Question of the distinction between free speech and Academic Freedom, whether they are, in fact, identical or quite subtly different for very different matters to be concerned with at our institutions of higher education. And carol, i wonder if you would like to take that on first . As i understand it, i think you need to use the multiplex microphone. Thanks. So the question youre asking is by the relationship between a commitment to free speech and the speech of faculty members, and how, the ways in which this issue has been framed in public debate focuses on free speech. Im not the most qualified person to speak about the distinction between free speech and Academic Freedom, but i will say that Academic Freedom is largely about inquiry, and the freedom to pursue even wildly unpopular lines of research in the interest of arriving at deep insights. And with the recognition that many of the most important areas of Research Today were at one time wildly unpopular, frowned upon and dismiss as outrageous were not actually even academic. So when i talk about this issue i came to talk about the ways in which we as institutions of education are committed to creating an environment that is fostered unfettered free by everyone, by students, faculty, everyone. And the free inquiry benefits from inclusion and diversity. That the kinds of questions we ask in the ways in which we can pursue knowledge and create insights benefits significantly from heterogeneity among the people asking the questions. And diversity. Rather than thinking about free speech or Academic Freedom and inclusion is being at odds with one another there is a way to frame this so that inclusion is actually a prerequisite for an expanded notion of free inquiry if we focus on the kinds of questions and issues that we want our colleagues and students to be able to ask and pursue. I think i within the Academic Freedom dimension of your question in that way, that as institutions committed to free inquiry we obligated to protect unpopular lines of inquiry, and we see as as a part of that a commitment to diversity and inclusion precisely because the more heterogeneous a population of people asking the questions, the broader the lines of inquiry will be. Thank you. I think thats actually very helpful. Carla, at a large university, berkeley, for example, a lot of the public not just in california but in the country generally seems to react quickly and forcefully to anything that happens at berkeley. And does it help clarify some of the controversies you have to deal with to draw distinction between free speech and Academic Freedom . Well, i mean, berkeley Academic Freedom of course is also something that shares part of our tradition. As the home of the court student Free Speech Movement, berkeley is always in the publics eyes of a kind of touchstone beacon for that conversation. But i think Academic Freedom in general has been a more faculty focused conversation rather than student focus conversation if we just think about the genesis of the two concepts. Academic freedom is a concept that emerged in the early 20th century around 1919, formed to actually defend the right and the atonement of the faculty to define a space of free inquiry in relation to what was perceived to be potential political interference on the part of administrations. And that idea of the selfregulation of the faculty of his professional life seems to me to be the thing that is at the core of the Academic Freedom conversation connected to the whole history of tenure in the country. And the protection of faculty rights. Free speech in some sense you could see is as the student version of Academic Freedom, the moment of which and i knew mario was quite eloquent on this, where we assumed the mario being the founder of the Free Speech Movement in 1964. Or its most vocal and eloquent i think advocate. Said that freedom of speech comes with responsibility, a responsibly to selfgovernance of students, of the public conversations. There is a sort of connection i think thats what they touch each other, that Academic Freedom in some ways the Free Speech Movement gave students the same kind of responsibility for the duration of the own public conversation and the right to treat that conversation in the same way the faculty had enjoyed at least since the early part of the 20th century. I think they touch each other there. Where they differ, and, of course, they come back together i think most pointedly in an article written by robert post, the dean of yale law school, has been calm his question about whether there should be a defensive freedom of speech in any College Campus, that Academic Freedom is a higher principle on a a College Campus and that the faculty and the administration you have the right to limit and to judge and to adjudicate. I am happy to share that view. I happen to be on the berkeley side of this debate, a site taken by our dean of our law school. But it has come back into the conversation to what extent does the faculty and the administration have the right to sort of limit the kind of speech to exercise professional discretion what kind of speech should be on the campus. So it has been brought back into the conversation, but i think they can be clearly separated. Jonathan, i wonder there are helpful distinction to be drawn here. It appears maybe Academic Freedom is sort of an inside issue as carla or some people describe. Carla describes some people describing it and free speech for the outside issue, the interface of the college for the university with the public at large. Is that a helpful distinction . Ive not thought of it that way, but it wouldnt take much to persuade me that that is an effective way of thinking about it. What it does highlight for me though is this inner outer a affiant to something appointed want to make that it does address your question, about public and private and social good. The fact is you get very different types of universities and schools on this panel and when the most important distinctions is public versus private. Free speech as a constitutional ideal doesnt apply to the private, which most people dont realize. Now, any private dentist would know about embraces the idea of free expression, would be the more accurate way of talking about it in the situation a private university or college here but, i mean, that may be, it helps to understand why public and private very different times what i think outside interlopers acting in bad faith, tried to test free speech on campus. But the reason i raise this in light of your question is it talks about what you think about the public contract of service. Private or public are engaged with. So that we i think this Free Speech Free expression aspect of being an outward facing public good kind of phenomenon is an isolated thinking about it. I think thats constructive. I do think since you raise the issue of my former colleagues bob post and his notion of who can adjudicate speech, i think it is worthwhile thinking about it. The universities and colleges are supposed to be market places of ideas, and absolutely believe in the idea of Academic Freedom and we should be testing all kinds of ideas, comfortable and especially uncomfortable. But i dont think academics, our job is to think we shouldnt be seeking the come are believed to say that is actually wrong. Thats the point of airing out the idea in the first place. And i do think, probably getting ahead of a look at here, this is where notions of Public Safety need to be taken into account, and also frankly calling the phenomena what it is, acts of bad faith by people not interested in free expression, trying to cloud the waters on our College Campuses and University Campuses. So publicprivate phenomenon is a real thing. In her an outward i understand that. I hadnt thought about in that sort of way, but i think they all revolve around we need to be talking about our commitment to improving the quality of the Public Discourse around us everywhere. And that happened inside and outside at private and public. Just from what carla and jonathan that said, seems like we need to make some distinctions that get, theres a kind of category or definitional confusion that takes place in the public debate about this which makes it hard to articulate with clarity what it is colleges and universities are trying to do. And so i mean i do think there is a difference between talking about this in terms of freedom of inquiry and the pursuit of ideas and the constitutional right to free speech, that theres a deep commitment to freedom of inquiry on colleges and University Campuses that is distinctive and yes, build on this notion of constitutional freespeech but analytically distinguishable from it. If you talk with inquiry in that way, inquiry and speech are different, and ideas differ from an epitaph and selfgovernance as coasted selfgovernance and the demand for autonomy and freedom brings with it a responsibly for the public sphere you are creating on your campus. And so how do have a conversation about what that means, and invite the students and faculty and everyone else into helping us to get that out. What kind of public sphere are we creating, what kind of public spheres we wish to create . Can we make it an distinction between id or an argument and epitaph . Icy to make it in to make it if its not refutable its not an argument. If i cant refute it, i just feel sad that life example, jane, you ignorant, its not an argument. Its namecalling. Michael, youve done a lot of thinking of writing on these issues, and i would appreciate you wayne in here on the nexus between Academic Freedom and free speech. Well, i think essence of Academic Freedom is an idea that really is to protect faculty and before the Free Speech Movement of berkeley there were loyalty oath that gave rise to invoking Academic Freedom as we protecting faculty from being fired for belonging to the communist party or its affiliates. And whether that was a proper use of Academic Freedom are not people have debated, but the idea was certainly the faculty as citizens should have the right to participate in any variety of Political Activities without detriment to their professional life as academics. It also has to do with the ability to pursue different strands of inquiry, as academics. Academics. I do think the marketplace of ideas metaphor is about as faulty for expression as it is for economics that is, it works a lot of the time but it often fails as well. Thats because we always have managed freedom of expression. No university has unfettered inquiry. It would be disastrous if you asked the prefrosh to define the curriculum in the chemistry department. We dont have unfettered inquiry in history. There were plenty of topics that would be appropriate for the Orange County chapter of the John Birch Society that will not be on the docket for the american historical association. And a good thing. We managed to freedom of inquiry. So the question for administrators and for professors is what kinds of things do you let people say, what kind of question deal at people ask, and what kind of questions do you see are offlimits . Theres always something offlimits. And so i think asking ourselves what kind of freedom for faculty we think should be protected, and what kind of freedom for faculty we think shouldnt be protected. Not just speech, expression which of course becomes intimidation which becomes harassment which becomes many things that we would have today an easy time saying is an offense or inappropriate under the things we would say well, thats less clear. If you Say Something offensive politically, andrew a faculty member we want to protect your right to do that. Some things we protect, some things we refuse to protect. And on the inquiry side, there are kinds of questions we foster, we actually facilitate certain kinds of questions. And there are other questions we may not outlaw because we dont have to because the culture of academia is extraordinarily conservative and in many classes students to that certain kinds of questions they are just not allowed to ask. And our job, what should i i cl it . Masters of inquiry . Is we decide what kind of inquiry we want to see fostered but i think all of the schools represented here have admissions policies. None of these schools believe in unfettered diversity. They all have come we all have extremely selective admission policies which allows us to Say Something to who want to pursud other things we dont. And so i think if you approach this with the market was metaphor that anybody can come to the table and say whatever the heck they want, i think thats a fantasy of american democracy, a fantasy of academi academia. Just a complete caricature of what anybody would say, right . Of course disciplines have rules. Rules. Theres analytical rigor, better questions and was questions. I dont think anyone would make, would take the position that you outlined. I think you said unfettered inquiry and diversity is essential for the pursuit of researcher inquiry. I think thats, sure, but is also essential that you limit them. I think, i think maybe i think he just called me and ignorant. Caricature. Same thing. Thats an epithet. I copped to the fact im not clear and i think are lots of rules for the ways in which inquiry takes place and are good historical questions and that historical questions. But what governs whether something is a good question are the rules that disciplines of history, right . And where did they come from . And so in some sense im not suggesting him and perhaps i misspoke, that anything goes. Im suggesting that academics who are trained in these disciplines and our train the students in these disciplines be able to pursue without a litmus test for the appropriateness of the field or the topic the questions that they pursue, are the rules of the discipline. Maybe thats a better way of saying get. Maybe another way to clarify that is who would adjudicate. And i think it depends on the context. Even within the campus. What was said earlier about the differences between public and private universities is true although in california a lot actually compels private universities to extend the same kind of public freedoms that public universities are mandated to do. But its correct that we have an obligation to keep the campus is open, to any Student Organization and the public at large. With a particular public mandate that you can enter universities limit. You are hearing something of a cultural difference. That, in fact, is limited by the law. But what, a classroom is perfectly clear who adjudicates come its the professor who adjudicate. The particular professor only, or up to a point, up to a point. With the university of california we do have a regents policy on Academic Freedom. What that does is to draw a line for the purposes of michael i think just described, between a professors private activities and their professional activities. So that in order to protect the right of professors and the freedom of the professors to be politically engaged outside of the classroom. Of course the rubber really hits the road and a professor is teaching politics, and those of the places where we see the most challenge in these environments. So, for example, a professor from the middle east as a particular position on the middle east, that might cost a line between instruction and advocacy. Thats not a simple line to navigate. And many of the controversies weve seen at berkeley, whether its one side of the political spectrum or the other our students who are concerned about, or disapprove of the positions that professors may profess in those particular kinds of settings. And i think thats one of the arenas where weve seen the most stress and its come from both the left and the right in different classroom settings at berkeley. So we just had some people may know a very a controversy where a group of students disrupted of course on the southern borderlands and called a very, very radical fso white supremacist because he is white 80s teaching a course about the struggles of undocumented immigrants on the border. So that gets to the question of who is entitled to speak about what. Correct. And in that case its very clear who has the right to make the decision, the professor. He walked the students out of the class. In theory they were harassing him and in theory he might if the were severe and pervasive enough, thats a legal standard, have been able to file a complaint against them for harassment. But but i think those are wheree start to see these tensions between who adjudicates in the classroom what im saying about roberts posts article is a dont think outside of the classroom that is quite as good. I think its very clear at berkeley that regular Student Organizations have the right to invite speakers and we have a duty, a constitutional duty, to protect that right. I dont think that we come in the state of california at a public university, could apply the post doctrine successfully in a legal sense. This conversation, this latest record to this question of how much, how important the distinction might be between what faculty member say in the performance of their teaching and research duties as faculty members and beyond social media complicated this tremendously. Jonathan, i wanted to ask you whether you think it is appropriate, some people think its necessary, to take into account faculty members socalled extra curricular utterances, what they say online or in various formats that get picked up and the distinction may not be drawn by the public, by donors, by state legislators, by various authorities between whats in the classroom and whats outside. Theres a couple rather notorious and not very good cases, but oberlin and trinity were two places where there were some very difficult controversies. This is the normalcy complicated, in the sense, part of it is quite simple, is what a professors doing in his or her private time, they need to have the right to be citizens. Public history and public memory talking about slavery at president ial plantations. Im jennifer morgan, professor at New York University where i work on colonial histories of enslaved people. I am very excited to be part of this afternoons conversation though my role is primarily to facilitate and to learn. The presenters you have all spent their careers working in public history and have been at the front lines of important