need to teach the students to think for themselves so they are equipped for democratic citizenship and resisting peer pressure in their pursuit of selfknowledge. Viewpoint diversity is an asset for any college or university. Nothing less than liberal education and the possibility of reasoned political debate is at stake in the debate over the campus censorship. Universities exist in which ideas can be exchanged freely bought to render value judgments on the ideas themselves. Free expression is also the means to greater inclusion and diversity. Reducing groupthink in the academy is a necessary condition and might be used for reducing and the electorate. To quote the chinese dissident, in the noble peace prize lecture, freedom of expression is the foundation of human rights, the source of humanity and the mother of truth. To strangle the speech is to trample on human rights, stifle humanity and suppress the truth. Our constitutional democracy will depend on whether americans can relearn how to engage civilly with one another. Our National Security also depends on it. Americas enemies all seek to divide us. We must not allow them to do so. The challenge before all of us therefore is to channel our emotions into thinking about how we might better Work Together as americans on what Alexander Hamilton calls america, you great unfinished symphony. Theres important work for democrats and republicans to do together. Lets get to it. Thank you for your attention and i welcome questions. Thanks to all four witnesses, i wish every member of the senate could have heard that and we are grateful for you coming. As for civic education, to score on the advanced placement test we have in the United States for High School Students isnt a math and science but in american history. I think that goes to that point. We will begin a round of fiveminute questions. Some lawmakers suggested we enact a freespeech mandate which means students can say whatever they want to stay on campus. Other lawmakers suggested we enact a speech code which means there are some things you cannot say on campus. What do you think we should do, we members of the congress . Should we enact a freespeech mandate for the 6,000 colleges and universities we have for a freespeech code, or should we leave that to the president s faculty members come universities and students to interpret the constitution of the United States on what the First Amendment means . This is an important question, and i would be close d to see any federal regulation posed upon the colleges and universities than already exis exists. I think ultimately, the questions are deeply cultural. They have to be sold by those on the College Campuses. They are not going to be improved by having a debate about which end of the spectrum should apply and what additional type of regulation, but its going to be solved and enhanced ultimately by the very process on the argumentation on College Campuses. In seeing the type of argument about evolving and emerging now i think is a healthy thing and i think the situation is actually better because people are talking about it and i think that seeing the culture evolved through the discussion on the campuses is a proper way to proceed. Should Congress Enact a freespeech mandate for free speech code, and while you are at that, ive got five minutes so why dont you comment on your membership which i believe in the group called the Heterodox Academy coalition of faculty members who are designed to address slightly different problem to make sure that there is a genuine debate and debate the diversity of viewpoints on campus. Absolutely. I would say with all due respect him and chairman alexander, to the public universities, there is a freespeech mandate. Its the First Amendment and also jurisprudence associated in the First Amendment which the Supreme Court has very firmly across the spectrum of justice said applies fully on public campuses. As private universities, i would defend the First Amendment rights trightto make their own n about who they admit as a part. For example if it is a religiously oriented university, it should be free to certain religious views and not allow others. Without a freespeech code do you think that congress should enact a freespeech code . I would not post because it would violate the most fundamental First Amendment principle with the supreme quirk of the bedrock that the government may never pick and choose which particular viewpoints to pay for or disapprove, no matter how deeply these views may be and that brings me to the other point, and i agree with the president that we will depend on education to stimulate students Critical Thinking and respect for freedom of speech. And this is part of the Central Mission of the academy recognizing that is going to happen only if the students are exposed to multiple points of view including those that he deeply despise so that they can learn to effectively respond to it. Do you want to add to that . I would say i agree that it would be a bad idea for congress to legislate in that fashion. However i think we can all do our part as the senators, faculty and students to model the behavior we want to see and i think that will get us all a step forward to create a better civil discourse. Faculty can also support the education. Part of the reason i invited him is because i wanted my own students to have the chance to interact with conservative thinkers like i had myself. Senator murray. Thank you to all the Witnesses Today. I really appreciate it. I wanted to go back to something you started your testimony with. You said this is taking place against the backdrop of increased activity by the movement that has been emboldened by President Trumps rhetoric. Can you expand on some of the trends you and your colleagues have seen as a result of that and an example or two would be helpful. We saw a decrease in the number hardcore organized hate groups in the country. In 2015 and 2016 we saw an increase that coincided in the president ial campaign. An unusual thing happened White Supremacists openly endorsed President Trump whether they wanted to or not. Its unusual because it is both parties are irredeemably corrupt. Not this time they celebrated the victory and feels right or wrong that they have the ear of the president especially when they had mr. Bannon. I hope they sorely disappointed and i hope that he changes their rhetoric but that is the state of the dar art now and that is y we are seeing this targeting of College Campuses by an energized white supremacist movement. No one has the market on free speech, it is the constitution every person enjoys including a school administrator. I know the law center works closely to promote best practices and i wanted to ask you for a College President or University Administrator that might be watching that hearing i have some questions for you. When a speakers print a message on campus, showed the leadership of the university exercise their free speech right to clarify the University Values . I think it is essential that happens. When someone is invited to campus an and he and hes invits it happens many times by young republican clubs and they are like what kind of school and i going to wear my colleagues are inviting this incendiary personality to the school and i think it is important for the University President s to separate themselves from the messages of the incendiary racist speech are to be for speakers and say our college doesnt believe in it. Our college is here to support you. I know doctor zimmer in his testimony made the same point that its critically important for colleges and universities to appropriately support students whove been traditionally marginalized and may feel marginalized by the presence of the speakers on the campuses. Secondly, its a speaker is coming to campus and the Administration Knows students will want to exercise their right to express the agreement, what should they do then, should they respect the rights of the speaker to be heard, respect the rights of the students to express their disagreement . What do they do now . All of the above. They have to respect the right of to the speakers and the students. What we try to do, wha what e try to tell students and administrators is organize an alternative event. You have speakers coming to campus dont give them a spectacle he or she wants. Organize a separate event that one can express the universities values and the value of the country. We also suggest sometimes when students learn that this could be a racist speaker on campus particularly one thats been invited by the group to try to persuade them to disinvite the speaker, try to persuade them that this kind of speaker we cant force that that we try to do things like that, hold alternative event had stayed away. Those seem like the more important things to be done. You heard me talk about taylor who is sitting behind you there. Shes the survivor of a hate crime on campus. When i was talking with her, i asked her how that made her feel and she said and i quote, i felt like i didnt belong on campus. I felt like my voice wasnt wanted. Shes not alone. A white supremacist on the university of virginia surely made a lot of our students feel like hitler did. And obviously, we need to protect free speech but i want to know what is the responsibility in this situation . What should universities do to make sure that they feel like they belong and that their voices are heard . The question of diversity and inclusion on the University Campus is a profound one. It is exceedingly important not just to be reactive to a particular situation, but to take a long sustained and purposeful approach to inclusion of everybody who comes to campus, every student on campus independent of their background since inclusion and ownership of that environment. I think that this is something for example the university of chicago we are certainly not alone on this. Theres an enormous amount of attention if many programs that begin from the beginning. I would say that we like most universities are still working on how to do this best and i would say places have developed good practices at there is still a lot of work to do and this cuts across a whole range of individuals who are in the minority for one reason or another. We have long lists of issues in our history connected to racism and antisemitism, misogyny, homophobia and so on. All these individuals at various times because the behaviors of the universities themselves and the people on campus can be in a situation in which they are feeling excluded or not a full participant. Its important that the universitys work on this. I would say in the context of this topic when you say what does inclusion mean, what it showeitshould mean as in the bet inclusion we can offer. Thats why the students are on campus. So there is a tension that gets articulated between inclusion issues on one hand and free speech issues on the other hand. I think it is honestly not the right line to draw. It completes things that are different. And what we want is to be including all students and helping them learn that the power of the education that they are going to have is going to be enhanced as defined by the ongoing open challenge. Thank you senator murray. Senator young. Thank you chairman. Former university of chicago scholar and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman was once he was fielding tough questions from the student audience and one of the students asked him shouldnt they be intelligent enough to know the difference between deceit and truth. He said they should be intelligent enough to choose truth which is what i heard here today. They can discern the truth from falsity only if they hear a variety of opinions. And then he decided the ussr which then of course still existed. He said so many in the uss ussre enormously skeptical of their government. They are only exposed to one opinion and that was by design in large measure. From the habits of mind, thingss like giddy and challenge assumptions and synthesized different views for uncertainties are not developed by americans. Its the capacity for the selfgovernment. It is a human endeavor. Theres building the Human Capacity to act thoughtfully and to discern the implications of the potential actions to not act simply, but in this inevitably the complex environments to understand various implications that will take place. So, i think that these are skills that apply to what i would say is that for range of the human endeavor and the extent to which we are as a country producing people who cant approach this for range of human endeavor with these types of skills we will for rushmore. The extent to which we dont, we will for flourish less. And how can we feel empowered to do that if we are going to universities where we are indoctrinated on a single point issue. So what are the greatest barriers we face to developing these important habits and the ability to differentiate or in the best sense of the word discriminate between different views and opinions and troops if you will . Are the institutional in nature . Are they a result of a combination of confirmation bias and how we now receive our information . We live in a different era when we have access to more opinions than ever but psychologically so many of us are hardwired not to receive multiple perspectives and opinions and in my remaining minute would want if you like to take this question . I think its quite critical to start at the Elementary School level to help students understand the point of view of others, to help them feel safe in their own identity but give them a mirror into other peoples views. Help them understand that everyone has a perspective. Its a valuable thing to offer. Through our work in the education sphere we are trying to help students become active citizens in the diverse democracy that we live in and its the responsibility of every grade k12 because i think if that occurs the kind of problems that we see on College Campuses will be diminished greatly. Thank you. Thank you senator young. Senator bennett. Citi thank you mr. Chairman. I would like to start by once again say how much i appreciate your leadership and the Ranking Members leadership on this bill and my fervent hope that we move forward on it. I also want to thank you for an excellent panel today. This is really been fantastic. Doctors emory had the good fortune the first time to be at the university of chicago two or three weeks ago and i can tell you, your students are excellent and the questions that they asked at a town hall were phenomenal. I also came away with the thought that i could never be admitted there. [laughter] Thomas Jefferson wrote during the Constitutional Convention the basis of our governance in the opinion of the people the first object should be to keep that right and were it left me to decide if we were to have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government i should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter. In the second inaugural address he wrote or said that the artillery of the press had been leveled against him by the in the end the answer to that was more speech, not less speech. Today we have a president who every day, day after day attacks the free press in america, calls leading journalists in america fake news, attacks curated context in favor of opinions that are rendered on the internet that are not edited content and i wonder doctors emory if i could start with you what the university of chicago is doing to ensure that your students can distinguish between what is edited content and the importance of that and what is someones opinion . Our entire education is in fact built around the question of argumentation so that nothing is left simply as a statement. In fact somebody said to me the other day they characterize the university of chicago is the place where you say good morning and somebody asks you for evidence. [laughter] i very much have that sense. I would say simply again its a matter of culture in which people do not take statements for granted in which you have to understand what assumptions other people are making and what assumptions you are making and its simply an ongoing process by the nature of the education we offer a. I appreciate that and i believe its chairman i would ask the other panelist to talk a little bit about what this wholesale attack on journalism in this country and the president of the United States what is the effect on your institutions are among the students that you serve. You talked about the importance of Elementary School. Im happy to have a conversation im a former school superintendent. Every time i have a conversation with middle School Students or High School Students we have to discuss the importance of edited comment in what it means to write a paper now in high school or in middle school when you have a president who is not justice regarding attacking the leading journalists in this country. Citi obviously i defend his freedom of speech to do that as we all do and i have to say is an activist i always see the glass half full. The reaction that he is causing is at least as much galvanizing opposition as we have heard from some eloquent statements from you and other members of the committee and energizing people to not only respond to the allegations that he is making not only to come to the defense of the Critical Role that journalism plays as Thomas Jefferson said but also educating students from the beginning and that certainly carries through law school to fully inform themselves to use the internet which is often demonized because it does allow people to live within bubbles but it also asks the positive capacity to empower us to discover information put holes in what used to be true then i have two say propublica recently did a study in which they show that the United States Supreme Court a number of its opinions had faksa were questionable. While thats disturbing to some extent i think it really speaks to my students to do an illuminating experience that you have to question literally everything. It doesnt mean its on beyond criticism that criticism and make constructive vein not in a destructive latch shut them down. Lets see more rigor in the future about examining it. If the chairman will allow it it. Just very quickly we put out a variety of new teaching tools to promote Digital Literacy in high school in middle schools to help people understand how a tweet from one source can get amplified and suddenly become common wisdom. We are trying to help teachers push their students to ask for evidence to understand the sources and to be critical when they look at information. Just very briefly senator i think he puts your finger on something very important. The fake news were liberal education becomes all the more important precisely because we do live in a big data world where datamining of social media habits in the affected the outcome of elections so i think in that context liberal education teaches us to think for ourselves in a Clear Thinking for ourselves we cant be reduced to a algorithm and we cant be manipulated by corporations are government as a liberal education becomes all the more important in this world. Mr. Chairman i would just say ms. Strossen i use the same colorado that when i read the majority opinion in Citizens United it was like reading a seventhgraders American Government paper and then i decided that was insulting colorado seventhgrader so i dont say it anymore. See we have free speech in the senate too dont we . Senator isakson. Thank you senator and thank you mr. Chairman and thank you for calling this hearing. I came here with a set of questions to ask which im going to in just a second but listening to dr. Sim are in discussion earlier in the three principles and the chicago principles remind me of dr. King in the south in the 1960s and the 195th days. He took the First Amendment and his belief that people contrary belief in contrary have a right to speak to end and it all needs to be nonviolence. The chicago principles apply to that era by dr. King and ultimately embraced the Civil Rights Movement as well as those who were confronted with making decisions to make the Civil Rights Movement work were based in large measure on what became the chicago principles so i just wanted to make up point. Free speech as senator murray said is the most important of all of our rights and used in the proper perspective without abusive using it in the proper perspective to make fundamental changes so i commend what you have done at the university of chicago and appreciate all of your comments. I say that to begin with to close my questions are going to be trivial but if you listen to the end of them they will make sense. Dr. Sim or are you a bears fan . I am. Your turn is next ms. Strossen. You are a bears fan and we have a huge issue in the nfl in terms of standing for the National Anthem. Does every chicago bear player who is owned by i guess the house family still owns the bears free under our constitution under the laws of our country today its their right to standard not to stand for the National Anthem . I am not a constitutional lawyer and you are asking me a constitutional question. I do know about the First Amendment and the First Amendment only binds the government as im sure senator isakson knows who you dont have First Amendment rights visavis a sports team which is not the government however im not a labor lawyer and i understand there are some labor laws that might in fact provide protection. Now if this were a government matter so you did have President Trump threatening to impose some kind of sanctions on those Football Players or other sports players, that would a government infringement of free speech. Hes throwing around the power of the presidency but unless theres statutory protection the owners could in fact control their onthejob behavior. I will just say this was the university of chicago Football Team and players wanted to express their views in one way or another like that they would be free to do so but again. I will ask you this. The university of chicago is a private institution and not a public. As a private institution you would not be subject to that. Again is a Public Institution i would seek counsel for my general counsel. On a Public Institution that would absolutely be protected speech and as Thomas Jefferson said dissent is the highest form of patriotism so i believe thats not only constitutionally protected but it does actually is consistent with our nations other valve is. Am i allowed to jump in . Im not a lawyer but i did want to add to the discussion knowing something about the Civil Rights Movement. This debate we are having about the nfl that people dont recognize that taking in the its a sign of respect, not disrespect. So i think thats very important to keep in mind when you view the actions of those players. But we would defend it even if it were disrespectful. Thats taking to the next level. Is a Public Institution. That answer was very helpful and i appreciated. I yield back mr. Chairman. Thanks senator isakson. Senator hassan. I 212 add my thanks for the work on a Bipartisan Health care bill and we are committed to work on with all of you interpret analysts thank you for being here this morning and for this very important discussion. I come from a state that has a long tradition of very vigorous political discourse firstinthenation primary and the Citizens Legislature poured in 24 members and if you have ever hung out with the legislature you would hear range of views that can be quite extraordinary. One of the things we also do well in New Hampshire is try to moderate and facilitate discussions. The university of New Hampshires Mccarthy School of Public Policy is called New Hampshire rule listens and tries to take some of our most difficult issues and foster civic dialogue so i would hope its an important example of a best practice for a Public University system. But i wanted to direct my question mostly today to mr. Cohen to you. In your testimony you know that the First Amendment is a bedrock principle of our diverse democracy and i couldnt agree more. You also lay out judgment law that protects College Campuses and he made clear that the law strongly protects controversial speakers as i believe we all agree it should. It also recognizes First Amendment has important constraints. A classic example we all know is you cant shout fire in a private building. A federal lawsuit recently filed in virginia ledges Richard Spencer and others inspired to cook and site violence at the unite the right rally. To conquer the street and defend civilization for they said they were ready to skulls and traded advice on the legality of running down counterprotesters with cars. We all know a car drove into a crowd of counterprotesters killing a young woman and injuring dozens of others. The lawsuit states many organizers and rally goers celebrated this death is quote worthen justified machen unpredicted quote a lot more people are going to die the four we are done here closed quote. Just last week one of the White Supremacists in charlottesville one who described hires staff as justified was arrested for attempted murder after the speech by Richard Spencer. He and two other supporters taunted a group of protesters waiting in a bus stop with salutes and hitler chance. After yelling quote im going to kill them quote one of spencers supporters fired a shot at the counterprotesters. Thankfully no one was killed at the event but obviously it could have happened. So my question is when does protected speech crossed the line into an unprotected incite the violence and cant we agree the university has responsibility to protect its students from this kind of plan violence . You know the situation that you described and is described in the lawsuit tells you something about the atmosphere on a number of College Campuses. I have read the complaint in that particular lawsuit. I think it would be difficult perhaps to prove some of the old allegations to be honest. Clearly incitement has a precise legal meaning under the constitution. Incitement to animate lawless activity, and there could be evidence of that or talk bravado in advance probably not enough. Celebrating someones demise in an ugly way clearly not enough. The Supreme Court has said that in the decision. These issues are extraordinarily complex. The issue that you described where we had people intimidating others, harassing others is clearly not protected speech. Efforts to provoke a fight come intending to provoke a fight is also not protected speech so there are limits at all of these decisions, all of these questions as professor strossen im sure would say are intensely factually specific and thats the challenge in the situation like charlottesville. University administration or or administrators obviously have a responsibility to protect students. Charlottesville to make particular quandary because virginias open carry lobby could not stop public demonstrations from brandishing weapons. That is a law that has infected more than 30 states in truly, truly hamstrings the disabilities and counties from ensuring safety and the public demonstration. Mr. Chair i see that im out of time. I do have a question that i will submit to the record to ms. Strossen because i am concerned about some of the way you characterize some Psychological Research about the impact of hate speech on people. I dont think hate speech is a good thing and i dont think it helps people. To have an opportunity to respond to that . I think so. We will allow time for that. As you know senator has an i was quoting respected social psychologists and also political activist starting with former president barack obama and continuing with somebody who is very respected van jones who was speaking at the university of chicago and from their different expertise in different perspectives and experience they concur that given the sad reality that senator murray started talking about the presence of hateful speech and misconduct is empowering to the students to shelter them and shield them because its going to undermine their resilience and their ability to effectively respond. I think we all agree that we are working in the long run for how are they going to be most effective in the world where hate is reality and hate groups are a reality. In mr. Chair i see other witnesses want to respond i would suggest to you that telling people who are the victims of hate speech or who might have been traumatized by the combination in the past of hate speech and physical violence how they should feel and whether it empowers them is inappropriate and theres a lot of research that indicates exactly opposite so again i know we are out of time but i just think that people are their own best judges. Thats exactly what every person that i cited is a minority person who is speaking from experience of having been subjected to hate speech. Thank you senator hassan. Senator warren. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you for holding this hearing today. I appreciate your doing this. I think we all agree that free speech is not some kind of left versus right issue. It doesnt work that way so i want to ask a question from a different perspective. Mr. Kho and you run the Southern Poverty Law Center which tracks american hate groups and extremist and Charles Murray we have talked a little bit about him this morning. Keep peddles racist science about how white men are biologically speaking intellectually superior to everyone else. Am i correct that you disagree with his views . Completely senator. Me too and as someone who works as an academic researcher for decades i think science the science is extremely gross if and should be called out in public at every possible opportunity. So we have got that much. Lets go to the next part. Mr. Cohen do the leave institutions of Higher Learning should ban people like him and speaking in public if the students or if you or i dont like with the speakers have to say . Simply absolutely not senator. Why not . We have made progress as a country by having ideas tested, by having critical thought applied to ideas that are expressed in every realm of life life. The Supreme Court has recognized the importance of robust debate. Its the bedrock principle of our country and we would be much worse off if University President s students or anyone could censor the speech of others simply because we disagree. I agree with you and in fact i think its dangerous to suppress speech. Suppression can backfire instead of shutting up individuals. It becomes a launching pad to national attention. Biggest bigots and White Supremacists can make themselves out to be First Amendment martyrs and grow their audiences and second suppression suggests weakness. It makes it sound like we are afraid we cant mix evil ideas with good ideas and i just dont believe thats true. I believe in free speech but let me be clear. Free speech doesnt mean that speaker is entitled to an audience. It isnt about showing up in remaining silent while people demean women or people of color or anybody. Students can make their voices heard and can be very powerful when they do. Free speech means more speech so professor stanger you were physically attacked. Would you agree with me that acts of violence are not protected by the First Amendment amendment . I would agree with you on that point but i would disagree with you respectfully on your characterization of charles mares work and maybe i might say a little bit about the metal berry context which could loom and ate some things for us here today. Charles was invited by Student Group to speak on campus in the Political Science department cosponsored the talk. We are almost all democrats to me that it was important to engage in the republican party. But proceeded to happen in the department sought to censor the Political Science department. My view of treaty between departments. Let me just say i have a limited amount of time. Getting into departmental wry roys i would like to spend our time on because it would be easier to solve. May make one more point . I will give you time. Senator warren ran for the senate in order to escape interdepartmental rivalry. I wanted to come to a place that was more collegiate. We will now give you extra time. I just wanted to add that no faculty member to my view would ever agree to cosponsor a talk to Richard Spencer. We are really talking about apples and oranges here in a decision in the city may pay universities we are seeing these provocateurs seeking to set up talks. Let the faculty lead and i think it will go in the right direction. Let me see if i can pull this back to your point about what happens with free speech and whether it deserves special protection. The notion that i want to underline here is people who attack you get no special protection and needed is the Charlottesville White supremacist who murdered a woman or the three White Supremacists who tried shoot people at the university of florida last week. They will go to jail. Free speech is not about violence. Its not about silence. What im concerned about is right now its important for all this to avoid hearing anything that we dont already agree with and thats an enormous threat to our democracy. I know powerful people want us us foreign governments are pouring gasoline on that fire with facebook and twitter and angry messages to stir up lingering resentment. The president of the United States is pouring even more gasoline on that fire attacking our free press as a quote enemy of the people and threatening to use the awesome power of the government to shut down press outlets. For reporting something that he doesnt agree with. I dont care what your politics are. All of us who believe in american its freedoms need to work harder to put out that fire fire. We start by making sure that powerful institutions and individuals dont shut down speech they dont like and that includes universities that definitely includes the president of the United States. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you senator warren. Senator sub three. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you to the witnesses. I was added and i apologize it didnt hear your statements. This matters to me because virginia was subject to a violence on the 12th of august. White supremacists largely from outside of first aid came to the university of virginia and charlottesville to perpetrate not just bigotry and hatred that violence and murder. They chanted slogans like blood and soil and will not replace us us. They chanted other horrible racist comments, one from southern ohio used the vehicle to kill a beautiful 32yearold paralegal and injuring 19 others others. Two state troopers who werent supposed to be working that day but needed to work that day to try to protect people who were killed when their helicopter crashed. I knew them both well. One was my helicopter pilot every time i flew as governors virginia. J. Colin was a member of senator mcauliffes security detail. They wouldnt have been working that day if confederate and neonazis didnt try to inflame violence and charlottesville. In the aftermath many of these individuals have not condemned these actions but even celebrated the death of Heather Heyer a paralegal calling her disgusting communist as one of the organizers of the night the right rally. A share senator warns believe strongly that college should be a place of robust speech in disagreement. We dont need to protect young people from free speech. We need to expose them to different ideas and have them exercise their critical faculties to make their decisions about what they think is right and wrong but i think we cannot use the banner of protecting free speech to allow people to terrorize. I want to put it into the record if i can mr. Chair a sermon that was delivered by a friend of mine who is a hillel minister, a rabbi. For the commemoration he delivered us a sermon about antisemitism and the violence on display in the connection between jewish and their experience advantage semitism and that another friend whose daughter was struck in the face by a white supremacist wearing a leather glove and was injured badly. He has been arrested and extradited from indiana back to charlottesville to Face Criminal Charges as should be the case. Im sure youve been asked this question but i know trying to draw a line between protecting free speech and i know we have the president of University Chicago here. I think they have a significant responsibility to protect their campuses from violence and with individuals coming in who either intentionally or there is a reasonable probability that their activities could lead to violence and people being terrorized. I think universities need to take action to try to protect their communities not from speech but from violence that can occur. I wonder what your thoughts are about whether the cause of the protection had to be borne by students and taxpayers or whether they have to be borne by those who would try to come to campuses and foment that kind of activity. So that would be a question for anyone. United states Supreme Court has actually held a case in which the aclu was defending freedom of speech for a controversial speaker. He happened to be White Nationalist in georgia and the Supreme Court held and this was part of a series, the most recent series of holdings that a government may not onto speakers the cost of providing security because thats like imposing a tax or penalty on free speech and in particular the government may not impose differential costs depending on how controversial the speeches. Senator kaine as Richard Cohen and i were talking about beforehand we see this as a very serious problem because there are a lot of schools that cannot literally afford these enormous cost that had been born by berkeley for example or the university of chicago and as an educator i certainly would not want to cut faculty salaries for student tuition in all seriousness. I know you were an expert on this. Is it a very unequivocal ruling that no matter what the likelihood of violence is we are not talking about speech. We are talking about if you could make a prediction that certain kinds of speech are not just likely but guaranteed to produce and the Supreme Court didnt say in that case. That has been the law for every even when the Supreme Court strongly protected freedom of speech by rejecting in this country used to say in a speech that has a bad tendency that might at some point in the future lead to something harmful that is what was used to shutdown abolitionist speech and antiwar speech because anything that was unpopular. In 1959 in a case involving the ku klux klan the Supreme Court unanimously held that you can punish speech because you fear it might induce violence. If and only if the speaker intentionally incited imminent violence that was likely to happen imminently that standard was very important for this overwrites movement to cut as many of their speakers were being shut down and punished and incarcerated because of the fear oh while that might lead to violence. If its violent and its predictable and animate. The government did have an obligation. Any adult based on the content of the speech. You base it a high likelihood of violence. Dr. Sim or if i could ask you to comment on this. I really appreciate the statement to put out when youre in chicago following the tragedy and charlottesville because it was a powerful statement and it spoke to the antisemitism of this. The charlottesville thing was sort of advertise as statutes. That didnt have anything to do with water soil. This was a very significant antisemitic neonazi efforts by individuals who came prepared for violence around the country and abuershaid the statement you put out. Talk about you are profree speech but if you could mr. Chairman im over my time but id love to hear you talk about if i could grapple with this question of speech that is likely to lead to violence. Again we have located antigen disadvantage of being private and so we dont particularly need to act precisely on the basis of the First Amendment in every situation. For us tickets we have taken such a clear position on Free Expression and its important, we felt was very important for us to recognize these acts for what they were and it simply became very difficult to think about people standing with weapons with symbols in front of a synagogue or a similar situation with symbols of the ku klux klan and again a weaponized group of people to think about this as an expression that was not driven. What is the message . We made a very strong statement against it for that reason. We would not have weapons on our campus. If a speaker wants to come and they say i want to have six people standing in back of me with semiautomatic weapons we could say sorry we dont have semiautomatic weapons on our campus. If somebody has invited you can come and he could speak you need an answer questions. They are not going to pass judgment on what does you say but you cannot stand there with weapons they carry a threat. Just one example but its interesting about the that you raise. Shortly after the incident in france a woman from Charlie Hebdo made her first speaking appearance at the university of chicago. Security concerns brought these reasons were extremely high and so that was an example but in fact where we made a conscious decision it was too important for this person who was invited by Student Groups to be able to speak and began the cost of that security. Part of the issue as you start seeing these things on every side the cost issue is a complex issue that i dont think we have gotten fully figured out yet to tell you the truth. Thank you senator kaine and thank you to the each of the four of you. We have votes in a few minutes so we are going to conclude the hearings. In listening to this to your terrific testimony is that we are dealing with the problem about more speech because your appearance here today will be noticed and seen by a lot of people on College Campuses and people on cspan who think about these issues who may not have ever thought about the minutes clear as now having heard what you have to say i also think its true that we have seen a reaction and ms. Strossen made this point where more speech and doctors staying or you are responsible for this is that you have spoken out from your various perches in life and have been noticed by the rest of the country and youve had an impact impact. You have adopted the chicago principles in a variety of ways. Each of you have done that so thats encouraging that in our country we see these issues take it more seriously. Also i think the hearing reminds us of what was said with one senator and you which is we live increasingly in the country where we tend to get our information from people who are ready agree with us and we dont do as senator howard baker used to say consider the outlook the other fellow or today you might say the other fellow might be right. Thats what he always said, the other fellow might be right. We dont have as much diversity of information, real diversity of information as we should have and i suppose a College Education and especially liberal Arts Education is a real antidote to that and makes universities more port portraits places where students are exposed to different points of view and as i mentioned when i was at the Kennedy School at harvard it was good to have a deed that understood and most people that were republicans who worked hard to get one there so you could actually be what well you were going to graduate school. I like the what evidence do you have lined and im going to remember that. I would conclude by saying a thank you note us on this panel that this panel of 23 senators you could not find many more diverse views then you can find around this table but i think on this issue we listened very carefully to you and this is not a leftright thing. And you presented your testimony in that way. One thing i would conclude with in my own view i hope that the United States Congress Wont do what it is often tempted to do which is to think we have flown to washington from our homes and suddenly become wise enough to tell 6000 colleges and universities exactly what to do and either a freespeech mandate which some advocate or free speech code which others advocate imposed from washington on 6000 colleges and universities is a bad idea. Ever freespeech mandate in the United States constitution and we have University President s and of Board Members and faculty members and communities who ought to be able to do what you are doing and argue this out and try to respect everyones rights as we move ahead. Thank you again for your attendance. Excellent testimony. I know Many Americans will benefit from it. The hearing record will remain open for 10 business days. Members may submit Additional Information and question our witnesses for the record within the time that they would like. The schedule here before this committee will ban tuesday october 31 at 2 30 entitled implementation of the 21st century cures act achieving the promise of Health Information technology. Thank you for being here today. The committee will stand adjourned. Thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] one important issue in andville is the difference pay. They should be paid the same amount. I am a junior accounting major, and education is an important topic. I would like to see that across the federal level. Mostam a junior, and the important issue for me is protecting the right to life. An important issue to me is is immigration. Me n important is for what is important for me is for every child to receive a quality Arts Education. It gives kids the skills to not understand other ideas, but develop their own voice and interact with different types of people around the world. Voices from the states on cspan. Coming up next on cspan, q a with Political Science professor Allison Stanger followed by washington journal live at 7 00 with your phone calls and a look at todays headlines. This week on q a, allis