[inaudible conversations] come in as quick as you can, as we go along, thank you so much. A weekly journal of literature and culture with key interest in the united states, we really got to be here, totally like to discuss the issue of free speech which never seems to go away. I thought i would begin with a literary angle. During the civil war, a polemic against government attempts to license freespeech. In it, which continued to resound, give me the liberty to utter and argue freely according to conscience about all liberty. Before we get that, those which otherwise come forward may be mischievous, the fire and execution may be the timely asked remedies that can follow. I believe in Free Expression which has been active as a brigade ever since. As we discussed freespeech is never in practice absolute, the question for today is how much it should be championed at universities including the right not to be offended and the right to live free and happily, the rightwing commentator ben shapiro tighten security and offering counseling, we are deeply concerned about the impact speakers may have an individual sense of safety and belonging, no one should feel threatened or harassed because of who they are or what they believe. Harvard disinvited chelsea manning, is that evidence harvard is not a place where ambiguity can be discussed or where cia pressure can be brought to bear . In 2016 the dean of students in chicago sent a letter to incoming freshmen, commitment to Academic Freedom means you do not support socalled trigger warning us. They disinvited speakers because their topics might prove controversial and we dont condone intellectual safe spaces where individuals can retreat from ideas at odds with their own. 152 members of the university criticized him for expressing that opinion. How should we prioritize the need for safety and security . Oxford university, trigger warnings, one member of the faculty talks about the impossibility of teaching shakespeare without issuing warnings and there was a complaint discussion about trigger warnings had not been prefaced by a trigger warning. We need to find a way, how to preserve safe spaces and how important they are. We need to consider safe spaces becoming segregated space, do want organizations in our schools, i am joined by two people who will silently enter as the debate continues. Jelani cobb became a staff writer on the new yorker, one of the great jobs in journalism. His most recent book is the substance of hope and the paradox of progress and professor of columbia journalism school. Michelle goldberg, entering the room with a lamb, and e economist at the new york times, congratulations to her, her first book was kingdom coming, the rise of Christian Nationalism and next the means of reproduction, sex, power and the future. She is unafraid of controversial topics. In the middle, suzanne nossel, director of pen america, a senior role in these organizations including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for international organizations. We will talk about the issues and at the end take questions and observations from you. None of us are students at us university. We will talk about what safe spaces are like and ask questions for your thoughts. Lets ask the panel do we believe the first principle is free speech under threat on campuses or more broadly . Good afternoon and thank you for the invitation. Once upon a time i was a brooklynithe, i come back to visit every so often. I am happy to be with you today. Free speech is under threat, i dont think it is under threat on College Campuses was the preeminent threat to free speech resides at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. We have seen, not just rhetorical, not just playing to people who might be in my same Left Progressive sliver of the universe. Objectively we have not seen a president referring to the media as the, quote, enemies of the people, retrofitting antique stalinist language into 21stcentury demagogic presidency and for us to grapple with what that means, the daily drip drip drip of political thought slipping to the press, we should be very concerned. When we look at the way this conversation about free speech, the reaction movement, they tend to drape their agenda in the virtues of democracy and what i mean is saying you are upholding one principle of democracy but seeking to dismantle another fundamental principle of it. The example that stand out to me most notably is the voter suppression, Voter Integrity Commission we have now in which they are allegedly attempting to make sure our elections are untainted but having no concern for the people finding it more difficult to participate in democracy through voting. The same happens with free speech, when we are looking at the conversation around freespeech, standing in for more net various concerns that would not garner public attention in the way freespeech wood. As a quick example it is worth noting that the reason spate of neonazi events, far rightwing events of been billed as freespeech events and should be noted we saw lots of people in that part of the world, ideological spectrum defending milo on the grounds of free speech, whether it was racism or sexism or zeno phobia, antiimmigrant bias, things he was promulgating with his speeches, those things were being defended under the name of free speech as opposed to the subsequent issue. Should he be excluded, stupid and inflammatory the issue of democracy as everyone has the right to be stupid on their own terms and stupidity is its own indictment. Notwithstanding that is not the concern. When he began making statements people were uncomfortable with about child molestation it became something that was indefensible. The principles of free speech but in theory they should have been saying milo has the right to talk about things that make us uncomfortable like child molestation but the opposite is what happened. Do you blame trump for how freespeech ideas have been wrongly articulated . We write from the head down . He made it worse. We issued and campus for all, diversity, inclusion and freespeech documented these pressures between the drive to make campus more inclusive and open to all students from all kinds of backgrounds making sure they can learn and feel comfortable and accommodated at the university but also arguing those changes should not and must not be robust for Academic Freedom and the two sides of this debate talk past each other part more inclusivity, and those defending free speech come together, so that is not saying it is easy but fundamentally about racism and sexism. People concerned about racism and sexism wont come to people promulgating racism and sexism. I dont disagree. Not all people with the language of free speech come in peace. What has happened in the last few months, those who are advancing whether it is racist or sexist or antigay agenda, calling themselves freespeech advocacy, free speech at berkeley, really about a particular political agenda, the danger that we see is rising generation of students becoming alienated from the concept of free speech because they fear is being invoked only to protect ideas and speech on the other side. That is a real risk. What we try to point out his freespeech is for all of us if we are going to challenge the administration, challenge a professor in order to assert your views, we have to reclaim free speech as a treasured value, not on the right or the left. That is the angle we come from. A new problem. These things flareup from time to time but we are in a specific, the dynamic has become particularly toxic, dont know how you break out of it because there is on the one hand a generation gap about free speech as a first principle or absolute value. A lot of people younger than me think safety or inclusion or diversity or tolerance are more important than letting the nazis march which is civil libertarian tradition i grew up in. I wonder if part of the reason is because fascism does seem closer than it ever has before. It was one thing to make an argument we should let the nazis march when you couldnt imagine somebody only a couple steps from them would be in the white house. Now there is a reason people are much more alarmed about mainstreaming these ideas and people feel such an intense need to hold the line on what is acceptable. What steve bannon and the rest are doing is to expand the realm of what can be said in public and decent society. That is what he means when he says politics are downstream from culture but we are in a bad place where for a lot of alienated young men, the site where you can be transgressive, throwing the norm of Polite Society and dont have to secondguess what you say, you can be your true self, if they feel like that, the right, something people like milo yanoupolis are good at playing on, that University Culture becomes the culture of tiptoeing around things and strictures and watching your words, inasmuch as the right is able to be the swaggering rule breaker, is going to keep attracting a lot of alienated young men and the more they push the more people, the more response they get from the trigger warning left or whatever, the more they feel, i dont think it is not right when they say we are the new punk rock but they are getting the same legs. If you pander to what they believe, the stereotype, hold the line, do you invite them in and argue them or do you push them out . What do you think . A couple things implicit in this. The other side of the point is a very real, democracy can be undermined democratically. To use the threadbare comparison that is still relevant, hitler being elected and not seizing power, the idea of how we combat fascist movements i dont we have a full picture of what antidemocracy looks like. We can only conceptualize or we can only conceptualize it as a kind of robust and laissezfaire approach to free speech but someone who has studied race in this country can tell you very easily the whole antidemocratic tradition in this country was enhanced by the First Amendment and what i mean is this, in 1915 when the birth of a nation was released, web do boys dubois and William Monroe trotter, the civil rights leader, wanted the film not to be shown. The naacp which was a fledgling organization, there was an internal debate saying do we want censorship, this is not an abstract academic question because birth of a nation was directly responsible for the rebirth of the ku klux klan. This is not should i be able to say this, it is directly related to lynching black people. When you have a Hierarchical Society even Civil Liberties can be deployed in ways that reinforce the hierarchy. If we want to know the history of this country we would know that, we are willing to look at the history of the country, that would be apparent to us. Are you in favor of the First Amendment . Of course you are. Are we in favor of Everything Else in a healthy democracy, to answer your point, when we saw charlottesville, the city of charlottesville tried everything they could to prevent the gathering from happening, this was not a matter of free speech but intimidating as a public, these people were interested in a violent atmosphere and so on and they would knock down three times, the aclu defended the right of the far right groups to organize and once they got together they did what one would expect, they gathered around a church with the first people inside and all had torches. Anyone, have an inkling of understanding how antidemocratically history of this country has been, Something Like this would lead, we should be mindful of an array of threats to democracy, not a singular one. Thank you. [applause] do you trust young people as a whole or society as a whole . Sometimes you have to take absolute steps to limit freedom because you cant trust society to regulate. Is that possible with students . Should they be free to make these judgments themselves . That is a good question that depends on what you are talking about. Should be able to keep secrets they dont like offcampus . Should they make certain demands of their professors . Sympathetic to professors i have spoken to who feel like they have to walk on egg shells in front of their students, worried they are going to say the wrong thing and be brought up on a title ix complaint. I had a lot of criticisms in this book but it was a kafka kind of thing she had to go to, Disciplinary Procedure she had to go through. I also think something i dont trust, i dont trust any kind of speech restrictions we decide to allow against the right will only be used against the right especially when the left is not in power in this country. It is true that a lot of the examples of campus crackdowns on freespeech dont get as much attention but you hear about scholars all the time who lose their jobs or Say Something intemperate about trump or white people, basically Tucker Carlson on fox news because he doesnt want to write about trump making deals with democrats, when not talking about dirty gypsies he is talking about somebody said something in east tennessee, lets rile up the country. My fear is once you start temp arising the value of free speech it becomes harder to demand that it be upheld as an absolute principle when it is the right trying to shut out the left. Safe spaces inherently difficult for people who want to explore ideas even rejecting the unwanted crawler and you pay up with institutions where risk is completely removed from the equation so intellectually there is a price to pay. Some versions of safe space are another term for freedom of association. You have the right to get together with a group of people who agree with you on who to vote for or share your values or love us or not, what might bring you together, a group of likeminded people for a meal, a meeting, that is different from the think a whole campus or a whole dormitory or dining hall a safe space for a certain set of ideas and alternative set of ideas are unwelcome. We have laws that protect people against harassment and threats and that is important, if people are being targeted or personally attacked in the environment where they live they cant learn. That is not Healthy University environment and responsibility of the university is to protect students against that. At the same time being an open space for all ideas. I think the university can create the opportunity for safe spaces, can find them, you should know when you walk into one, you shouldnt find yourself sitting at a table and discovering because you think a certain way that is out of bounds. That does undercut the role of the university to encounter things that are difficult or challenging. Jelani cobb is right that we have to be attentive to dangers we havent seen in the last lifetime around marginalization of particular communities, authoritarian tendencies and turning a blind eye to that is a big mistake. At the same time empowering the university, particularly this government, social media platforms to police and regulate speech, draw lines, to decide what is out of bounds surrenders our rights and will end it being used in ways that are the opposite of what we in this room might be in for. Not sure it is that complicated. You can safe space in a way that is not common to how i understood it on College Campuses. Anyone who has been in my classroom, if you know what i think at the end of a class i have failed. Shred that up and write the opposing argument. Honestly and sincerely. If youve never seen that much fidgeting, physically uncomfortable, but you have to engage the opposite perspective or the perspective is 90 askew. I think think this is what the beautiful aliment, most beautiful element of universities remain. But thats not what people i think are talking to the complaint about that . No. One persons that can arise in favor of the border wall without writing something racist . Im like, thats the question. Im not going to tell you. Im not going to help you. What it is said to you, you are making me a spouse that you i dont want to do, that makes me uncomfortable . Thats a good point. Its like telling her personal trainer im uncomfortable right now. [laughing] will the university back you up . I suspect, i ask you to write an exercise that difficult i think that would be the other part, say spaces is much more to get what we think about in terms of workplace culture. Like, you dont walk into your workplace and generally and refer to everybody by four letter words because in most workplaces that would be frowned upon. Or there are kind of sexist behaviors that we think of or culturally insensitive behaviors or any other kinds of things that we know are not appropriate. We are saying simply as i have understood all to be used is that we want to create a kind of common sense of community about what are acceptable and unacceptable ways of interacting. There are people who feel like the inability to marginalize other people is, in fact, marginalization themselves. People who confuse that with marginalization. This is where this conversation comes from is the question of intolerant and intolerance of the intolerant. What were saying is people have the right to freedom of expression, they can go out where with what to talk and go on social media and blather on but is there some responsibility of institutions not to give them a platform . Is earth should have would be no platform with no risk of being accused of restricting free speech . Is there a criterion or could there be a criteria . Either one. What could the criteria be . That seems like would be a long project trying to elucidate those criteria. I think right now we dont have strong criteria which is what makes this whole thing so fraught. For example, ben shapiro spoke at berkeley earlier this week. I dont like ben shapiro. I dont agree with anything that he says but to be honest there was understand the because they reflect like powerful Political Tendencies in this country. But he is treated i think as being inseparable from say like Richard Spencer or milo in some ways is an easier case big you can say should be speaking at campuses because erastus individual students. Thats kind of part of his shtick spirit does intent to play the part . Hes delivery time to cause, you can make a intent. I would think so. I would hope so but no platforming, i do worry about that is just kind of expands and expand and expands, and people who have little bits of people, people feel like they very low power in this world for good reason, i of venue which they can exercise some power. And our kind likely to that as far as it can go. Because they still marginalize and they still victimize and they deserve to have those feelings, but tied are trying to get, make sure republicans, Condoleezza Rice cant speak on your campus is not necessarily i think, it might be the only venue that you can exercise power but its not, its neither useful for advancing progressive ideas. Someone who writes about the right you cannot overstate how gleeful the right is when ever one of these incidents breaks out. To them it is just, not just they see it as a recruiting tool against like animated young men. I think you cant overstate a a deliberate the current recruitment of alienated young men on video games and all this kind of stuff. You see men in the book talks about this deliberate, seeing this Massive Network of people, as a possible source of Political Energy if they could just be channeled in the right direction. I wish that progresses would stop giving them giftwrapped presents. What do you think . Theres an important distinction to be drawn in terms of a campus where a liberal policy with respect to any student to be able to invite the speaker to campus. Thats the policy and someone is invited, for the university that disinvited that individual is a pretty certain step. Viewpoint specific and they are imposing a set of ideas on the whole campus. I think that should be the very rare exception. Its different when you talk about a Commencement Speaker and its of the university putting their step out of that this is a person of the steam that we recognize in this way. I think those decisions need to be made in a very considered by. Terribly awkward anything conversing for harbor to rescind, pretend they didnt recognize the calling someone a fellow at the Kennedy School was a marked distinction and honor. How absurd . This is about the Kennedy School and harvard. But i think rescinding [talking over each other] i think its a good example of the fact that when you legitimize these tactics they are not just going to be used against the far right and in a lot of ways they are probably more likely to be used against the left. One of the i think the biggest threats to free speech on College Campuses is the attempt to criminalize bdf, right . [applause] but the argument against doing that is that this is a space for free speech, even if some part of your students believe that this is hateful and triggering and all the rest. Okay im going back to the distinction between things we dont like and things that actually people have reason to feel threatened by. And i think im not in favor of anyone being sheltered from speech they dont like. Or that you disagree with or even that offend you. But but i am talking about the kind of blind spot and the ability to recognize the actual kind of legacy of the things were talking about. We are pretending that we dont know are donald trump came from. There is a genealogy this country that nurtured and sustain those thoughts until they could reach the pinnacle how they have achieved now. And that they could pluck summerlike steve bannon and place him as a Senior Advisor and gorka and miller, whatever kind of reactionary elements that have found themselves avoid by this. We know that where this comes from. I think that is kind of a different thing. That said, i dont think, and to suzanne point, you should amplify that 10,000 times Commencement Speakers are supposed to be boring. [laughing] most people did not remember the Commencement Speaker at the graduation. To which i said exactly. But i think its the point because you were specifically because you are endorsing that person, that you should go for the person just like you know pick them. I give outcrops to hungry children. [inaudible] is a free issue in your collectivist. I dont know of the specifics of that but it seems to me on the face of it that was what harbor did. And also this was the same time it came out they had rescinded in their acceptance of the woman of africanamerican woman who is accepted in history, right, because she had very troubling history. She spent 20 years in prison for killing her own child. But that wasnt why they rescinded it. They rescinded it because theyre afraid of what other people would say because, in pacific i was talking to student in the vasectomy its not the students thats the word. Its the parents who often are paying the money and universities are frightened of parents. They might say im paying 50,000 from a child to come to the school. I cant believe you are allowing ask to come and speak. Did you think the concern about this comes from people outside the university, the parents . There are precious some donors, media pressure and yet people talk about this Michelle Jones case were very open of being freda fox is getting hold of the fact she got funded for her participation in this graduate program. It really is the role of the university to stand for these larger values recognizing, yes, you are going to be buffeted by whole range of precious and theyre going to people who dont like it. Their job is not to be universal claim in beloved. Is her evidence frightened . Yes. Kind of open. They should be like that but they are not. Its heartening that jelani, whose great lessons will be supported by his university, but theres a risk, as harvard has shown we made this decision to kelsey manning. Someone objects or five minutes later and they rescinded it. Is that not it will for universities to make a difficult decision and stick by . Absolutely. We need to put as much pressure whether the left for the right when they make these decisions where, the problem with kelsey manning, they theoretically said she did so, speak but that was sort of an afterthefact kind of what they should do is say absolutely [talking over each other] she has an important perspective whether you agree or accept what she did or not no matter your views. She part of the Public Discourse and two disinvited in this way when it seems pretty clear shes not going to go there. Her views are not going to be her. Its a real problem especially to do it under pressure under the circumstances here. Can i give a quick point . One of the things thats a illustrative of how were conflating a lot of things, a lot of Different Things to get in this conversation, which is when yale had issue about free speech on campus, the students who felt, and also a faculty member who felt that free speech was being i guess in some way impaired, they were responding to an email which suggested may be you dont wear blackface on halloween. I i mean, ive read that email. I think its more than that, you shouldnt go with any living person. I once went following as that girl who carved that backwards b into her cheek. I feel like that would have been forgotten under that policy. What we should do is draw a distinction. That seems to be the conflation the goes on in universities themselves, Something Like that versus someone who is lacking at. At. That should be a relatively clear line to draw. Even if youre saying this, okay, any living person, whatever, there are lots of other things you can do people may not like but theres no way you can say that we cant tell, first off, the marginal numbers of students of color who are on these campuses in the first place as a legacy of these institutions that have a history of explicitly reading the students to come to this place. And then when there is some really inconsequential number who manage to find a way to the campus, we say as a kind of fee for your existence in this space, you have to tolerate other people marching around in blackface and were going to call this freedom. I dont think it was really about, i think everybody agreed that certain costumes that are deliberately or wantonly offensive ought to be out of bounds. It was a question of how directive and prescriptive universities should be in detailing chapter and verse of different costumes and what was and wasnt appropriate. In a sense that students could make these decisions and judgments for themselves. They might get it wrong at times but thats part of the experience. Like the experience you offer obligate thanks through different lenses and learning through interaction with other students, you know, what those boundaries are and should be. I think you could defend the original memo, but i also think theres a real case that it was sort of a memo and then another counter memo, that the intention of the counter memo was really to put that responsible in the hounds of students and theres a case for that that use people are going up, living in a diverse environment. Id exercise good judgment but its a something university should necessarily prescribed to them. I understand. So we should say we will let you all up in the black people into vivid campus, which some of the black students did come until you figure out this behavior tends to make the black students leave campus. [applause] and i dont mean, im not saying this, literally there were students leaving the campus because of this. When you talk about, when you go into these institutions that have problems with retention, one of the key things they say is that students feel alienated, students of color feel it ended other campuses. I know this as who speaks quickly. Every institution i go to, abba, private, college, university, midwest, southwest, post, whatever theres a cost of students is a i feel completely alienated in this place. I do stand exactly why they feel that way. In sanko also the other thing is the consistency of it. What is this, september 16, 17th . We will say in six weeks will have some university somewhere when it will be hollowing and someone will be Walking Around in blackface. It happens of you. Its kind of a pattern wherein this happens again and again and again and then people confronted by and say politically correct. The final point i will say about this is that im not arguing against free speech. Im saying that we have all sorts of other things that we recognize that if we take a kind of unregulated, completely unregulated approach to them they wind up with ends we dont intend to the Second Amendment is a great example. The fifth amendment and the property of rights, the due process clause of the fifth amendment is wonderful into people use it as a basis for preventing the emancipation of slaves. You can use democratic principles in undemocratic ways. Its the point of making. We had to be cognizant of that. Its not a matter of curtailing things. How do you strike exquisite balance . Is a not absolutes, but were trying to find a balance between competing ideals. I suspect the question is can you trust the people running these institutions to strike that balance, moments where they get it wrong. Im conscious weve not turn doo you guys yet. Does anyone want to ask a question . Raise your hands and someone with a microphone i believe will come and find you lets go for the person you are nearest to and then we will move around. I actually just graduated from the university of virginia and i am from charlottesville. Ive got a brother and sister the right now and ive got a question kind of about the practicality of bringing this conversation that were having to people who might not want it to infiltrate their daytoday lives on a regular basis. Basically, ive got a lot of friends on one side who dont want to anything about this free speech versus say states argument. They want to live their own lives evidently without the privilege or the problems of other people. And then there are a lot of people who as you say feel alienated by the lack of presence of other africanamericans on the campus. How do you start to that that conversation in a way that doesnt feel like its attacking either side, or alienating either side, but really starts to bring people together and to have them understand the problems that each are facing . Is it healthy at least have conversations like this . I think, dialogue between these different groups is at the essence of how were going to get past this. One of the first things we did will be issued a report is brought together group at of the top student leaders in the campus protest from around the country with freespeech experts just to talk facetoface about why it is that people are arguing that freespeech protections in some situations, these people exposed and endangered, why it is that those who spend their life advocating the First Amendment think that it can offer adequate protections, and we find when people sit down facetoface, they might not agree perfectly particular spectral and edison. I watched the ben shapiro lecture at berkeley good night and its other of the invited people who disagreed to come to the front of the line person asked the question, and do a lot of challenging questions any adjective. It was a real exchange. We need more of that to get away from these showpieces, grandstanding, people come to parade on campus, cloaking themselves in the mantle freespeech but simply to provoke and instigate and to deliberately anger without any real interest in conversation, giveandtake, empathy, hearing at the other side, learning what is the experience of africanamerican students on campus, what is it there asking for this . It was important to know the history of that memo and there is a hissy fit. If you understand that history you dont look at it as a character and say this is preposterous, its been tantalizing, its a students cementing the about university. Theres more to it. I agree, i think theres more to that we might come out differently on the whole crisis but i think that kind of dialogue is essential and we just need to do more of getting people into been together to have it. Another question. This question is in particular for jelani but also for whoever else wants it to. A lot of the time i would like to hear what you think about the media narrative around how to define freespeech advocates to lay claim to it. I apologize if this was addressed in the first five minutes. It wouldnt let me in. When students of color, when women, when trans students are made to leave academia or, for example, even online with people close their twitter accounts because theyve gotten so harassed that they cant speak in the Public Comments anymore, that to me is a major freespeech issue and it has been framed that way in the feminist community. But in the Corporate Media narrative in particular you will hear generally about my those freespeech rights, and coulters freespeech rights being taken when we asked to be accountable for their speech or for not harassing people actively and targeting people with that. I think thats what weve been saying. Theres this conflation and also people use absurd example script are things that you wouldnt find defensible at all with people like even the kind of lower tip kipnis situation whee is being basically persecuted because she wrote an article that someone disagreed with. I think also the left is guilty of deploying the term violence in ways that just, we deployed to say oh, i dont, you didnt speak to me but i cited david you did violence to be. Like everything has become violence such that a think to the extent that i think some of the left is culpable, weve blurred those lines a little bit. But that said i think we still do have like a fair idea of what is threatening, or what is harassment, or what is, like we have laws, institutions of lots of policies around these things and codes of conduct and behavior. I do think its that hard to see it. But i think what weve done, to go offtopic briefly, we done in the subject, the same thing that we done with the 2016 election, which is that people who have embraced a kind of demagoguery approach to life, therefore impaled lots of elements of demography, not the entire democracy itself but a reaction has to be one of unlimited empathy to say im sorry that you feel bad, like what was it that cause you to destroy democracy . [laughing] and perhaps we can hug you and move on from there. Just if it is, you are joining the times to corporate do you think the media covers this issue fairly, responsibly . I think that its not covered fairly and responsibly is like is that theres actually a fair amount of targeting of leftwing professors and kind of leftwing movements. But we are used to a specific narrative of fragile snowflakes cant stand, you know, right wing provocateur. Like i said i do think thats real. And even when it is inflated, even when its kind of blown up past the underlying fact, i dont think you can underestimate how useful that is to the other side. I often say, i cover trouble long time ago i went to ton of trump rallies and i never heard somebody talk about nafta. But people always spoke about being really angry about Political Correctness and being really angry about things that he could just have with wanted anymore. Part of it was they couldnt just kind of cavalierly talk about that and he really resented that. But inasmuch as theres a feeling that kind of liberals want to exert this kind of nannying sort of control over people, even with apperception is exaggerated, it create such a powerful counter reaction that its just worse i think time to do what you cannot to foster that dynamic. Hopefully today weve managed to have a narrative to look at more nuanced than that. Let me thank the panelists. [applause] [inaudible conversations] ready . Welcome. Glad to see such a big crowd at the best law school in brooklyn. [applause] all right. And alone recently suggested that we should say we are the Harvard Law School of kings county, but im sure that harvard is ready for the company. One thing that is the case and is one reason why were so proud, once again for the 12th time, 12th 12th anniversary ofe brooklyn book festival to get an opportunity to demonstrate what always been the case, which is this Great Law School is in the forefront, this law school is a center for learning how to use the power of law for the benefit of our community, nation and the world. So thats no small thing. Lets just get right at a a fie in for a real treat because weve got two fanic
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.