Variety of Early American History religion and culture. But he is perhaps best known as one of the most prolific and important historians of the American Civil War and of course Abraham Lincoln. He has received numerous prestigious awards including the lincoln pride, the Abraham Lincoln Institute Book prize and the authors regularly a number of articles that are published in leading newspapers, usa today, the wall street journal, the Washington Post and hes featured regularly on television and radio programs such as nprs weekend edition. He is the henry luke professor of civil war era at Gettysburg College where he serves as director of the Civil War Era Studies Program however he is on sabbatical from Gettysburg College this year and he serves as William Garwood visiting professor in the James Madison program of american ideals and institutions at Princeton University. You can learn more about his work either by visiting his web site allen guelzo. Com but perhaps most importantly allen is a regular speaker at the union league of philadelphia and the Abraham Lincoln foundation. He is also a member of the union league of philadelphia so please join me in welcoming our distinguished speaker, doc there allen guelzo. [applause] what a pleasure it is to be a traduced by joan carter always the most gracious of introducers and to be invited to speak in this place that memorializes Jack Templeton whom i remember as a physician and her friends so there is privileged on all points to be enjoyed as participating in this series. What we know today as the First Amendment to the federal constitution originally appeared in the form of a resolution attached by the Virginia State ratifying convention to its approval of a new constitution in june of 1788. That resolution declared that the free exercise of religious worship cannot be canceled, are bridged, restrained or modified by the new congress which has been created by the constitution nor can any other essential rights among which were listed for liberty of conscience and of the press. This resolution was taken up by James Madison and then rewritten and adopted by the senate in september of 1789 and finally ratified by the states on march 1, 1792 in this for him. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. Madison was confident that the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment were the source for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression. Even so there were freed and backsliding in american politics starting with the alien sedition act of 1798 which attempted to criminalize seditious libels uttered about president john adams. That was followed by mob assaults on political speakers in the streets of new york and baltimore in 1804, in 1810, in 1811 and 1815. In 1835 alone there were 147 political riots in the United States leading to the deaths of 63 people, a riot in fact in illinois in 1837 and did in the death of the abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy and prompted the first great political speech of the upandcoming illinois Abraham Lincoln. Not until after the First World War did the u. S. Supreme Court Finally and unambiguously declare the triumph of madison dr. And saying an abrams versus United States that the best test of truth is the power of the thought did get accepted in the competition of the market and not the action of a mob or the sanction of the magistrate. And get nearly 250 years after James Madison hailed the First Amendment as the triumph of reason and humanity we once more find arguments after argument being deployed and especially to overthrow that triumph and silence free speech. This overthrow comes not in the old guys of brute tyrannical force put in the new cultural sensitivity. It involves an argument against free speech which arrives in two stages. First of all culture is distinct from the political and therefore does not enjoy the protections of free speech and that all speech is really cultural and knows speech deserves protection. Let me give you some examples. In her Constitution Day lecture at Princeton University on september 20, the chair of princetons Anthropology Department dismissed any idea of an absolute liberty for free speech. After all nowhere are people allowed to say whatever they want in any context with no social, economic or political repercussions. There are some varieties of speech but nobody tries to invoke the First Amendment to protect. What does is serve to distinguish the speech that does from the speech that doesnt deserve the shield of the First Amendment . Rouses answer is culture. Culture she says is what helps us determine the appropriateness of speech by balancing our rights as enshrined in the constitution with understandings of confidence. This seems to be true since no one suggests that cultural vulgarity or profanity or simple bad manners are things that the First Amendment is designed to protect. The problem is that by culture, rouse does not actually mean vulgarities or profanities are bad manners. What she calls culture is in fact politics. Only now by calling a culture she no longer considers itself guilty of suppressing speech protected by the First Amendment amendment. A Climate Change skeptic she explains is not actually a political dissident but an offender against a perceived culture and as such has no right to make claims about Climate Change as in all the science discovered over the last x number of centuries were irrelevant and not just Climate Change. In december of 2016 rows organized a walkout by students on a lecture at princeton by sociologist Charles Murray charging and a flyer that murray representative the normalization of racism and classism and academia. This is the same Charles Murray who was then shouted down and physically attack on march 7 by student activists at Middlebury College who were also if offended by murrays departures from their culture and in a more sensational on may 23 campus authorities that every State College refused to protect biology professor weinstein from physical threats by angry activists after weinstein questioned the wisdom of the day of racial absence that excluded white students from the evergreen state campus. In a foreshadowing a rouses constitutionalist asian of the activists insisted that weinsteins questioning violated the norms of evergreens culture. He has incited White Supremacists and he has validated White Supremacists and nazis in our community and in the nation complained one activist and i dont think that should be protected by free speech. By redefining political speech as culture the speech silencers are allowed to claim that your speech is not really political. Instead it is offensive or threatening to my whiteness or or gender or values and is therefore outside the protections of political speech. We may laugh at this as another example in which political censorship is simply called by another name. Nevertheless shell game or not this is one of the numbers of University Students who told the Brookings Institute survey that they do not believe the First Amendment protects offensive speech now outnumber those who believe that it does. By 44 to 39 and why fully one fifth of those students believe it is acceptable to inflict physical harm on those who are deemed to have made offensive and hurtful statements. Because its all culture, not politics even though it isnt. So what James Madison worked to attain in the name of reason and humanity now yields to the dictatorship politics masquerading as culture as though the nation and its institutions were a tribe rather than a republic and any unapproved remark understood as a defection from an established cultural order. There maybe some relief in realizing that the attacks on free speech in the name of culture have a history of their own, a history which from time to time has gained a measure of credibility only to have its underlying folly pull it back out to sea. The puritans of Massachusetts Bay were confident enough with their culture to insist that any deviation from it was simply a departure and toleration of that infidelity would only sow doubt and confusion among true believers who needed no further truth. He that is willing to tolerate any religion road nathanael poured in 1647 or discrepant way of religion besides his own unless it even matters that just in the doubts of his own are not sincere enough. Supporters of the alien sedition acts were no less confident in the axioms of their culture and likewise felt no need to learn anything from what they regarded as palpable error. Truth has but one side and listening to air and falsehood is indeed a strange way to discover truth wrote a pennsylvania lawyer Alexander Hansen and what might have passed for a parity of rouses princeton lecture. Contempt of free political speech were the principle characteristics of american defenders who also believe that they representative a culture of sorts based this time on race. In 1835 postmaster general amos kendall yielded to demands by slaveholders to censor abolitionists materials from the u. S. Mail and justify this decision by appealing to Cultural Values over political liberty. We owe an obligation to the laws but a higher one to the community in which we live and the former be so as did destroy the laughter it is patriotism to disregard them. What we deal with today in the confusion of politics and culture and excuse for suppressing speech is not new but todays culture despisers are not merely victims of the semantic confusion of culture and politics and this is what leads to the second stage of this new strategy of overthrow, his second stage which says there is nothing which is legitimately political anymore that all political speech really is cultural and those can be severely regulated without any reference to the First Amendment. In fact the First Amendment becomes a letter. The genealogy of the second stage begins with karl marx or rather with the italian marxist Antonio Graham ski. Graham ski believed that marks had missed an important detail in describing how the working class should one fine day overthrow the capitalist class. Marx described it as oppressed by the political and economic power of the ruling classes. Graham ski however believe that matters were personal to the working class as oppressed he said not only by the political and economic power of the european classes but ruling class culture which entices and persuades the working class to adopt the Cultural Values of their norms. Political revolution therefore would have to be about the overthrow of that culture first. Graham skis ideas among americans of the left in the 1960s under the plea of free speech complained herbert mark uzoh tolerance is extended to policies, conditions and modes of behavior which should not be tolerated because the tolerance expressed in such impartiality serve to minimize or even absolve prevailing intolerance and suppression. This is practically indistinguishable from the plea of ward and addison but in the more appealing of the oppressed and the disadvantage. The idea that all political speech really is cultural does however allow us to see a bright line connecting the attacks on free speech with the craze for monument removal that began in may in new orleans and has peaked since the Charlottesville Riot in august. On one level rage against monument may seem like an exercise in cultural criticism especially if the monuments are examples of bad taste. Think of a rocky statue on the steps of the museum of arts. But in the world of marxist ideology after gramski culture absorbs politics. Hence the confederate statues in new orleans and charlottesville in the eye of the storm cannot be merely statues are cultural artifacts in the usual sense of the word culture. Can better memorials on these terms were never and are never less than what one fervent history professor at the university of North Carolina described as a campaign to take the southern culture of the civil war as just and slavery is that Benevolent Institution and made a very pointed statement about the rule of white supremacy. No, actually the monuments actually it was the laws of the jim crow era that did that. No one has yet shown that general lee defended on his monumental force and charlottesville to burn crosses along the blue ridge. What is cultural only becomes literally threatening and what is offensive only becomes literally lethal when it is translated into regulations. By the same token however removals of offensive speakers or offensive public art become more than merely sympathetic and tedium responses to bad taste. They are a practical and aggressive strategy under the cover of appeals to cultural offense for suppressing political disbelief. Since the goal of the dissent is the destabilization of a political order it should come as no surprise that the cultural rage of the Confederate Monument activists often shades over into furious condemnations of the entire of american history. It is not nearly confederate generals who have become targets targets. Christs church in alexandria virginia decided last month to remove the plaque marking the pew once occupied because it might make some visitors feel unsafe or unwelcome. Student activists at the university of wisconsin in madison campaigned in 2016 2d colonized our campus around a statue of Abraham Lincoln which was deemed belittling because lincoln according to one of the organizers owned slaves and ordered the execution of native men. Nor is it even with american history. In may as the confederate statues were being brought down even a statue of joan of arc was spraypainted. Joan of arc . This is to cloud understanding with words. It is to perform what is called a moral inversion, and intellectual juggling act in which we invoke the language of cultural offense as a stratagem for silencing political dissent. Do not be deceived. Culture is culture and politics is politics and we are in deep trouble when one absorbs the other. But let us not a simplistic. Carolyn rouse is certainly correct in one respect. Culture does influence speech. There is some speech which is rude and some which is foolish and Cultural Values encourage boorish people to censor their rudeness and their foolishness. Even Oliver Oliver Wendell Holmes recognized the serious public arm that can result from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. But what rouse and gramsci ignores the culture and politics really are two different qualities. Cultural inhibitions are fake and consensual and easily viable to transgression and shifting. Politics is about laws which involve crimes and punishments in which take time to implement and time to repeal. Again culture becomes lethal only when power is invoked to terminate the competition. Rouse is also correct to say that there are different arenas of speech. In the private sphere one person can tell another person to stop gossiping or to stop demanding that the umpire be killed without that being a trespass on the First Amendment. While in the public sphere a different standard applies. The problem of rouse does not address is that the line separating the private sphere where the First Amendment may not operate in the public where it does is not always clear. For instance rouse believes that hate speech has no place in the university because it violates the culture of the university and he also believes that the university can add to suppress such hate speech without violating the First Amendment because the university operates within the private sphere and can thus live by its own private rules. But the idea that the university is a private enclave that can establish the boundaries of the culture and political for itself is becoming less and less persuasive. For one thing discouraging some forms of cultural speech in academia may be bad for academia even if culture is not the province of the First Amendment and especially if the discouragement comes not as the result of debate but before the debate has even begun. This would be to introduce into the life of the University Something akin to the spirit of the red queen, sentence first, verdict afterwards. But rouse is in greater danger as america has long since left any precincts that could be called private or even communal. Once upon a time we could speak of private and Public Higher Education as two entirely different worlds and when we did we took for granted that stayed authorized in state funded Higher Education would be prevented from restricting or controlling academic speech since Public Higher Education belongs to the public sphere. While private Higher Education could however wisely or foolishly but the wall of separation between public and private Higher Education has been eroded for the last halfcentury. Funding from public sources now comes constitutes the bulk of Higher Education in the United States, private as much as public whether in the form of Government Research and programs or in a much faster influx of government guarantees of student loans. For all realistic purposes the distinction between public and private Higher Education has ceased to exist and with it so has the assumption that there exists a private world of Higher Education which is somehow exempt from the application of the First Amendment. Ironically if it is hatefulness and hate speech which the despisers of free speech want to target than then it is curious that some of the most vile examples of hateful speech have occurred within the very groves of presumably private colleges and universities and from those most committed to suppressing rather than expanding freespeech rights. On november 12, 2015, 150 black lives matter activists invaded the Baker Library at dartmouth assaulting one female student and shouting to others in the library, and i will pause here to say that as a respecter of the culture of the league of philadelphia i will not entirely repeat the words used. Suffice it to say the activist shouted [bleep] you, you filthy white [bleep]. [bleep] you and your comfort and [bleep] you, the racist blips. This was a way of expressing solidarity with our brothers and sisters across the country who are staring terrorism and assaults directly in the face. Dartmouth College Office of communications subsequently released a statement affirming dartmouth loyalty to the principles of free speech, public protest and inclusivity however the college also declined to take any action against the library because there were no specific violations of the standards of conduct. Some standards, some conduct. Dartmouth was swiftly followed by the demands of black voices incident and another presumably private university, duke where the target shifted from intimidating students to intimidating faculty. Among the demands was the requirement that professors will be in danger of losing their jobs and nontenuretrack faculty will use lose tenure status that they perpetuate hate speech that threatens the safety of students of color. They will also be liable if the discriminatory attitudes behind the speech potentially harm the academic achievements of students of color. This fall three colleges come humanities 110 of course, began with student demonstrations in the classroom which attacked assistant professor Lucia Martinez as a race traitor, antiblack. Driving her to admit that im scared to teach courses on race, gender or sexuality or even to bring these issues up in any way. Im at a loss as to how to begin to address it especially since many of these students dont believe in historicity or object to a fax. The atmosphere was even more intimidating when the guest speaker was shouted down with [bleep] this says being short for people who identify with their birth sex and bleep so College Students will sometimes simply be College Students and walk away but i have some difficulty understanding these examples of speech silencing as anything but hateful and even more difficulty understanding why they are tolerated within institutions where the boundaries within public and private have long since zigzagged away into the distance. When the habit of moral inversion becomes this commonplace and institutions which, like it or not, have become the narrow streets through which young adults must pass in order to gain admission to Economic Opportunity we begin seeing this habit replicated in the larger society. The only consolation, and it does not want to rejoice in, is that the activists who are today the most relentless in their demands will be the first one sent to the wall by the next wave they have sponsored. Last month the university of california at berkeley, the home of the 1960s free speech movement, was slated to host the freespeech week featuring the sensationalistic alt riper baca to her my lowkey and apple is in an event yannopoulos citing extraordinary pressure and resistance if not outright hostility from the universitys administration. There is no question in my mind that yannopoulos demonstrates one of the poorest occasions for free speech but the real issue was stated with admiral clarity by berkeley sidewalk chalk artist hero simply, free speech kills. I am wrought move to save from a very different angle that indeed free speech does kill which is why James Madison was so determined to protect it. Witness Frederick Douglass liberty is meaningless douglas said in 1860 where the right to better ones thoughts and opinions ceased to exist. That is the trend of tyrants. Its the right for which the first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities and powers found it an injustice and wrong and are sure to tremble. It would banish the Auction Block and every chain. Or witness george orwell. It means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Witness benjamin franklin. Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech. Give me the liberty to know and to argue freely according to conscience above all liberties. Witness friend david cho grand. Freedom is almost exclusively freedom for one who thinks differently because of that is terrifying and Political Freedom depend on this essential characteristic. Argue with them if you like but do not expect me to believe that freedom of speech is some disguised puppetry of the powerful. It is to the contrary and indispensable ingredient in the recipe for preventing tyranny the day of the left or the right or in the name of the father and other workers. There are always two questions to be asked at such moments of crisis. Who is to blame and what is to be done. We have now seen just how many hands are soiled with lame for the present crisis of the First Amendment but what is to be done. The great instincts of humanity even when facing catastrophe is to do nothing rather than something. But we will not make ourselves safe by doing nothing. Or by doing as the greengrocer described the in his essay the power of the powerless. Every morning during soviet rule in Eastern Europe he held out a sign workerup asign workers of d tonight. It was a slogan they knew was untrue but he hung out anyway because these things must be done in order to get along in life and guarantee a relatively tranquil life in harmony in society. He warned that this t could only allow the regulators to conceal from himself of the foundations of disobedience. Its a bacteriological weapon so to speak utilized when conditions are ripe to disarm an entire division. So we returned to the question what is to be done. Three things at least. First, make common cause. In his new book, the reflective mark warns people with his own left persuasion not to be seduced by th the air horns and pepper spray of the silencers. We are all voices. People of the left must stop thinking of themselves as the vanguard of a movement whose goal was to replace argument with taboo and run other political speakers on campus in a purging ritual. I entertain a galaxy of disagreements on specific policies and plans, but on the Common Ground of citizen h key d by our flesh of the same flesh and bone of the same bone and we must seek each other out. Heres another example of common cause. This fall, 15 distinguished academics from yale, princeton and harvard including Robert George and adrian van mule published together a letter of advice for the class of 2021 urging the students to remember that and to seek truth and to learn the skills and acquire the virtues necessary to be a lifelong truth seeker and princeton president in his remarks at the University Open exercises september 10 insisted that independent thinking is at the heart of the liberal Arts Education and rests on a careful and respectful engagement with views very different from your own. The layers of reference for Free Expression which underlined the First Amendment are deep in american life. But it cannot be felt unless on all hands americans of democratic will set aside their partisan chips for a moment and trust each other enough as citizens to say that the outrage against free speech must end. Second among the things that must be done, defined. The antifree speech activist are not great in numbers but possess deep wells of financial support. Much of it through foundations and charities to which you and your firms are often asked to contribute. To the extent these organizations are private entities they have exactly the freedom for which i plead to state their minds. The institutions of Higher Education were the most visible suppressions are not at least in any meaningful sense of the term. And in todays financial environment, they are responsive to the slightest philanthropic or legislative disapproval. 35 experienced declines. Even at a time when the overall market rose by 13 . As a whole community an commandd College Endowments shrink acrosstheboard by 2 . Middlebury college suffered a 9. 1 loss of its endowment value into dartmouth lost 4. 1 while the College Colleges in colleget environment lost 5. 4 . By the end of 2017, Moodys Investment Services predicted that the closure rate of small colleges could easily triple over that of the last decade. These were not in other words institutions which can afford to ignore inquiry into their patterns of speech suppression. It is time to press on that weakness. This is not a pleasant recommendation for those whom it appeals to the alma mater are the motive for writing and for contributions. I ask only. There is the centricity and we are talking about orchestrated campaigns to solve the fundamental liberties of the American Republic tolerated by campus administrators in equal measure fear pond take the confrontation as a threat to their Career Advancement and who hope that no news leaks out to the press and alumni. Target you your giving as intelligently and purposefully as the target your personal investing. Stand for those that stand with free speech, defined as those who will not and do not pass by on the other side. Finally, act. The stakes here are not minor. On october 4, black lives matter activists stormed the stage at william and mary in public Virginia Institution where the American Civil Liberties unions declare is about to speak on students at the First Amendment. They drown out with cries of aclu you protect fiddle [roll h. You must. I have no regards for the fanatics of the right or the new red guards of the left. What i do know is that both in the death of free speech so they have raised their hand against the law that guaranteed us the exercise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When you see and hear such attacks on free speech, speak, write, expand, rebuke testify. Its so important to make meaningless noises and hope of being spared yourself and by the same token when you see foolish people parading foolish ideas about race or gender or equal to become a race ideas that show again by how you respond even under the greatest of provocations no one is authorized integrator for him of the republic life. As a man seeking to excuse the stupidity of others or as an academic eager as we so often are by telling stories of academic folly out of school i do not even now speak as unamerican, but as a friend to all disenfranchised community and the everlasting war between the commoners and kings which is why i say when they finally feel emboldened enough to come into the nooses and baseball bats or whether for Charles Murray or caroline ross, i say take me first. When they come for the pentecostal beakers, for the mormons, the jews, catholics, the eps, i say take the first. When they come for you, my friends, i am still here to save, i will say take me first. That is the answer of James Madison, the First Amendment, the only worthwhile answer of the free spirit. Thank you. [applause] thank you, professor they will now have questions and answers. I would like to know your take on the kneeling during the National Anthem i remember a rusher dot on a sports team that who carried an American Flag of the 54th massachusetts volunteer is and its attack on Charleston South Carolina in july of 1863. It was one of the first to be recruited after the emancipation proclamation. The attack was almost a suicide mission. They demonstrated to be driven out with heavy losses. The rusher im thinking of was the color sergeant of the regimen. His name was william h. Carney. Hed been born a slave. He wasnt a free man or soldier. He brought the stars and stripes off the ramparts of fort wagner despite being wounded in the chest and the lead and staggered back to the Field Hospital and before he collapsed he surrendered the flag into the hands of several others there saying it never touched the ground. For the first of january 1863 when lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation into law, that man didnt have a flag or a country. He was a slave, he was not a person but in 1863 he was a free man and a three man that was no symbol then greater value than the flag. So you understand its difficult for me to understand why people would insult them by taking a knee whatever that means. I would not do that myself nor can i encourage anyone to do likewise no matter how much they disagree with policies or politicians. And yet for the right to do it i would be the first to defend them for i know of no federal statute which forbids which was done or if anything in the constitution. And i am no more eager to suppress someones dissent expressed even in that symbolic fashion. I am no more eager to suppress that than to have been suppress mine on other issues. It is the genius of democracy that the law we passed for others also rule us. If i want freedom of speech in the publics sphere they might expecmightrespect others no matw much i disagree with it and wish it had not happened. I come back to the decision the best response to the speech that you disagree with, the speech of your own that competes in the marketplace of ideas. I do not know of any other way a free and open society can conduct itself. Does that mean he takes risks and encourage embarrassments . Yes. But in the long view they fade and i think i will take the chance. That is a long answer. [applause] i wonder what you think about the fact a private Quaker School refused to have a muslim person who was a faculty at swarthmore after being scheduled told he couldnt speak their. I know a doctor who told me on one occasion when i told her i was attending a holiday concert where i heard a wonderful arrangement of all holy night. She said when i was in high school i tried out for singing a solo and i was going to get it except at the last minute decided it wasnt a good idea for the soloist in only night to be jewish. And i have to say i think the same thing in this case as well. And again im willing to take those risks. You speak of a Quaker School and i dont know all the details of this but indeed if it is a private institution, founded privately through the donations of the tuition of those that are a willingly part of the community, then inhabiting the private sphere they have the right to set up the rules just as in my household i have the right to say to my three children eat your vegetables. Actually, i dont see that to them anymore, they say it to me. [laughter] they are too big for me to say that there was a time that i d did. If that school genuinely is a domicile or private organization, then yes they have the right to determine who will speak and who will not just as any church or synagogue has the right to determine who will speak for who will preside. It is when we crossed the boundary it becomes less and less convincing and the argument for exclusion become more and more onerous and ominous at the same time. And institution after institution that i am acquainted with even when there are arguments put forth in the name of being a private organization, i know full well that in fact the lifeblood of the institution is coming from public funds and i think that creates a serious contradiction when we began talking about exclusion and about discrimination. Perhaps there is a fundamental problem in our Society Today that weve come such become sux and independent society that it is hard to disentangle the public and private. But they have become so pervasive and influenced in what was the private sphere and that is a problem but it is a separate problem from the problem that is posed by people who will take money extracted unwillingly from others and then turn and violate the canons of the constitution. That i find at best deeply questionable and worthy of a loss and i find it ominous for the future. That is not a society that lives up to the ideas of the american experiment or a society that we should have much enthusiasm for inhabiting. I know that sounds grim yet ive seen so many occasions in the past year of behavior that makes me think in grand terms and requires grim responses. Again, a long answer. It issues with your comments on cultural and political. More emphasis should have been put on the path of the culture. And i think what has happened on the left is they have assumed they are smarter than the right and i think that is amplified in the current narrative. I would like you to comment on that. Ive known some intelligent people on the right who behave badly that it grieves me. Ive also known some that have intelligent things we dont like to hear what it was probably a good thing for me to hear. I would prefer to hear all of those voices because i know that i dont know everything. There are some people who believe that they do. We all know who they are, and of course they are not all us. Its not any one particular system. You can find them just about everywhere that you can find human nature. I prefer to look at the question youve raised and it is a good one. If i conclude this is not something that should be learned, how can i say it in such a way that convinces the person i think is wrong. That requires patience and humility. I will not profess to be either patient or humble. But i do say this to my students, and ive set it to them over and over again. There is nobody that you cannot learn something from. I say that in a variety of ways, sometimes it is political, social, economic. I have very Good Students at Gettysburg College. Sometimes i worry they think it makes them better. It just makes them different in the work that you do. There is no buddy, paper hanger, gardiner, nobody but you cannot learn something from. Iinin the moment that you beliee you have moved beyond the need for learning from others im reminded of some advice he said at that moment when you think you know everything field for years and you will find a large pair of donkey ears growing. [laughter] and i say that first about myself. Many years in Higher Education i was the first to tell you brothers and sisters ive got a lot to learn and im going to keep on doing it right until the end of the very last breath. I think if we keep that in view if we keep the sense of knowing that we dont know everything, that may be one of the best guarantees of th a future in whe do not feel grim about each other. I think you know if he becomes a part of democracy. It doesnt become aristocracy because in aristocracies it is built on honor and bragging and manipulation. Democracies see something very interesting. They say as our declaration of independence says that every person comes into this world from the hand of their creator with certain and inalienable rights and among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and everybody has them in the same quantity that is what makes us equal. The idea of democracy actually slides right in the face of that laughter and it says no, the ordinary citizen is in fact capable of governing themselves. And ordinary citizens taken as a group are capable of governing themselves. On the first 100 names in the philadelphia telephone book will govern the city better than aristocrats, monarchs, keynes, and dukes. I think thats true. But because its true, i look at everyone here and all of the fellow citizens with me. And i see in them, citizens. Theres something sacred about that word. Abraham lincoln had a black valet who work for him. Freeman who accompanying the lincolns from springfield, illinois when lincoln was elected president. His name is William Johnson. In january 1864, johnson developed smallpox. He died of it. He didnt have much in the weight of money, and lincoln paid for the funeral and burial and grave marker. It had the name, William Johnson and underneath, one word. Citizen. I know of no title of nobility higher on this planet than that of citizen of the American Republic. As we are all citizens, let us learn from each other let us work with each other and let us speak frankly, firmly, and wisely to each other. That i think is the model the founders wanted to hand down to us. [applause] my name is ryan number senior and holy ghost prep. I was wondering, have you seen recently those who are trying to crush free speech like the students at uc berkeley and dartmouth. Theyre mainly millennials and generation z of those will be the future of america not too long from now. To see these College Students pressuring to change the First Amendment when they become the leaders are creating a culture of fear in which people are too fearful of speaking freely. In my afraid of that . Yes i am. Thats im speaking tonight and whenever i have the opportunity. Its why speak in faculty meetings and Department Chair meetings. Its why speak to individuals and on campuses. Some people probably think i speak too much on the subject, maybe i do. I have to say and you have to say it as well. If what were concerned with the rising generation has no interest or respect for the First Amendment, the constitution of the republic been fine, what is our task . Is it to simon, to regret it and wish it was different . No. Did her task is to speak ourselves. And where the airbornes and the pepper spray try to silence us to bear that burden into speak anyway. Because that is what free people do. So i say to you is young person, from one who is not one young and years but i would like to say still retain some streaks of youth within, what us both joined together and speak and repeat over, over, and over again, those words for which we have filled national cemeteries, that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If that means you and i want terrible day stand on a dusty hilltop back to back down to our last cartridge, then friend, lets go down because thats a principal worth going down for. [applause] i think we have time for one more question. My name is michael, also a student at holy ghost prep. Thank you for taking my question on ask about the nfl protest in the nfl. Some say that they have a constitutional right to neil and the nfl cant take that right away. Theres also those that say is a private organization to protect their profits the nfl can reprimand or suspend or fire them. Which rate do you believe is more important, the players are the owners . The nfl is not a private organization. Who pays for the stadiums they playing . Look at federal budgets and find out how much public money goes in those directions. Much more than you might think. That environment, and rather take my chances on those who kneel, because i can persuade them. If i cannot persuade them then perhaps someone wiser than myself can. At the end of the day if i can persuade them, then i will still live as a citizen before the hoping by my example if not by my words i might have some change in their thinking. At the end of the day, i cannot force another free spirit into conformity. When one they operate within is a fear for boundary between public and private has become porous and he face. Yes, strictly private environment and there are still some a rule can be made, firing can be take place. I have seen much more the way of firings of people who dissented into the other direction. I think of Brendan Aiken james taymor. Think of the Software Engineer who wrote about the difficulties posed by his job in which his friends of the left persuasion fell free to make whatever comments or humiliations they like in the workplace while he had no such liberty but had to hide his opinions. I see more of that and i think that that poisons the life of the republic. Rather than see the i will take the chance of those who kneel, who take the knee in my heart the freedom to make that decision to me is even more precious. [applause] thank you for an outstanding presentation. Before you go, we have a small gift for you which john promised me its right here. This is a guide to the union lake. Im sure most of you who are in this room are aware that the league is filled with the number unbelievably important artifacts, particularly civil war things. This was founded by the Templeton Foundation and i know you are aware of them. Have also funded the templeton liberty series and we thank you for being part of that slight. [applause] think youre wrong for being here. Its a wonderful book and its on sale next week for all our members in time for christmas. Thank you very much. Well see you on january 10 for our next program. Have a good evening. [applause] cspan history series returns this month with a look at Charlie Supreme Court cases. Each week were joined to discuss personal stories and issues behind the Supreme Court decisions. To help you follow all 12 cases we have a companion guide written by tony morrow, landmark cases committed the book of state 95 plus shipping and handling. To get your copy go to cspan. Org. To say James Madison and air force general testify on the pentagons National Defense strategy and the 2018th review. Five coverage at 9 30 a. M. Eastern. You can follow on cspan. Org for the free radio app. Washington journal, live every day with new some policy issues that impact you. Tuesday morning don bacon discusses the House Intelligence Committee memo in this weeks funding deadline. Then jim heinz on the release of the Committee Memo on the latest on the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 campaign. Watch washington journal on tuesday morning. Join the discussion. Monday afternoon members of the House Intelligence Committee for the to release a democratic memo on the Russian Investigation to the white house. The report challenges the member by noon is claiming inappropriate action by Law Enforcement agency. The university of texas at austin on that response to the memo. The first guest of the university of texas hes a law professor their covers National Security issues. Good morning. Guest good morning. Could we get your sense of the assessment of the republican minimum . After all of that think the release on the memo friday was anticlimactic. It doesnt include much beyond what leaked out. Their questions about the steel dossier but it was to provide proof that either the entire investigation is tainted with that rosenstein
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.