Transcripts For CSPAN Free Speech On College Campuses 20171228

Sen. Grassley senator feinstein and i will give Opening Statements and we will have Opening Statements of the chairman and Ranking Member. Rests on theion free flow of ideas. Education requires that physicians be held tentatively. Tested by opposing arguments that are 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 part of the bulls have been under assault. Even worse, some people who 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 orthodoxy have been censored or chilled from speaking freely. Aeres no point in having student body on campus is competing ideas are not excha nged and analyzed and respected by eachother. College,g community administrators require prior approval for speech in Public Forums. 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 its demonstrators in their personal capacity is pending. Many students think that speech considered hateful is violent. If some students engage in acts of violence 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 most important First Amendment rulings. If theres any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, its tahhat no official can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics. A lawsuit has been brought that alleges that berkeley has systemically and intentionally suppressed speech protected by First Amendment because the viewpoint differs of that of the University Administrators. At middleburg college, the eminent scholars 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 falsely yelled fire in a crowded theater. Burgddle ve professor who moderated the debate was physically assaulted and has it to recover. It was not a mere handful of students, but a mob that engaged in such appalling conduct at a institution theoretically devoted to rationality and intellectualism. Not including those who were not captured on video, the college disciplined more than 70 students. But none was expelled or even suspended. As a practical matter, students no more serious punishment than the double secret probation and film. Weak punishment will not deter any future disruption. The First Amendment is very clear. The Supreme Court decided that free speech is protected, that speech cannot be restricted based on viewpoints. That Public Forums must be places free speech can be exercised and that higher restraints on speeches are not favored. Otherwise any speech that anyone found offensive could be suppressed. Little speech would survive. As Justice Holmes said, if theres any principle of the constitution that more comparatively calls for attachment than any other, its the principle of free tho ught. Not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate. But on too many campuses today free speech appears to be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. Many administrators believe that students should be shielded from hate speech, whatever that is, as an exception to the First Amendment. Unfortunately, this censorship is no different from any other example in history with speech being suppressed based upon content. Even more unfortunate, the anticonstitutional attitude is areervasive that students being socialized and possibly indoctrinated into favoring censorship at odds with our First Amendment. A recent gallup poll founds margin found931 it desirable to restrict the use of slurs in other language intentionally offensive deserting groups. And they favored restricting expression of political views that are upsetting, or offensive to certain groups. Nts vote, the only academia, but our democracy depends on the ability to inform or change minds. When universities suppress speech, they are not only damaging freedom today, but they establish and push norms harmful to democracy going forward. These restrictions could cause and exacerbate the Political Polarization that is so widely lamented in our society. Whatever the nature of the speech being suppressed, we all ought to be concerned. However, prominent liberal University Administrators admit that it is on the conservative side of the spectrum. Commencementecent address, which i will putin the record, note the lack of conservative ideas on campuses. And as former stanford provost has observed, there is a growing intolerence at universities, a political one sidedness that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for. He fears that University Administrators will take the easy route of giving in to student pressure to restrict debate. Includek consent to his excellent remarks within the record as well. Fears are being realized. In a recent interview. The president of the Northwest University undercut the apparent the service he paid to First Amendment. Rather than students confront the speech that makes them uncomfortable, he recommended a safe space where they will not hear it. Even worse, when asked whether he would become double with a speaker shouting down in middle barry and berkeley to speak at wouldest, he denied he permit the appearances on a casebycase basis. No, the First Amendment does not permit arbitrary restraint but University Administrators on a case by case basis. Thats an open invitation to discriminate based on viewpoint. Thats where too many colleges are right now. In reality, great universities would welcome numerous speakers whose positions made the president of the university and many others uncomfortable on campus. Advocate funding in this area. Are open to lawsuits when free speech does not occur, including religious free speech, if those are all violated. Some may even suggest analog through section 1933. Under that approach come universities that accept federal funds would be subject to individual rights and damages if they violate freespeech. Not all schools adopt this censorship approach. The university of chicago has adopted a policy that some other universities have followed, which i will put in the record. The policy prohibits the university from suppressing speech that even most people on campus would find offensive, or immoral. It calls for a counter speech, rather than a suppression of people. And while protecting protests, it prohibits obstructing or interfering with the freedom of others who are expressing views. Finally, it commits the university to actively protect that freedom when others are tempted to restrict it. We have a distinguished panel of guests that i welcome. Senator feinstein . Sen. Feinstein thank you, mr. Chairman. I am going to put my remarks in the record. Im going to make a few reflections on some of yourc comments. I agree with some of what you said. I disagree with others. Lets take a look at the First Amendment. The First Amendment says Congress Shall make no law respecting and establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of people peaceably to assemble. And to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The fact of the matter is, there are certain occasions in which individuals assemble not to act peaceably, but to act as destructively as they possibly can. And i know a little bit about the university of california. You saw me at berkeley. The president of that university is known to all of us. She was a governor, she headed a 250,000 staff, Homeland Security department here. Shes tough, strong, fair, and able. E question becomes, when you have a group of people that come to create a disturbance and some of them, even Wearing Masks or certain clothing, what do you do . And Big University Police Department it has bees my experience, dont always have the equipment. Meaning, mental and training equipment. To be able to seek it out, to handle it and isolate it. You run the risk of substantial harm. One judgmentwhat University Made recently, that it would become a drawing groups unsavory people, to be violent. Thats really a horse of another color. I was mayor during a democratic convention, in 1984. And i could tell you, it was a lot of fear at that time about what might happen at that convention. We made a lot of plans to be able to handle it, got extra help, and we did handle it and there was no violence it was a good prevention. Maybe universities should be st the ability,have financially, to really develop the kind of intelligence you need and the kind of policing you need some of these events. I mean, i went to a smaller, private university, there was never a problem. But with big universities and one of the largest is the university of california with 10 campuses, over 250,000 students so, there are instances of problems from time to time. But i think our efforts would be better funding methodologies to handle those incidents. I know no effort at berkeley, the university of california, will stifle student speech, none. If theres a specific effort, i would 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. Hope today there will be some discussion of when does speech become violent . And what do you do to stop taht violece . Because we all want freedom of speech. I dont know anything different than you want in that regard. But maybe i live in a different world, having been a mayor during a tumultuous time, having gone through a fascination and understanding what happens in big dissent. So, you know, my state is not your state. But the volume here can be very large. I just wanted to make those comments and say its not a simple matter when demonstrions become violent. Sen. Grassley senator cruz . Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you for holding the support and hearing. Freespeech matters. Diversity matters. Diversity of peoples backgrounds, but also the diversity of ideas. Universities are meant to be a challenging environment for counter as to they never imagined and they might passionately disagree with. If universities become homogenizing institutions that are focused on indoctrinating rather than challenging, we will loose what makes emergencies great. The First Amendment is not about opinions you agree with. It is not about open centerright in reasonable. The First Amendment is that the opinions that you passionately disagree with in the right of others to express them it is tragic, what is happening at so Many American universities. Where college ministers and faculties have become complicit in functioning essentially as speech police, deciding which bspeech is permissible and what is not. We have seen violent protests, yes, at the Season Center in california. Violent thugs come in and say, i disagree with what he or she has to say. I will threaten with physical violence if the speech is allowed to happen. Universities and immediately roll over. They say ok, the threat of violence, we will reward the violent criminals and smuggled the First Amendment. I saw a study that says the majority of College Students believe the snow on their campus of fear of saying anything for fear of giving offense. What an indictment. Whats it say about you thinking about your own ideas . If ideas are strong and right, you should welcome the opposition. See College Faculties and administrators being complicit or active players in silencing those with up using views, what they are saying is they are afraid that their ideas cannot stand the dialectic, cannot stand opposition, cannot stand fax reasoning or anything on the other side. And it is only through force and canr there at their ideas expected. The best solution, more speech and better ideas. Are there people with not just ideas in the world . Absolutely. Grotesque and repulsive and evil. Our o constitution gives them te right to speak and the rest of us have a moral obligation to denounce what they say. The kkk was a bunch of racist, thicketheaded thugs. We have an opportunity to tragiedies. Se truth is far more powerful than force. I thank t witnesses for being here. Senator blumenthal is the Ranking Member. I go to senator blumenthal now. Senator blumenthal thank you for picking up. We would do well to remember that this issue is hardly new democracies and in particular, our democracy. I can remember well as a Young Harvard student observing the visit of secretary of defense Robert Mcnamara to our campus at the beginning of the vietnam controversy when his car on, andy was pointed physcially by his brother in the streets teargas and sical retaliation diversity involves differences in differences of opinion can lead to disagreements, which in turn, can plelead to physical contact. What we celebrate on this committe is the rule of law, lines, likeishes at town hall. Super dramatic. Ite of law, yes here and that is the main point to want to make, respect for the rule of law. Disrespect for the rule of law we have seen all too often outside of the universitys, as well as in. Universities are not aberrant. Of altercations cou ld be designed to provoke violence. We should be mindful of our own duties to be respectful of the law, and to make sure that we ly protect the First Amendment, as senator feinstein quoted so well. That some of our justices or judges says no law means no law, that we also know there is a need. Complex and are they do involve balance. And it would just emphasize how important respect for the rule of law within this setting of manner, place and definitions for the exercises on campus. It rallies. All across this great country. I is the prosecutor in the state attorney general. High as the prosecutor and the state attorney general. And respect speech that could be preserved. Theres one area where we need who want to take this opportunity to thank you. And i would like to thank them in be getting this political inquiry into the department of justice, exemplified by the. Iring of director co , think any criminal activity or several interferences with the rule of law. Closek that are a very group. I am very thankful that you that and i want to publicly thank you. A request to speak and dereks area. It was 11 years ago and there was a debate on the floor of the United States senate, First Amendment, freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Let me read what one of our colleagues said about our debate and our decision when it came to the free speech. He said, does the senator daniel inouye, who was awarded the medal of honor for his service in world war ii this is what he said. This expression is painful, and but i believe americans gave their lives to make sure americans have the right to express themselves, even those who harbor hateful thoughts. Away put his finger right on where this debate is about. If we believe in his constitution and bill of rights and freedom of expression, do as the texas senator said earlier. Sit back and put up with some hateful conducts, racist comments,antisemitic all the above. Tho the event was about the flagugh burning amendmentt the event was about the flag burning element. There was one floor on the senate that could have banned the desecration of the fact for burning. To make the first exception in history to our bill of rights and freedom of speech. I but everyone in this room agrees with me. Basicallyps the same principle. Of standing behind this, we have missed by one vote. We could have change the constitution4 when it came to the desecration of the flag. Fory nder on what we stuff. Im going to introduce folks from my left and to right. I will ask you questions after we have all spoken. Frederick lawrence is the 10 phietary and ceo of the betta kappa society. He received his bes bachelors degree. Isaac smith, a law student at the diversity of cincinnati, where she is also pursuing a masters of arts in Political Science. He earned bachelors of arts from Ohio University. Students defending students assists students who by late the code of conduct. The doctor is the interim Vice President on the campus of American University here in d. C. He earned all of her degrees from a american universit. B. S. In accounting, phd in sociology. Gene and if i pronounce it wrong, please correct me. Garry t. Schwartz, distinguished professor of law. Hes a noted academic expert. The professor obtained his b. S. From ucla. President hen is the of the southern poverty law center. He graduated Columbia University and the university of Virginia School of law. Abrams, senior counsel, new york law firm. Leading First Amendment litigator he received his b. A. From cornell university. Before you start to speak, two things. I never gavel people down at the end of five minutes, but i hope when the red light goes on, you can sum it up quickly. For my clients, it will be necessary for us to keep the Committee Meeting going while we cast those two votes. People will take turns charing so we can keep the testimony and questions going. Mr. Wood, would you proceed, please . By the way, your entire statement will be put into the record, your longer statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman, madame Ranking Member and distinct members of the committee. Im honored to have the opportunity to be here before you. Im the senior president of uncomfortable learning at Williams College. Over the last two i have advocated for the importance of reclaiming offensive use of College Campuses. When i arrived at Williams College to begin my freshman year, i had high hopes my intellectual experience would stimulate bigger debate. I identify as a liberal democrat that supports many progresses causes, but i adamantly believe students should be encouraged to engage with people and ideas they vehemently disagree with. As president of uncomfortable learning at williams, i strive to broaden the range of political discourse on campus by inviting speakers with challenging, provocative and out onthe mainstream views pressing issues of our time. I joined uncomfortable learning because they wanted to push my intellectual limits. I wanted to confront controversy. I wanted to clarify the issues that challenge people the most and why. I wanted to discuss the content of competing arguments and how best to respond to unwelcome ideas and defense of speech. Limited to the views we fire. It also encompasses the thought and action we resist. To gain a deeper understanding of humanity, i have made a concerted effort to understand as thoroughly as possible the visions and convictions of those whose arguments i oppose. Facedng so, ive considerable backlash from the student body. The acrimonious response was churning. Yet i resolved to ignore the ad hominem attacks and continued to press forward. During my sophomore year i invited john dervish share to speak at williams. My announcement of his invitation angered many students offcampus precisely because he made incendiary aboutts africanamericans. Within 48 hours, the president of Williams College canceled the speaker. Days later, the president enacted new speaker policies that make bringing speakers to campus, and especially arduous process. What i found undemocratic is the president s decision to do is invite a speaker only on the basis of his inflammatory remarks about race. At williams, the administration promotes social tolerance, often at the expense of political tolerance. I cannot name a single conservative speaker that has been brought to campus by the administration. This fact i problematics precisely because the overwhelming majority of students at williams have liberal beliefs. This adds to wha many commentators have referred to as . Chamber. Tin classrooms, liberal arguments are treated as unquestionable truths. In some cases, conservative students feel the need to refrain from stating their opinion. Myppreciate the desire of administration to make sure that all students feel included. Yet, i implore for the intellectual freedom on my college campus. At present moment, williams is one of many colleges. At colleges and universities because the country, students face of free speech zones, and other infringements on their First Amendment rights. Instead of nurturing thoughtful debate on controversial topics, and the College Educators and administrators discourage free debate by shielding students from offensive views. Yet, one persons offensive view is anothers viewpoint. To some, our defense of free speech is characterized as a conservative attack on liberal progressivism. Thatsaid the real issues need to be discussed on College Campuses are not intellectual freedom and free speech, but racism, sexism and microaggression. Issues are important, but the problem with this characterization is that all of these issues intersect and none can be resolved without an appreciation of free speech and intellectual freedom and Higher Education. Free speech is not about partisan acts. I care deeply about my education and i value the freedom to interrogate all manner of contentious ideas and police to gain a better understanding of the world and one day make a positive difference in the lives of others. Free speech and intellectual Freedom Matters because they are among the founding principles that animate the vibrance and ensure the sustenance of democracy. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you, mr. Chairman and madame Ranking Member. I will start with a point of as anal privilege and say Williams College graduate, i am proud to be sitting next to what my college is currently producing. And aa Law School Dean University President. The challenges come in all directions and from all contacts. They come from the left and right. They involve students in faculty and outside speakers, as mr. Wood has just talked about. Given the Public Discourse and nok of value on freedom is surprise that this now present itself with such urgency. Public and private, small liberal arts colleges and large universities. Its importantt, we recommit ourselves to first this hearing is a welcome opportunity to begin. The Ranking Member pointedly talked of the context of large diversities and perhaps as the only person sitting in this room who has been a diversity president , i am grateful for somebody understanding the complexity of the role. It is precisely at times that University President face, like these we are talking about that principles are essential. Let me state three. Robust Free Expression and free inquiry are central to the mission of colleges and universities. Second, the limits of such expression, which should be all the way at the margins of expression, expensive activity, should turn on the intent of the actor, and not on some crude attempt on our part to distinguish speech from conduct. Intent to threaten and an intent to intimidate is different from the intent to communicate. Third, there is a moral obligation in my view to respond to hateful speech, not to suppress it, but to respond, clearly, and forcefully. Universities and colleges in this country have a mission, i would say a sacred mission, to create and discover knowledge and transmit that knowledge through teaching. It should go without saying that robust Free Expression is central to that. As a result speakers are presumed to be permitted to speak and should expect to face questions and answers. Students and to give answers. Students and faculty are presumed to have their writing and speaking protected. Is there a limit to this expression . When does it cross over from protected expression, into something that would be prohibited . Or in a campus context, into a context where sanctions would be appropriate . As i said i believe this turns on the intent of the actor. Let me give a different example from Williams College. This is with a prior president. That prior president is now the president of northwestern university. He does seem to keep coming up in the discussion. When i was a trustee at williams, there was an event in which a student had had, on her door, leader of the Jewish Student Group at williams, posted a flyer that said she should evacuate her room immediately. This was meant as a faux eviction notice to parity what has happened in israel with palestinian homes. The president of the college called me up and said, is there something we can do . I said, we need to know what is in the mind of the student . He said, how would we know that . I said, why dont we find out how those flyers were distributed . Was it just put on one students door in a threat . Or, as was the case, put on the doors of every dorm room. In which case, it was an attempt to demonstrate a strongly held political view, offensive to some, disagreeable to many, but nonetheless one that should be protected. Therefore, the speech was protected. No action should be taken for the conduct. What about speech that is protected that is hateful . Here, i go back to something that senator cruz said. I believe Justice Brandeis said it right, when he said the answer is not wars silence, but more speech. More speech is not really an option. It is an obligation. A University President has an obligation to speak out in the face of hateful speech, not to repress it, but to speak out. A wise president would be careful not to call First Amendment balls and strikes on a daily basis. That debases the currency of the presidency and that oversteps the boundaries. A wise president picks his or her moment to say, this kind of conduct, this kind of expression is not representative of the best values of his college, the values of this university, then that holds us to the highest levels of what our colleges are about. Not merely to educate, but provide citizenry that is the essence of engaged democracy. Thank you. Chairman grassley, Ranking Member feinstein him and distinct numbers them a thank you for the opportunity to share my story. My name is isaac smith, i am a rising thirdyear law student at the university of cincinnati. Prior to attending uc for law school i studied Political Science and spanish at Ohio University, where i was also involved with an Organization Called students defending students. We assisted students on campus accused of violating the school could of conduct, helping through the disciplinary process. Every year to raise awareness about the organization and our work. We produced tshirts with a funny slogan. In 2012 the tshirts said who are you going to call . Our 2013 slogan was we get you off for free, proved to be unexpectedly controversial. What flew in the 1970s, when it was founded, it turns out that not fly in 2013. We wore the shirts of the student involvement fair, a gathering of registered student organizations on the main campus green, where a freshman can learn about campus activities. Scs was present to recruit new members. I posted a picture on our official twitter account with one of our members handing out flyers while wearing the shirt. A cap is administered or sell the tweets and later told us that we were not to wear these shirts again. She told us the shirts objective objectified five women, and in a head scratcher promoted prostitution. That was worrying to us. As advisers about the student conduct process, we knew the student code of conduct inside and out. Although the slogan was unquestionably protected by the First Amendment, the campus policies were so broad we risked discipline for wearing the shirt. I know that ou has a history of. Of punishing students for protecting speech i reached out to the foundation for individual rights and education, a nonpartisan, Nonprofit Organization that defends free speech on College Campuses. With their help i sued Ohio University to fix those sections of the code of conduct that would have allowed us to be punished and even expelled for wearing the shirts. After that lawsuit, change happened. After only a few months, ou settled the lawsuit sleepily favorably, changing the code of conduct to protect Free Expression and paying out 32,000 in damages. We were also allowed to wear the shirts again. It is unfortunate i had to take such serious action to fix it. Sometimes that needs to be done. Some administers are not going to Pay Attention to what it is what is legally right, unless they are forced to do so. In my experience, that was not isolated. Examples of campus censorship are plentiful. In one case, a former student at cal poly pomona needed a freespeech badge to hand out literature promoting Animal Rights and a vegan diet in his schools freespeech zone. In another case, a former student at my current school, university of cincinnati, was threatened with arrest for trespassing for Gathering Signatures outside of the university freespeech zone. There have been multiple cases across the country where students have been prevented from distributing copies of the United States constitution in open, outdoor areas of their campuses because they were doing so outside of their schools misleadingly labeled freespeech zones. I would like to thank you, chairman, for bringing up an example of such a thing. This means that we know that Administrators Nationwide are stifling free speech. I thank you again for the opportunity to testify here and share my story, and putting the spotlight on this national problem. Chairman grassley, Ranking Members, thank you for the opportunity for being here today. The challenge for leaders on americas campuses today is to maintain balance when protecting important values that are often intentioned, especially in the context of our nations Political Climate and views of the First Amendment among younger americans compared with the generations that have come before. Freedom of expression is an important principle oncologist and universities, not just public universities, where First Amendment rights must be protected, but also private institutions because our fundamental mission to create, share, and exchange ideas. Knowledge and discovery is dependent on the basic tenants of Academic Freedom and Free Expression. Another important principle is the respect and dignity with which we expect all members of our community to demonstrate when exchanging ideas, particularly divergent ideas. Civil discourse and dialogue representing diverse perspectives is integral to learning and scholarship. These printable are fundamental to educating citizens who will lead Productive Lives and contribute to a healthy democracy. Campuses around the country, including American University, have seen a rise in episodes of deeply offensive. Speech and discretion from racist statements and acts, to flagburning, these expressions come from within, our own students, faculty and staff, as well as from forces outside of the community. Whether a visit from Westboro Baptist church, or mine my v this dissent and protest as manifestation of Free Expression, we have effectively managed numerous events deemed contrary. We are guided in this work by our freedom of expression and guidelines and by the American University faculty and resolution on freedom of expression. The resolution states, that hundreds for hundreds of years the pursuit of knowledge has been at the center of university life, on unfettered discourse, no matter how controversial, uncomfortable, or inconvenient, is a condition necessary to that pursuit. American University Stands in this tradition. As an institution, we draw the line when expression that has the potential to incite violence, and or is a direct threat to the members of our community. The most recent episode is being investigated as a hate crime by the fbi. On the last day of classes this spring, racist expressions threatened physical violence to African American women who are members of alpha capa alpha incorporated, one of him was the first black woman elected as Student Government president in her first day of office. With the increasing frequency of such episodes, the ability of students to learn, and thrive, has been severely limited. When students fear for their safety, this affects their ability to study and participate fully in the life of the university. In short, maintaining a commitment to our values and balance among them is complicated and requires robust policies as well as constant education and training. American university has robust policies for protecting the most expression and dissent, as well as Academic Freedom. We must also investigate, respond, and report crimes that are multiple motivated as required by federal law and local laws. Just as local laws treat biased as an aggravating factor, so too does our code of student conduct, modified by this year to consider motivation in sanctions for those found responsible in violation. If there is a take away from this testimony, its that freespeech comes with responsibility and account ability. Freedom of expression is integral to the mission of hired education. However, protecting it has become challenging in light of our national climate, changing attitudes of younger americans about the First Amendment, and ever more diverse populations on the campuses, bringing diverse perspectives into constant tension. Thank you. [no audio] yesterday the Supreme Court reaffirmed there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment and viewpoint determination is generally speaking forbidden, including not just criminal laws, but even exclusion from various trademark trademark programs the government ran, and the same applies to speech on College Campuses. The government may not punish speech because of the viewpoint it expresses. Justice kennedy quite well put this, a law that can be directed against speech found offensive can be turned against a minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. Even seemingly very appealing restrictions on speech that broadly condemned as wrong and offensive, can very quickly turn into something suppression of dissent and historically often have. Let me illustrate this with an example from the testimony of Dean Lawrence. I testimony that i generally agreed with, including in its rejection of a proposed exception to hate speech. Note the definition that was offered. By hateful speech i mean that which offends or insults a group on racial, ethnic, or Sexual Identity lines. I should stress the Dean Lawrence did not call for suppression of such these, but many do. That is not an uncommon definition. That means a vast range of speech, flagburning, which i entirely agree should be protected, that offends along national lines. Debates about religion will often offend groups among religious lines, as with speech perceived as blasphemous. Debates about samesex marriage, if youre going to have an honest abate it will indeed offend people. Condemnations of White Privilege and the like may offend people along racial lines, whether or not they are accurate and sound or not. The court has been quite right in rejecting any such exception. Now there is of course there are of course times, as senator feinstein pointed out that the university is not trying to suppress speech because it finds it offensive, but because enough people who are willing to stoop to violence find it offensive, there is the threat of a violent reaction to such speech. I tend to agree with senator cruzs view, that kind of hecklers veto should not be allowed. The question was asked, when you have a second the people who come to create a disturbance, what do you do . I think the answer is to make sure they do not create the disturbance and threaten them with punishment. Meaningful punishment if they do create a disturbance. Not to essentially let them have their way by suppressing the speech they are trying to suppress. One of the basics of psychology that i think we have learned, all of us are parents have learned it first hand, the hader is that behavior that is rewarded is repeated. When thugs learn that all they need to do in order to suppress speech is to threaten violence, then there will be more such threats and more such threats from all over the political spectrum. The solution is to say that the speech will go on. If that means bringing in more Law Enforcement and again making sure that those people who do act violently or otherwise physically disruptively may be punished. In this i very much agree with what senator blumenthal said, respect for the rule of the law is a fundamental principle of American Life and that which diversity should be teaching. And one aspect of that is, if you violate the law, and by this i mean laws against vandalism, violence, physically shouting people down, in that case, you will be punished, rather than having your goals be achieved by having the speaker whom you are trying to suppress attacked in fact be suppressed by the university. It seems to me the courts has made it clear. The view of the committee, likely the view of the congress is quite clear, speech has to be protected on universities, campuses, elsewhere, regardless of the viewpoint. Some speech should indeed be lead to counter speech, criticism, whether by University Officials or others. There is no and should the no exception for supposedly hateful she speech or speech of other viewpoints on University Campuses or elsewhere. Thank you. Thank you. It is an honor to appear before the committee this morning, particularly with my fellow panelist. I think we all agree on certain financial points, that is the First Amendment is a paramount of paramount importance, particularly of places of Higher Education. In recent months, the commitment to the first amended has been tested as speakers from a newly energized White Nationalist movement have been making their eye on College Campuses. These speakers, particularly Richard Spencer have drawn protest, not simply from students, but from loosely organized violence prone outside groups of socalled antifascist. The presence of these Antifascist Group has led to an equal, yet opposite reaction. The formation of outside groups dedicated to fighting the antifascist. As what happened at berkeley demonstrates, it is a combustible situation. Richard spencer was scheduled to speak at auburn university, 50 miles from our office. Spencer, as im sure the committee knows is a leading White Nationalist figure who popularized the term altwhit. Altright. He gave a speech ending with hail trump. The event catapulted him to national prominence. In his First College speech following the november rally, spencer stated america belongs to white men. We own it. In advance of his scheduled appearance at auburn, we checked to ensure the University Police knew about the problems that other universities had recently faced when controversial speakers came to town. We also suggested to the university at administers and to the college club we sponsor at auburn they hold an alternative event to highlight their commitment to inclusion and to our nations Democratic Values. We have no objection a course to peaceful protest. We suggest that students not give racist and audience. We certainly do not want students to do anything that allows speakers to racist speakers to betray themselves as First Amendment martyrs. Auburn initially issued a statement making it clear that it employed spencers views, it that it the lord that it deplored spencers views, it was the right thing to do. The First Amendment does not require universities to be neutral. As senator cruz said, it can and should take the position. Auburn canceled the speech out of fear that spencers presence would provoke violence. That was the wrong thing to do. The university was perfectly capable of providing security, as senator feinstein suggested, there may be some cases where that instances, where that is not the case. Universities have to take steps to cancel a speech, as Justice Jackson said, the constitution is not a suicide pact. That would be a rare instance. Auburn lost the case in court and handed Richard Spencer a victory in the process. An outcome that allows a man whose views are and him a call are inimical to our founding principles to parade around as a First Amendment hero. Given the climate in our country, i think we will see more violent confrontation on College Campuses this fall, as mark sanford recently put it, the rhetoric surrounding the president ial campaign has unearthed some demons. Since the election, we have documented nearly 200 instances of racist fires flyers being distributed on College Campuses. Weve also detected a surge of biased related episodes of violence in schools around the country. This sunday, Richard Spencer is scheduled to speak at a rally at the lincoln memorial. Something i find to be almost sacrilegious. He will be joined by the founder of one of being White Nationalist groups that is recruiting on College Campuses. Their First Amendment rights must be protected. Buy we must not ignore the but we must not ignore the increase in White Nationalist activity around the country and on the College Campuses. We need to fight speech that threatens our nations Democratic Values with speech that upholds them. It is an obligation at University Officials have, and everyone in public life, starting with the president has as well. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Cohen. Thank you. Senator grassley, Ranking Member feinstein, senator cruz, and other members i wanted to add another line from the Supreme Courts opinion yesterday. In which the court by an 80 vote said the following speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend. That is the law. That is what the First Amendment teaches us. That was the basis of yesterdays ruling. It has been the basis phrased differently through the years, but phrased consistently through the years. That has been the basis for the protection of First Amendment rights. What brings us here today is that time and again speech is being effectively banned on campuses because the speaker has ideas that offend. That is the problem. It does not arise because University Administrations are seeking to suppress speech. It arises more often than not because students find it intolerable to have certain speakers appear and certain ideas expressed, with which they disagree, and which they find offensive, or even outrageous. So we have a record before this committee from the testimony of the people who preceded me and from what has occurred throughout america. Of speakers being silenced when they say or are expected to say unpopular or disagreeable things. Ray kelly, the distinguished former Police Commissioner of new york shouted down at brown university. The mayor of jerusalem shouted down at San Francisco state. I could go on with those examples. There are situations of invitations being withdrawn for fear of offending students. Christine lagarde, the first woman ever to head the International Monetary fund, canceled for fear of student disapproval and the like. We have speakers who have withdrawn because it has been made clear to them they would be unable to proceed with their speeches. Condoleezza rice, for example. We have a situation in which, again and again, speakers have been muted on campuses by saying that they could appear, but only a pair appear if they appeared on panels, and not spoke individually. This is a real ongoing problem. It is not a new problem of this month or even this year. It is something which has gotten significantly worse and more threatening as time has gone on, and as other speakers have pointed out, as the polarity in our country has become more obvious. The polarity on campus has been the same. I have to say that i recall a time many years ago when i was in college, in which the real problem was there was no speech. That was the cool generation, socalled. In which University Administrations really came down hard. If anyone said anything, which seem to offend the administration. That is not our problem today. We have, i have to say it, a problem with students and supine administrations. We have a problem in that too many people are unwilling to listen to ideas with which they disagree. That is a problem which has only a longterm solution. It is when i suggest to you that we should really start to address now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to each of the witnesses for your important and powerful testimony. Let me start with zach and isaac, i want to thank both of you for being your. I want to thank you for your courage in speaking out and risking prosecution and doing so in doing so. It is important and it is sick of it. Significant. With both of you, you may both have views that i agree with or disagree with on any given issue, but you have the courage of your convictions, and that is important. I wanted tosk both of you, when those who disagree with either your views or speakers coming to campus succeeded in shutting them down, did that embolden the sensors . What did that do to the climate on the campus when people discovereds a heckler beta could succeed . Mr. Wood . Mr. Wood at williams it was in some sense a victory for those who did not want to hear opposing views. Their perspective from the outset was that if we can shut this down, then we are doing something that is just and right. Ted cruz mr. Smith . Mr. Smith mike strand at Ohio University was primarily of censorship coming from the administration. In my experience with students defending students, we actually have the administration on one occasion say that although the speech was protected by the First Amendment, that a student was accused of violating the code of conduct is the code of conduct rose above that and they punished in any way with the overbroad linkage of the code. I definitely agree they were emboldened to try to take out any viewpoints they found offensive. Ted cruz professor, i want to welcome you to this committee. You and i have been friends for 20 years. I will say to a my favorite memories were one, you and i and several others, the day after september 11, spending time together in an f interfaith prayer session with christians and jews praying for our nation. I will never forget that. Nor will i forget a wonderful time in which you have heidi and me to your apartment for dinner. You bake cookies. You probably dont recall, but you pulled the cookies out of the oven and mumbled to yourself, to no one in particular, oh my, their constituent of integrity is somewhat compromised. At which point heidi said, who are these friends of yours . I said, no one earth but eugene would utter such a sentence. It is great to welcome you back. Thank you for being such a passionate champion of the First Amendment. One of the things that you have written about is the impact of federal law and federal statutory law in pushing universities in the direction of censoring speech. I am wondering if you could perhaps elaborate on that a little bit for the committee. Professor thank you. Those are two of my favorite memories. The cookies were a little gooey. I think that made them taste better. Part of the problem happening on campuses is the office for civil rights, some years ago, i believe the department of Education Office of civil rights, but also support from the Justice Department took the view that actually federal law required colleges and universities to impose speech codes to prevent supposedly hostile or offensive environments. They were defined in vague ways, but ways that pretty clearly covered speech that would allegedly create such environments by being offensive, based on sex, was the focus, but the same logic applies based on religion, race, and such. Colleges have been trying to implement those kinds of codes for many years before. They were giving cover to those who want to come and putting pressure on those who might not. I think that is a mistake. I think universities should try to prevent an atmosphere where people feel threatened from threats of violence, but also feel otherwise intimidated or marginalized based on various things, including politics. Universities have ample opportunity to do that by speaking out against the speech, often there will be lots of students groups participating in speaking out against this kind of offensive speech and telling students, you are welcome here. Rather than taking advantage of this opportunity for counter speech, something that universities are uniquely positioned to do because they are in control, and they often have people willing to help out in that among the student body. Instead the ocr argued that in fact speech codes are not just the proper solution, but necessary, i required solution. I think that is very much a mistake. Fortunately federal courts have not taken that view, they have taken the opposite view. My recollection, in the early 2000, they actually said the First Amendment is an important limit on campus speech codes. I think there was some walking away from that several years ago from further statements, especially a certain case by the ocr. I am hoping they will go back and reaffirmed the principle that while federal law prohibits universities from discriminating and requires them to protect students against violence and threats of violence, it offers no justification for speech restrictions. Ted cruz a final question, mr. Abrams, you have been a lien on the First Amendment. You are a man of the left. I think it is fair to say, i am not. You have spent decades defending free speech, even views you are disagree with. There are examples that are often pointed to, indeed it this hearing, whether or not seize or the kkk. One of the things we are seeing on University Campuses, it is not just the extreme hate groups, it is rather just speakers, academics with views that are disagreed, that are contrary to their reigning political orthodoxy on many campuses. Whether it is an administrator setting in email about halloween urging talent tolerance, whether it is people arguing about samesex marriage, whether it is an academic scholar like charles murray, making arguments that are controversial. Whether it is a scholar like Heather Mcdonald speaking about Police Officers, what is the value of the First Amendment in protecting the views of those with whom we disagree . What does it do to campuses when only one side of an issue is allowed to be expressed publicly . Senator cruz, the First Amendment is an antisensorial amendment. It exists primarily for the purpose of keeping the government away from certain very, very significant and sensitive areas, religion, speech, press, assembly. The basic philosophy behind it is that it is important that the broadest range of views be heard and the public be permitted to pass judgment. Come to their own judgment. It is tempting. I get it, everyone understands, the temptation to say, this view or that view is so offensive, so outrageous that i am serving the Public Interest by shutting it up0 the firs. The First Amendment puts us in the opposite direction, it requires at least enough humility to accept the proposition that i am not the decisionmaker. Congress is not the decisionmaker. The public, individually, and together make the decision about what to believe and what not to believe. Senator durbin . Senator durbin thank you. I have to leave and vote. I listened to and it seems like there is an amazing consensus, at least in the abstract. The problem is the application. Should i be able to stop the speaker because i am offended . No. Mr. Lawrence, because i am intimidated . I think, yes. Should i be able to stop someone from speaking because he is unpopular . No. Because i find him menacing . Yes. Should i be able to stop someone who is makes me feel uncomfortable . No. Should i be able to stop someone who i find threatening, menacing . Intimidating . And where you draw the line . You have to put yourself in the position of the president of the university. You want to encourage the exchange of ideas, lets start with that premise. You also have the responsibility for the safety of the students. And what might happen to those who attend . What the reaction might be. Add another element, 10 states allow the carrying of guns on College Campuses. Doesnt this make this more complicated for the College President as to whether or not that speakers going to be allowed to come in and speak . Let me ask you to address that, mr. Cohen. Mr. Going thank you thank you. It is a thorny issue. Universities have an obligation i would say to take reasonable steps they could for c. If you are university cannot do anything and then when maybe threatening people show up you say, i will cancel this each, i have an obligation to make bona fide efforts to protect the speaker, protect the students. Of course there could be situations where at the 11th hour you got information that 50 plus busloads of armed antifascists were coming to campus, and you would have no choice but to cancel. I think that is a matter of common sense. We have to allow the university to exercise some judgment in a perilous situation like that. The real issue is, what is the role and exception . The rule has to be, we allow speech, we dont censor speech. We dont rule out speakers because of the possibility that there will be some sort of harmful impact because they speak. Sure, if a lot of people come to the campus with guns or threatening, or the like, that is one situation. Very, very rare. We are talking about 10 states with concealed carry law, it is like we are announcing we are bringing guns under the law they are allowed. They are. That has been the decision of the legislatures and so far it is perfectly constitutional. That does not empower College President s to shut down campuses. There has to be more than a credible threat. Have we had a situation on campus in which as a result of a speech people who have come with guns have had committed felonies . I cannot think of one. Thank god no. Floyd has got it right, the presumption is in favor of speech. When you can you overcome that . You certainly have situations on campuses now where this becomes a concern. There have been cases, most of the time this information is not made public, where the University President , these are people who i have spoken with have been informed by their own Campus Security that we have credible information from local Law Enforcement there could be people with weapons on campus. I appreciate the analogy to the hecklers veto, but those cases come out of the 1960s and in southern jurisdictions wanted to oppress double right marches. The answer there is, they simply have to make sure there is enough of a police presence. You cannot tell a Public Safety office in the university you have to beef up. Sometimes you do not have those resources. Those of his heart kinds of judgments a president of the university is required to make. I have to go vote. I want to start with mr. Wood. Asking you to elaborate on the point that you made that students at williams, with minority political views feel silenced in the classroom. Yes sir. At Williams College am often times it is conservatives on campus who feel as though they cannot express their views. Ive talked to a number of students individually who have told me that they feel as though, in certain classes that they were if they were to express their political views, whether on affirmative action, welfare, or any number of Critical Issues that are often discussed, they feel as though they would be either strongly disliked or they would receive disapproval from their professors for simply stating their beliefs. Also for your, your testimony that Williams College adopted policies for inviting speakers that appeared to apply equally to all speakers, but that in practice made it harder for conservative speakers to come to campus and than liberals. I would like for you to elaborate. Essentially uncomfortable learning was a Student Group at Williams College originally. It was unaffiliated for a specific reason. The reason was that College Council, because the majority of the student body is liberal was not going to vote to approve uncomfortable learning. That also means that if we were to go to College Council we would have to refund if he receive funding for speakers which would give them discretion on the speakers. What the president did after i invited john doerr pressure was he put several checkpoints in place. First i have to discuss with several deans why i selected particular select a particular speaker. On top of that you have to convey to them what the sources of funding are, and then you also have to register as a Student Group. This was a particular problem for uncomfortable learning because the student body, not just the student body, but the deliberative body of the college, College Council was liberal. We were worried the group would not pass and get approved, which means that we would not be allowed to bring speakers. If forced me to go through a number of hoops and hurdles to sort of be able to continue to doing the work i was doing. Mr. Abrams and professor, the doctor testified we respected free speech American University quota draws the line when expression has the potential to incite violence. Of course american is private and the First Amendment does not apply. Is this statement consistent with a longstanding meaning of the First Amendment . I dont think so. I dont think the potential to inspire violence comes close. To meeting the legal standard. That requires an intent, a likelihood of success, and eminence of violence occurring. There are speakers who by their nature are incendiary in what they say. It would be an egregious violation of the First Amendment and of First Amendment values to bar them from speaking because there is a possibility of violence occurring. Professor, do you want to add . I agree. I had understood the reference to potentials saying violence is something of a short head shorthand for the test. Which is that speech is unprotected only if it is intended or likely to produce imminent lawless conduct. There was a time when the Supreme Court accepted the near potential to produce bad conduct was enough. That was a socalled bad tendency test used around world war i and in some similar cases. I think this ties into senator durbins point, actually in 40 states people can carry concealed guns legally in Public Places where there often are speeches. In 50 states people can carry concealed guns illegally as well. There is certainly somebody who is willing to commit murder and they will not balk at restrictions. Nonetheless, the mere possibility that somebody would draw a violent reaction, or even hope to produce a violent reaction cannot be enough to restrict each. I understand the doctors statement is a sort of shorthand for the specific point. Senator feinstein. Senator feinstein thank you. I wanted to ask mr. Kelen, i am holding a copy of the may 1 2017 paper from the southern poverty law center. The title. Of which is the battle for berkeley in the name of freedom of speech, the radical right is circling the ivory tower to ensure a voice for the altright. Could you please describe for us the thrust of this paper and any comments you would care to make . Thank you, senator feinstein. At berkeley and in particular as protests have escalated them is so has the presence of groups that really have violence on their minds. We have had the antifascist descend on berkeley. In response to them, we have had groups such as the oath keepers, Law Enforcement current and former Law Enforcement officials to take a pledge to uphold the constitution in their view, not as might be interpreted by the courts or their superiors. We have had other radical right groups, the proud boys. A new group called the alt nights come to College Campuses, really looking for a fight. To theiments go out University Officials at berkeley because of the incendiary situation. One of the reasons i think it is important for Public Officials from all levels to do what they can to tampa down the rhetoric and really speak out on behalf of the values of our democracy. One of the problems that i have is that there is a next dictation an expectation the university handles it. The handling of it means that you have resources to be able to send, and those resources know what to do. Particularly for a public university, particularly for the university of california there is a constant battle with the legislature over money. The resources are not always what they might be. Does anyone on the panel have an idea if you accept what mr. Cohen has said, how should a university handle this . If i can speak briefly. I appreciate the resource constraints, i teach at uc, we are aware of the constraints. This having been said, well we are fortunate to have you see Police Department uc police, we are also in a city. That is berkeley. Yes. I would think that we Police Department would be able and willing to lend Police Officers to help if we are in a position where the Police Department are unable to protect free speech whether university or otherwise, yes, we are in a bad position. Let me understand what you are saying. No matter who comes, no matter what the disturbances, the university has to be prepared to handle it. It is a problem for the university. That is the argument you are making. You are making that a speaker that might follmann eight fulminate a big problem should never be refused. They ought to be able to come, whatever the problem is, it ought to be handled. Senator, i would not say should never, there are extraordinary circumstances, what if a buddy has planted a bomb . Somebody has planted a bomb . To me the extraordinary circumstances are when people come in uniform and hit people on the head. That cannot be enough to justify suppression of those whom they came to try to suppress. It is not just the university, it is the government. I am not a big believer in large jobs for the government, but one important job for the government is to prevent violence and prevent violence without suppressing free speech. I do think that between u thec police. You dont think we learned a lesson at kent state . As the one person who has actually made these decisions, we are in the business of educating at a university. We do not have the resources of a town or city at our disposal, either literally a budget, or a city to turn to tell them to take it over. These are always judgment calls. I think the way to start with this is with a strong presumption in favor of the speech, particularly speech coming from a Student Group has invited somebody, an outside group if they were to come to campus, that is a different set of issues, certainly for a private university, to a certain extent, a public. Always find a way to get to yes on a speech. Perhaps you have to have it closed. There are a lot of ways in which the university can think about this. To suggest to universities, not just public, but private as well, that we have the resources to throw at all of these problems is a vastly exaggerated notion of what universities can do. It is putting more at the universitys doorstep. If you start with the presumption of finding a way to get food program, and only if that can be overcome, then you dont have the program. No matter how radical, offensive, biased, prejudiced, fascist the program is, you should find a way to accommodate . What i would say in response, if we are talking about the substance of the program, not the danger, but the substance of the program, then yes. I do think the program, if a Student Group invites, they should be able to. However, he or she coming to campus should be prepared to answer questions. I would tell donors that say how can you have them speak on campus, i would say, trust my kids to ask the questions. Here is the problem, it is very often not your kids. It is outsiders who come with a specific program to disturb and hurt. Men, you are right. With a private university you have the option of saying, this is an event that is close to university students. Members of the University Community are invited, and only members of the university committee. Our obligation is to educate. Public university has a significant problem there. I would be deferential to the chancellor to have to make a tough judgment call, particularly in the case you are describing. Which in the case are more real than i think a hopeful audience might think. I think that is a problem. I think particularly, in view of the divisions within this nation at this time, which are extraordinary, from my experience, i think we all have to protect the general welfare too. I appreciate free speech. Those of us that run for office, run for office on the basis of being able to speak freely. But, it is another thing to agitate. It is another thing to formant. To forment. It is another thing to attack. I think it many of these speeches, it is one of the things a president would take into account, if a speaker is coming to campus for the purpose of agitating cases of speakers who post images of students on screens in order to intimidate or humiliate this didnt come a that has no place in a university. That is not an intent to communicate, it is an intent to image intimidate. The second boat has started. I will wait and vote at the last minute. I think i will as well. It is not my turn to aske questions again, but im really one here. Let me go back to the professor. Many Higher Education administrators say that they have to balance of free speech with civility, respect, and diversity, doesnt such allen think of the First Amendment, which sets its own balance its own balance insufficient weight . That seems to suggest we can balance free speech. While there are exceptions, narrow exceptions, generally speaking the spring court has rejected the approach it is about balancing. That said, i am a deep believer in civility as a means of promoting free speech. It is actually, when people speaks of a leak are more likely to be enlightened and to get all of the benefits of free speech. I think the university ought to prove promote civility, not by suppressing freeze each, in part because it is tempting, it is human nature to give the benefit of the doubt to people whom we agree with and say, they are not uncivil, they are just impassioned. People we disagree with they need to be suppressed. I think universities should promote stability, but not by suppressing speech they view as uncivil. Do you have anything to add . No. Professor, your testimony described how earlier efforts to suppress free speech have led to todays censorship on campus of speech that no one then would have anticipated, if this trend continues, what kind of speech to you think would be next to be suppressed on campuses based on their content . I think that when people are concerned about a slippery slope i think they are often quite justified. We live in a legal system based on restrictions, they say, we accepted this kind, i think we have seen this. We have seen attempts to suppress serious, scholarly debate. I mentioned an incident at cal state northridge where there was an awardwinning scholar of middle eastern history who had written a biography about the founder of modern turkey. Armenian students were upset with the speaker because he was seen as too soft. There was seen responsible for attacks on armenians. There were accusations that the speaker himself did not take the proper view of the killing of armenians. They shouted him down. They kept this awardwinning scholar from speaking on a subject most of us would not have thought would be the one to suppress. When that happens, we have already seen attempts to suppress speech that is proisrael. There have been movements, even it uc speeches of antiisrael. A vast array of topics. If we allow restriction on speech for fear of violence, people will learn that by threatening violence, they can effectively restricted. That is a tool that will be limited to one side it will not be limited to one side. Senator kennedy, it would be your turn if you are ready. Also could i ask a favor, i have not voted. Would you be able to stay here and finish the meeting . I am told there are two other people who want to come back. When you finish it for me would you finish it for me . Can i have the gavel . Can i bang the gavel . Yes. Since i will turn it over to senator kennedy, thank you all for participating. It is like senator durbin says, there seems to be a great deal of consensus and i wish that consensus would be in the headlines of our papers when we read about the violence and the things that happen on campuses. It is not all violence when people dont get to speak when they should have the opportunity. Thank you. Senator kennedy thank you. Senator feinstein, have you asked questions . Senator feinstein please, you go ahead. Dont worry about me. Senator kennedy i dont even have to start the clock. Mr. Wood, tell me again, the speakers that you disagreed with but thought had a right to be heard in the interest of Public Discourse at williams. Mr. Wood one speaker was suzanne banker. She was a social critic. She was an antifeminist and she wrote the flip side of feminism. Senator kennedy so she disagreed with feminism. Did she use offensive language or did she just disagree . Senator kennedy how do you mean . Mr. Wood she said that women should be kept at home. They said have certain responsibilities. Things like that. Senator kennedy who was the College President . Esther wood adam faulk. Senator kennedy is he still there . Mr. Wood yes. Senator kennedy i will share a couple of thoughts and i will then ask the panel to react, including mr. Wood. I have always wondered about people that did not test their assumptions against the arguments of their critics. Ed whitfield to me that the importance of that would be one of the qualifications of the College President. It was suggested by one of the distinguished panelists that the problems with the students, and i dont doubt that, with some students, but students are by their nature are passionate. Mostly liberal, centerleft. I certainly was when i was in college. They dont have, they go to college to gain the Life Experience and the learning that there are other points of view. With some exceptions, i dont really blame the students. Learnre in college to otherwise. I blame the administration. I blame dr. Faulk. If he, because of his politics, or because he was concerned about offending faculty or students, or alumni was worried about his security at the institution, and i dont know if any of those things are true but if what you described happened, he should resign. It is that simple. He needs to explain to students and have them understand that they do not have a constitutional right in life not to be offended. They are going to be offended plenty of times in life. I am not talking about hate speech. I understand that hate speech is now supposedly illegal. But speech that is inflammatory, or speech that uses a racial epithet, speech designed to provoke. Im talking about somebody that wants to discuss the point of view that might not be popular. As far as i am concerned, dr. Faulk should hide his head in a bag if he took a position like that. Another point of view in a civil manner cannot be considered on this campus. Here is my question, as the as so singly as you can come , because i want to respect the time, where do you draw the line . Where do you draw the line . I dont want a speaker to come to a university and use a racial epithet repeatedly for someone who would be offended by it, presumably everyone. I dont consider that to be adding to Public Discourse. On the other hand, if somebody wants to come and discuss, as did Charles Maria middle very murray at middlebury, discuss the bell curve and is suited down and denied the right to discuss an intellectual point of view, i dont see anything wrong with that even though i may or may not agree. Who wants to tell me how to draw the line . Mr. Wood i think personally, where the line needs to be drawn is when there is a threat made. If the language that is being used in the expression of a particular viewpoint crosses the line of being a threat, that is when i think i think personally, i try to consider intellectual value. If i invite a speaker, i think there has to be some intellectual value. Which is to say, i have to believe this beaker is speaker is interested in contributing to Public Discourse and adding their opinion as a part of the conversation with a particular issue. From an intellectual point of view . I would say there are two different questions here. I think mr. Wood has put it exactly right for what a Student Group would do well to use as a standard. As a former University President , i would say my standard has to be, ironically, lower than that. Which is to say that would be my standard for somebody i at the administration would bring, but for somebody who a Student Group might bring, the question is, is this going to be threatening to the campus, in which case it could be restricted . Otherwise, no. If a student wants to put on an event, they can with one very powerful stipulation any speaker who comes to campus has to be prepared to stay and take questions and give respectful, decent, civil answers. I dont want to go over. I am over my time. I dont mean any disrespect to dr. Fox. Dr. Faulk. My guess is, based on what i have read about him, he is centerleft. Substantially centerleft. He would Welcome Centerleft speakers, but he would not Welcome Center right speakers. That is the most intellectually dishonest thing i have ever heard if that is true. I would feel the same way if he were centerright and were excluding centerleft speakers. He is not fit to be a College President , as far as im concerned. Senator klobuchar. Sen. Klobuchar thank you. I think i will start where we left off with senator kennedy. Mr. Lawrence, youre talking about how you balance this and what the standards should be and like you, i really value the First Amendment. My dad was a reporter his entire life. He is now 89 and blogs still. Mr. Lawrence, you want to talk about that value of free speech and how important it is. You were answering more in response to mr. Wood. Do you want to go through that one more time from your review and then i will ask questions . Sure. We start with a presumption that free speech is protected on campus because it is absolutely central to the function of creating knowledge, discovering knowledge, and transmitting knowledge through teaching, scholarship, and discussions. The lines are drawn only at the extreme edges. The extreme edges meaning that which threatens, or actually disables the learning process, not that which make somebody uncomfortable. Part of the function of spending four years in an undergraduate institution is to be intellectually uncomfortable and have your ideas challenged. Sen. Klobuchar i agree. I went to university of chicago law school. Then nothing more need be said. [laughter] chicago i am told is the one place where it it was said that you could flunk lunch. [laughter] sen. Klobuchar thank you, i didnt do that. [laughter] that is the faculty, not the students. With those exceptions, the speech will be protected, that is the essence. Sen. Klobuchar this idea that mr. Wood brought up, which i appreciate, the threat. If somebody has made a threat. Cohen. Get to you, mr. Would you judge that by the the past or recently . As near as you can assess. What you are trying to do is figure out the intent. If you have someone who is communicating views that are on hatefulnt, maybe even views, if the intent is to communicate those views, that is protected. If the intent is to threaten or intimidate or menace, it is not. It is not always an easy line to draw. Those are the lines we are drawing all the time in criminal law, and on campus those are the lines the administrators are trying to draw also. Sen. Klobuchar thank you. Mr. Cohen, talk a little bit about how you draw that line if you are in mr. Lawrences job. I am glad i am not in his job. Those are very difficult things. The Supreme Court has a written or rules about what constitutes a true threat. It is not merely how other people might perceive it. It is as they have said, the intent of the speaker. We have never advocated for restrictions on speech in any context. Cases like brandenburg, the incitement of eminent law, it is rare that one has seen some like that. In general i would agree with dr. Lawrence, mr. Lawrence, that we should have a presumption in favor of speech. As the Supreme Court said, it is a bedrock principle for our country to engage in robust, uninhibited debate of good ideas and bad ideas. Sen. Klobuchar very good. Mr. Abrams . I would add that we have all agreed and it is the law the private universities and colleges are not bound by the First Amendment. It would be constitutional for them to say we only invite people who we think are of educational value, and therefore we choose not to invite this person or that person who we consider not to have that ability to educate. I dont want to say the problem the reality that was that so long as a private university says, as they do, we choose to apply First Amendment standards, as long as they allow students, as i think they should, to invite guests to offer their views on whatever, that the university ought to stay out of the business of making quality or educational quality decisions. I think it would be inappropriate for university to say, you want to have an coulter speak . We dont think she has anything to contribute. The republican students and certain california universities wanted her to come and speak. It seems to me that once you open that door, which i think is well worth opening, the university ought to stay out, except in the most extraordinary literally violence, on the lips of violence situations. Sen. Klobuchar one more question. Thank you. Senator kennedy ask as many as you want. Sen. Klobuchar wow. Thats pretty good. Set ofnnedy ou are right. Whose fault was that . Sen. Klobuchar this is freedom of the speech. One last thing since you are here, mr. Abrams. We all know that you represented the New York Times in the landmark is papers case where the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not block the New York Times from publishing certain classified documents on the vietnam war. Based on your experience, can you speak to the importance of ensuring the First Amendment and our laws continue to protect journalists at this time in history . Could, all if you joking aside. I think that is a good idea. It is critical. No less critical now than at any other time. It is essential that we continue to protect journalists in newsgathering, reporting, in the expression of opinions, and the like. Criticism of them should also be wide open. But there is never a time, but certainly not now, to limit those rights. Sen. Klobuchar thank you. We had an incident in the capital where there was closing down of tv reporters, but we fixed that. Thank you. Thank you, acting chairman. We are two minutes from adjourning, and i was us providing over senate, so i want to thank you all for being here. Data that shows 40 of americans under age think that 35 the First Amendment is potentially dangerous if people can use their First Amendment freedoms to say things that others find offensive. If we had time to unpack it, i would love to understand, i am a former College President , i would love to understand the current state of play in University Administrations where they are doing this bizarre thing of trying to define the term offensive. As if that is possibly a juridical i will close with one question. Given the number of Legal Precedents that establish free speech protections on public campuses, i would be curious to hear a top line from each of you. In the face of so many of these view, bizarre speech campuses inng on , the sense that there are so many spaces that are supposedly not free speech zones on campus. What role do you think the government should conceivably have . It is a big problem, i know. It is not the sort of thing on public campuses you think you would need to think about government responsibilities to ensure protections. If we could get just a top comment from the two of you. Thats absolutely right. The state of nebraska, for example, runs the university of nebraska. It has a responsibility to make sure it is run properly. Obviously, much of the time one wants to leave that to the professionals who are hired to run it, but it looks like they are not doing a good job protecting student speech, the state has a double obligation to make sure the universities are complying with the u. S. Constitution as well as what i think are the best educational principles of protecting such speech. In california there is a special statute that provides extra protection for a public university. I think that has been helpful. I agree. I would just add a note of caution. I am apprehensive about state legislatures getting too close to the University Campuses in terms of dictating or requiring certain types of teaching to be allowed, not allowed, subjects to be taught were not taught, or the like. Me too. To agree with you, i am a small government guy who wants to see as little of this edge indicated coercion ased by possible. That is why it is more incumbent on administered is to offer a full defense of the First Amendment. Also in terms of the spirit of a liberal arts education, where one of the things that happens is you grow as an adult and encounter ideas you did not already believe and agree with. One of two things happens sometimes you are persuaded. Sometimes you get converted. It is called education. I think that is the bell telling me we are done. Sometimes though, you find that your ideas were good, and were strong, and were made stronger by having to encounter people who did not agree with you. You have to respect their viewpoints and have a debate. It is both the essence and part and parcel of First Amendment culture and the beating heart of american the belief in discourse. It is also fundamentally what is supposed to be happening on a College Campuses. I am sad we are out of time. Thank you for being here. Do you have the gavel . We are adjourned. Thank you. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] the second session of the week. Congress begins next the senate is back on the third and welcome two new democratic lawmakers, Alabamas Doug Jones and minnesotas tina smith. They will return to some of the issues at hand like government funding, which will run out january 19. Also on the calendar, this years state of the union on 30. Ary as always, watch the house live on cspan and the senate on cspan two. Week, washington journal features authors of key books published in the last year. Join us for our conversations with authors about popular books. Coming up thursday, former representative Cliff Stearns with his book. On friday, author and scholar, ith Digital World war islamists, extremists, and the fight for cyber supremacy. Nomadland rday, surviving america in the 21st century. How the white house chief of staff defines every presidency. Washington journals authors series all this week at 8 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan, cspan. Org, and cspan radio. On cspan this week in primetime, thursday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern, celebrity activists, including ashton kutcher, on and jennifery, garner on Early Childhood education. They said their babies in front of the television, and ive seen it over and over again across this country. The child quietly goes to sleep inside their mind. 8 00 p. M. Eastern, tech sector trends and government regulation. Think of it as the Starship Enterprise sort of goal. If youve ever watched star trek, there is this computer that is ambient and it understands your idioms. It understands you and it can have a conversation. Honest to god, they all have watched star trek. This is what they are gunning for. All this week in primetime on cspan. On wednesdays washington journal, we spoke to law professor angela davis about racial bias in Law Enforcement. She is the editor of a new book on the topic. This is one hour. She is editor of policing the black man. She also teaches at American Universitys Washington College of law. Shes a professor there. Good morning. The title is obvious, but talk about the genesis of the book. What compiled