And started laying the groundwork for this relationship moving forward, and its something that if you dont know the work that pen does, its very linked to what we will be talking about tonight in many ways but pen is an Amazing Organization that advocates for authors, for freedom of the press, important things that are tied to the mission we have as well through magic city books and the tulsa literary coalition. Pen is a membership driven program, organization, and if you dont in the their work good to pen. Org and see everything that theyre doing, especially right now. Theres so much going on with limp additions to press limitations to press freedoms. Every day something is happening that we didnt probably know about, at least i wouldnt know about were it not for the work at pen. We have a special membership promo go to website pen. Org and use the code pen friend, all caps, penfriedn sketch and get 20 off membership. So support pen and the great work we as an organization do and more to come on that. Tonight well be talking with suzann nozzles noel and a friend i look up. To ive had the chance to talk to so many authors over the past months and im always thrilled win someone else wants to take that opportunity away from me and i actually get to watch and enjoy it. John is a huge advocate for the work we do through tlc and magic city books and its just a great all around guy and advocate for the arts and culture here in tulsa. So john will take the reigns. If you have questions put those in the q a on zoom if you dont have this book the book does something i love. It has something in it that pisses off everybody in the best upon way. If youre on one side of the issue there will be something that well challenge what you believe and what you think you believe, and to me that is a really powerful thing to do, to make us question what we think of as freedom and what we believe in as kind of the tenets so if you have not gotten the book we have links to buy the book from magic city and well do that several times through the talk. So i want to say a big, big welcome and thank you no Suzanne Nossel and john schumann. Fun to be in tulsa even though im not in tulsa. We wish you were here and some point when the pandemic recedes we want to get you here. I really like the book. It really made me think and congratulations because its very i was so impressed with the thoroughness. Im not in any way a lawyer or legal scholar which you are. And in some ways the second half of the book reads you cite many, many famous Supreme Court cases bought i thought where to start because i lead a college campus, that is one area that you focus on a little bit in the poock is College Campuses and freedom of speech and callout culture, and i could just start by saying, you taught me something which i sort of enough but didnt realize it was a term callin, and so i guess could you just differentiate between callout culture and what you hope people too is callin. Sure. We do a lot of work on campuses at pen america and becomes somewhat alarmed by the quitting that a rising generation seems to be increasingly skeptical pout free speech, and i can understand why. To them they tend to hear free speech principles invoked in relation to speech that is hateful for menacing or derogatory and as a professor, the other students, says its free speech. The university protects is because its free speech. But if you hear a free speech invoked only in that context you can see why someone might become dubious of the idea of free speech, and that is actually one of the reason i wrote the book is out of a concern were at rusk of losing a rising generation children it wams to believing in at the principle of free speech which i grew up seeing as a bedrock of the u. S. Constitution and our culture and what makes this society great, and so i think its extremely important that we find ways to reach this rising generation and when it comes to callouts and callins, i would say just to ground it a little bit, my interpretation of a lot of the controversials that go on, on campus, is there is a tension between the drive that students and many faculty have to render the campus a more equal inclusive and just place, and to eradicate the legacies of discrimination and exclusion that are so stubborn in the country and now reckoning at new level. Sometimes the effort as noble also it is can kind of veer across the doubleyellow line into a degree of censoriousness and seems the best thing to do to foster a sense of belonging among students from marginalized groups or to combat bigotry would to be ban or punish speech, and you can understand what why. In callingout and callingin analysis has to do with how you respond to speech that you find offensive, so if a professor this is a common scenario. A professor will verbalize the nword in class happening twice in this calendar year at the university of oklahoma. All over the country. They may be quoting James Baldwin or mark twain, teaching a Law School Class about the doctrine of fighting words and an example that will rile people up bull students have a strong reaction and think its objectionable no matter what. Doesnt matter that the purpose is ped googlal or the professor didnt many any offense, and so the question is what do you do . And a callout is to publicly shame the person. Can be a petition, through social media, face to face confrontation but something that is visible to everyone. A callinis a disapproach. Behind the scene. Approaching someone privately. The goal is to tell them you have offended me or other people or you may not realize how you words came across, but not to shame. And it really depends on the circumstance, whether you think you can get through to the person, was this intentional or unintentional, were people hurt and do they need to hear your allyship and that public segregation of support . I out line the public discretion of support. You mention apologies and you have a nice short chapter on that includes apologies. What are the component odd a good apology or true apology . Pause i think our culture and our media are replete politicians give what people consider insincere apologies. Its true and i think one result of that is that theres very little space for apology and forgiveness in some of these free speech battles. To me, a convincing apology is one that really accepts blame for what you did. Youre not apologizing just because someone else was hurt or bothered but rather because you acknowledge that you did something wrong. It has to be encompassing and cant clearly delineating and drawing sharp lines what you accept responsibility for. It has to be in the searching and you are willing to acknowledge what you said, if didnt intend consistent be racist. May intelout reach to a group with which you have limited contact. You dont really know much about the Lgbtq Community and theres some work to be done to get to know it getter so you dont stumble in into the same mistakes in the future. One example, just in recent days of what i call pseudo apology is alexandria ocasiocortez was call very nasty misogynist slurs by a representative from florida and purport evidence to apologize bit, anxious, denied having said it when there were witnesses and. , went on and on but the fought he has a daughter and wife and is good to women. And so she skewered that in her apology rebuttal on the floor of the congress. That was an impressive speech. Lets talk more but the broader culture and when you talk about callout, theres an idea of cancel culture where people we have these tools now, social media, twitter in particular, put other, facebook, where somebody says something offensive oranges intendly offends people and very quickly there can be what feel like a storm of protest and theres a cryout to cancel that person. And some of this of course is involved from the Metoo Movement. There has been legitimate legal calls to try people. But there are many examples you cite in the book and i wonder if you can talk but cancel culture and how we can protect free speech but also be mindful. Yeah. One problem with cancel culture is the term is used so elastic include. It can be invoked for everything from as you say instances in the Metoo Movement like a Harvey Weinstein or bill cosby and convicted of crimes and get exiled from the culture and other instances where someone tweets out something that is seen as contrary to the movements to defund the police or is construed as transgender individuals win that wasnt the intent. That lone singular act of speech can evoke this huge backlash and the person becomes almost untouchable and not only are they stigmatized but anybody who engages with them, the stigma carries over. And its sort of societally enforces isolation that extends to consent concentric sole social circled and that is destructive. Its excessive. It is draconian. Theres a kind of enforcement where if you dont adhere to it, you may become tainted and put your own reputation at risk as well, and so i think thats the level of cancel culture that concerns people. Its also indefinite duration and it may be one mistake that, for example, an editor makes publishing a piece, for example, the new york review of books pushing a piece on metoo that was highly controversial and then all of a sudden not only has he out as editor but publications to who the canted to years they couldnt push him anymore. He became untouchable. In his case i dont think its permanent and i also think its incumbent on institutions when that does happen to after a period of time create some onramp so people are not effectively silenced and marginalized forever, particularly on the basis of a single act of expression or decision. That doesnt warrant a harsh and lasting response. We rafe a very Current Situation the tulsa that id like to ask you about. I think its going on other places as well. Around the time of juneteenthth, President Trump was going to hold a rally that was controversial because of the pandemic and the idea of a large public gatherings, but what happened was there were many people in the black community and also allies who painted black lives matter on a stretch of greenwood avenue, the historic area where the Tulsa Race Massacre occurred 99 years ago. And then its been there for two months now, and its been a place of healing and gathering for many people until recently the head of the Tulsa Republican Party said he or the party wanted to paint it was back the blue or baby lives matter, and if you were going to allow uninstant of free speech you had to allow others, and then it went on where there was actually some defacement of the black lives matter with a blue line and then people came out to clean that off and repaint it, and then also the counterprotest. So, any city couple is stuck and the mayor what to do, and i guess if you could help us sort through that thicket. Its complications. It is a thicket. Sort of connections to the protests that have happened around the country in connection with monuments and names, for example, at yale where i know you went the debate over whether to rename the what messaging a city or an institution should be putting forward collectively and how those statements of value are who gets to decide what the statements or values and are when they should change . What is up for debate . I generally think those question are not really what matters. The community can change its mind if they decide they no longer want to have a statute to of robert e. Leech thats not infringing on anyones rights. This was a municipal decision. Im not sure it was. Know i was in other cities. In new york city the black lives matter banner outside trump tower and in washington if think whoever is in charge of the immuneil, whether its the mayor or city council should have the right to decide what expression is going to be conveyed in those public spaces that are under their control. Now, if a contingent its saying the messaging you chose neglects the role or importance of another institution, the city, we want that reflected in some way. I dont think that is a Free Expression right theyre asserting but maybe a right of a sort to be recognized and ang acknowledged. Thinked may may sense to find a way of doing that and to show a respect for thats a discussion here in new york as well, thats coming around. You want a level of equilibrium black lives matter and and police. Often times what this is confiscated by the pandemic is that if you can get people in a room in a conversation, to explain, here, heres why changing that blue line through our message was not something that is acceptable, and talk it through. Sometimes you ick fine a solution that will be acceptable. In the mayor and still coup is paralyzed. The city lawyer has actually declared its an illegal basically form of street art or graffiti and thats wherein some of trouble lies with the city ordinance. Thats a differentiation than the other cities. If its not something that was officially authorized but envelopes nonetheless the say may want to decide this not the moment, to paint over that message and that is symbolically given the history of tulsa and where you are, thats the note right answer for this moment. Town this whole idea of turn to this whole idea of information and state control and you talk both your work at pen america and also in the book, dare to speak, you talk but china. Interestingly i wasnt aware of the fact that china in its constitution does [inaudible] free speech but as you point out in practice couldnt but further from that and at pen america you have you published the list of 80 or so examples how china oppresses people, artists, journalists, people who try to tell the truth, and you dont see that really Getting Better anytime soon. Its getting much worse. This morning i was woken up by a message last night in hong kong, they arrested a major media tycoon who was a nope pro democracy advocate, jimmy law and that was part of this crackdown thats happening in hong kong with the inaction over the new National Security law that once democratic, very open i dont know how many people have been hong kong but a few years ago it feels like a very open place. Got wonderful universities, human rights lawyers, vibrant media escape, a lot of journalists, and it is historically been the place where the we were media organizes and newspapers would have their staff headquartered because with so much freer than in china, and beijing right now is just clamping down in a very harsh way and enacted a new law and rounding people up and ises walled cow journalists could get lawyers and International Legal assistance. So its a very sad situation, and what it reflects is beijings arm getting longer and longer. We issued a report last week on the influence that china wields in hollywood, because beijing the Chinese Government has through semi state owned investors that are major power brokers in hollywood as well as through access is control over access to the winds market which is huge. The worlds second and soon to be the worlds largest. So Hollywood Studios want their movies to be shown in china and theyre willing to give up a lot in exchange for that. If that means surrendering the right to criticize the chinese or depict the chinese negatively in any way, thats actually a bargain they are willing to make, and so we document this in a report and its just one example. There are other people have written to us how the same thing goes in the gaming industry and academia here in the u. S. , Chinese Students who pay full freight have become a major source of revenue for u. S. Universities universities and their Strings Attached to that. So the question of chinas not just what goes on inside china which at pep mrs. We have been pen america we have been concerned with and getting worse but their growing influence around the world as a super power and economic force. And bringing with them this approach to Free Expression that really takes the words on the page of their own law and International Law and just cancels all meaning from them. You mentioned how the hollywood movie studio are willing to make the compromise in order to access the china market. Similarly our technology comes, like facebook or google, agree also to chinese censorship in order to speaker the enter the Chinese Market and you talk at some loaning about the Technology Companies how both we can hold them accountable. I thought that was particularly interesting inch fact i wasnt aware i knee lot about the criticism of facebook and its founder and Ceo Mark Zuckerberg was not aware head ha in 2019 put forth the idea of an oversightboard which was Something Like 40 people to be on this you indicate another thing thats their preferred term but like a citizen Advisory Board where this board could essentially decide almost jahvid loading the responsibility to offloading to have facebook not promulgate hateful or false information. So, where is facebook in that discussion . I know that just last week i guess the four Big Tech Companies all testified remotely in congress, some for the first time. That that moved ahead of that. One small thing is those major u. S. Tech companies are not in china in any meaningful way because of he constraints on them when they tried to be there and the Chinese Government. The power it holds to requisition any user data. If you post this happened, 10 or 12 years ago when the companies were in china in the early days and a dissident would post something, and they wreckry wisconsin requisition is his permanent data from yahoo and that had to concern it over and the person was seven to jail so they were not able to figure out a way around that and they have exited china for now. They sort of make tentative forays and all want to get back in because its a huge market but have not been able to work it out. Do work at pen america downtowns scoring theres no way to have a shred of credibility on Free Expression issues while operating inside china. Now thats become an issue for hong kong as well. When you come to the global role and the role here in the u. S. , what i lay out two sides to the coin. We should be leery of Massive Companies that control such vast swaths of the public swear. Rolled up the function that were once performed by newspapers, magazines, bulletin board, town meetings so many different facets of civic life you can remember from the 70s, eights in, are rolled up into one family album. College reunions are all happening on these same platforms and so they control so much, and i think we do need to be leery about giving them unfettered jurisdiction to arbitrate speech because they have their on profit motives and ideologies, their algorithms and Business Model feed off incendiary content that can be explosive and can elevate the most provocative, outlandish, whether its conspiracy theories or other kinds of extremist content that really are privileged sort of technically and algorithmically within the platform. A lot about the platforms we cannot trust and need to be very keep a very sharp eye on. At the same time, i think i do welcome we need to hold them accountable and ask them to do more in terms of addressing the ways in which online content is so manifestly harmful. You can just go down the list. Cyber bullying, online harassment, disinformation, and the context of covid, disinformation in the context of our politics which is undercutting our democracy, suppressing the vote. Casting a pall on mailin ballots so we need them to play stronger role in moderating and mediating content. That are under pressure to do so from consumers, from advertisers, from regulators. Now, on both sides of the aisle and i argue in the book with that we need to create a kind of fail safe and a corrective so that as inevitably there are more false positives and more content that gets taken down phenomenon at the platforms that people who believe their free speech righted have been impinged upon have a ready recourse and get a human being on the line to make their case and get their content reinstated if thats appropriate. That doesnt exist today. Almost no customer service. You asked but the content oversightboard. It wont play that role. It will look at the most difficult kind of borderline questions, like a video of nancy pelosi slowed down making it seem as if her speech is slurred. Should that be taken off facebook or not . And what they want is in the tough kind of linedrawing situations, to have recourse to an independent body so that they are not forced to render decisions and have a measure of deniability and objectivity that comes into the process which has the potential to be positive. This board has been assembled in part but not started its work yet. I thing the most important aspect may be it will have a Juris Prudence and render public decisions we can look at and analyze and anticipate what will happen next with a given area of content. One of the biggest problemes the total lack of transparency and not having any insight about how these decisions are made, how much content is being taken down, and what kinds of content, and so this is one small step in the direction 0 of greater visible on the part of public and research towards better understand this. You mentioned the coronavirus and bepack. You finished this you wrote an article titled truth has become a coronavirus casualty, i think in march. In Foreign Policy. I wonder what your thoughts center we have had a difficult time communicating Public Health officials, experts in trying to convey messages around health and safety because there is so much misinformation, and outright hoaxes about various cures and vaccines and things and in fact misinformation about the disease itself. Part of that is because its a science going on in realtime and were learning as we go along here. But i guess in a what would you like to see in a robust democracy with a First Amendment where i mean, i dont want to put words in your mouth but i assume we would all fight for truth and just essentially quash these falsehoods being promulgated. One thing find alarming is i think the president has made a big role in this, although hes not aloe and its our media environment and social media environment and theres been a really glaring erosion in the trust we hold in institutions. I think thats part of the rope why theres been so much confusion over what the best advice is on how to control the pandemic. Here in new york the pandemic is under very good control at the moment and yet people just dont trust that the doctors and Public Officials are saying our schools can open, actually note what theyre talking about. They believe were in grave danger thats a reflection of this sowing of distrust in institutions and the president who is kindly undercutting Public Health authorities and leaders like dr. Fauci you can feel the pain in their grimace as they sand next to the president and he says something outlannish and they know if they call him out as under normal circumstances you would they would be exiled and lose their influence and wont be able to insert their expertise and shape the policy. I can understand the bar gun but it has undercut public faith in what should be our trust Evidence Health authorities. Think people do not know where to turn, and some err on the side of caution, some to the caution to the wind. Theres no consensus who you can trust when it comes to what you ought to be doing in this situation. We have had a qualified success online where the platforms have been very aggressive in taking down covidrelated misinformation, quacker and conspiracy theories and relying on algorithms to do it because their human content moderators cant come into the call center during the period and also elevated credible information. I you search for covid on facebook or google youll see cdc and who information coming up to the top of your feed, and so its actually dreaded they have a greater demphone straighted they have a gravity ability to control content on the platform. There are difficult linedrawing questions. Theyve adopted a new standard which is they will remove cop tent that is associated with a potential for imminent harm. Somebody promulgating a fulls cure, the president talking about hydroxychloroquine and the platforms now will take it down. I think where it may go too far is what if theres a doctor who has had a certain experience in their practice and witnessed a particular type of treatment working and they want to discuss that or get feedback should mat be banned from facebook because it hasnt been verified by the w. H. O. Or the cdc. I think a lot of wuss think there should be a face so discuss that and share information and you know that what you hear on facebook isnt entirely definitive. So theres some difficult linedrawing questions and this is where i think what is missing from the picture is this recourse for people who believe their content has unjustifiably been taken down because taking down reames of covidrelated misinformation. By and large a very good thing but we ought to have a fail safe to make sure it doesnt good too far. One of he main themes is the First Amendment. Youre a trained lawyer. Prior to your work with pep america would you have pen america would you have comfortus on expert on the First Amendment . There are many legal scholars who make their entire careers of First Amendment scholars and until i read the book i never thought of you that way but you certainly do an excellent job in marshaling the case law. Im not a First Amendment scholar, and one of the points i make in the book is theres so much in termed 0 of what we are grappling with and callin order callouts or safe spaces on campus or these debate efforts online content. So many of our free speech battles today barely impreliminary indication the First Amendment. And most americans when you hear about free speech you almost reflexively say First Amendment because thats how we were all trained inletry School Elementary school and the First Amendment is prohibition on government most kinds of government encroachments on free speech is very important but doesnt solve any of these many of these issues that were grappling with today which is one of the reasons in book i argue that we as citizens and institutional leaders actually need to take up the mantle of defending free speech because we cant rely on the courts and the lawyers in cases where government enter generalization is not the problem. Its social media or censoriousness of the mob or excessive wokeness in the classroom and the Chilling Effect that can have. So, i think thats an important amendment to how we understand or evolution how we understand our free speech rights and what its going to take to uphole them. Its not enough to simply rely on the First Amendment. When it comes to the First Amendment there are also a few things that as someone who is not a scholar, that has kind of couple up against this, i realized very important things for me to understand that i thought other people would find useful as well, including just the simple inventory of what the exceptions to the First Amendment are, because the First Amendment doesnt protect all kinds of content. Theres things like libel and definition and slander and threats threats threats and insightment to violence do other categories. So particularly for young people who sort of feel free speech doesnt do enough to protect them, if youre going to argue that we should allow for more encroachment on free speech, its helpful to understand which wounds are permitted under the constitution and the case law as of today. So thats something that i set out and i found kind of conceptually useful to get in your head, the idea, theres the First Amendment but there are several categories of important exceptions. The case law read like a American History or 19thunder and and exceptions like inincitement. I was wondering, you early in your career actually wrote another book called presumed equal which i wanted to spend a minute on because it was so interesting. You and a colleague i think if i understood correctly, you queried many female attorneys about what their experiences were at their major law firms, and i was wondering if you can share that experience. Thank you for asking. Thats ancient history. When we were in law school, it and was this is like basically before the internet and before email so we did a mailedin survey of women at large law firms and asked them about sexism and discrimination and stereotyping and work family issues and opportunities for advancement and our notion was basically we would wait and rank these firms weight and rank the firms and shame the oned that did the worth into taking a look at these issues and then making change and doing better for their women employees and actually was quite effective. It was a great project. Very simple. Be published it as a book and we operate ranked firms and the ones that did poorly were very upset and started scrambling and creating tasks forces. What needed to happen with the hard vair womens Law Association, needed to commit to and be funded to do that project. Every two 0 three years. If that had happened, that really would have driven a lot of change. It wasnt enough. We actually did it twice but that was not enough. The harvard womens Law Association never cared forward. They did it one more time, like maybe 15 years later. We found that we did it again and we were delighted. I it is students. So you know its like a club like that is animated by whoever is in there in moment and how much energy hey have. Not something you can dictate into perpetuity. Theres a franchise idea, the top law firms for women every year, or the harvard seal of approval on law firms for women. You have had a fascinating career. Ceo crowe at pen america and government experience as bill and wonder if you could share with the audience you worked at the United Nations and you tell about in the book including this amazing thing you did that i still cannot understand but you talk this word i had never heard before, you think about the word arrears the United States was constantly in arrears to paying the u. N. Undoes and one of your jobs became rectifying the arrearage at the United Nations. Can you tell us about that experience. This is during the very end of the Clinton Administration and the u. S. Had a billion and a half dollars in arrears to the u. N. That had been accumulating over the years through various congressional withhold examination basically a refusal to pay certain dues that we owed, refusal to appropriate the moneys necessary. So, this big bill had built up and every u. N. Meeting we went into they would chide us, pay your dues on time in full without conditions before we can open up our mouths and talk about iraq or palestine or in other issue and it was embarrassing. Always in the longest period of sustained prosperity in u. S. History so we had no excuse for this. So we had a law passed that said we could pay back the bulk of our arrears but only if we could get the u. N. Membership to agree to rewrite its system of assessments basically so that we would pay less of the a lesser share of the u. N. s budget going forward. So we had to get that friend among the 1929 countries over the u. S. Before 192 countries over the u. N. Before we could pay what we od the. The challenge was to got the agreement it and was a wonderful professional challenge because it had to be consensus of 129 countries and had to accept bigger bill, paying more checker none of them wanted to do. Especially to let us pay less. An aegregious position to take but we had to get through hi hook or crook and figuring that out was amazing, traveled all over the world and got to work with every single delegation at the u. N. , big some small, because they were all affected and they all had to buy in, and so it was we succeeded in the end. He got the deal. Which is very exciting. That is just amazing. You cant even get often times throw three or four countries to agree on something and you got 192. That should go down in the annals of world history. So calming. I still get calls. When the u. S. Is think about theirs arrears scale of assessment is up for renegotiation and i still get calls of people wanting to know how this was done. So there is some institutional memory i guess. Very impressive. Lets come back to dare to speak, your current book. Would you mind you get asked this in sound bite interviews. What is nice about the book and at the end of each chapter you have good bullet point summaries and then the outline but i was dandering if you wonder if you could give our audience the general principles you recommend for daring to speak essentially and essentially if i had to summarized identity said they really its point that you be open minded but put yourself in the position of the listener and be sympathetic and empathetic but thats too simplicities a summary. You hit in the nail on the head with the idea that particularly living in our increasingly tie verse society diverse society, big part of my argument is that you have to be cognizant of who is in your audience and what their sensitivities and pressure points are, and this is not the 1950s where youre writing for a newspaper that has a readership that consists of the 20,000 people in your town. Thats out in how our ecosystem works, whether youre in a classroom or youre writing on social media or youre publishing something in a magazine. Its going to a much more diverse audience of people with all kind of backgrounds, interests, orientations and ideologies, and so you have to think through as you write. Most of us north intentionally trying to offend people, and its not good enough to simply not have that intent. You actually need to go out and understand something about this audience and what their what the composition is, what their hot buttons are, how old they are, what terminology they may use to refer to certain things, and i refer to it in one section being your own editor. You think pout the role that editors play in carefully going over your work and asking questions and pointing out where things may be subject to misinterpretation. Its like we all have to internalize that function for yourselves, and when were speaking, take that extra level of care and i say particularly i have a chapter on what i call the duty of care which in my mind escalates the larger the platform you have. Youre a University President so what you say around your dinner table may be one thing but what you say behind the podium when you speak to students or giving a media interview is quite different. Youre representing the university. And that i think its fair youre held to a higher standard of for thought and awareness and talking beaut topic where youre not an expert and not just you but when one is speaking about something that isnt your particular bailiwick or a community that youre not part of. I think the burden is heightened in that situation to do your research, maybe you want to run it by somebody who has that expertise or is from that community. To make sure that your words will land in the way intended. Think to exercise free speech responsibly in this diverse digitized worlds to require an extra level of care and forethought. I argue one of my other principles is that we need to be willing to do the work of making difficult arguments and putting forward unpopular ideas and ways of doing that can help youve get your message across without it being impeded by been misperception, people being offended, and you can neutralize a lot of the hostilities if youre careful and anticipate counterarguments and avoid unintentional offense and you kind of scrub your message of anything that might be misconstrued. There are ways of making arguments that give you a better shot of being heard and actually persuading someone, and i feel strongly. I dont want to see people retreat and say its too difficult. Theres too much risk of blowback. Nobodying is going to appreciate my waking in 0 whether the topic its abortion or Police Reform or israelpalestine or electoral politics. So many topics its understandable that people just sort of turn the other way because at the risk of getting into a fraught interaction seems so high and so i think its important both that we support one another so make difficult arguments and that we are willing ourselves to the public is called dare to speak but voice our viewpoints when they may be controversial. Well, you mentioned the pulpit or the podium that one has and its important to think about where you are in terms of who your particular audience and is what impact, and i couldnt help but think of Larry Summers who was president of Harvard University and most of our audience is familiar with the story but i you can share what he said and why it was important. People are calling for him to resign from the position which he did. He was at an academic conference and called into question whether women have the same natural an tapued as men we aptitude when it comes to math and science and suggested that give creed dense to research that indicates that they may not. And i believe firmly that type of research and conversation should not be off limits. If theres data that shows that toy then the best answer is to puree it and insist it never be surfaced or talked but again. Think it should be looked at and people ooh should be able too debate and put perhaps contradict it and its hard to believe its really that conclusive or persuasive it but the problem is he spoke as the president of Harvard University, and carried all the authority and weight of that position, and so how could women in the university thereafter not wonder whether he thought they had the equivalent talent and aptitude of their male counterparts and his ability to run that institution as an institution offering equal opportunity to women on the faculty and in the student body, i think was pretty fundamentally called into question and so when you have an institutional leader who through something they say undercuts confidence that they can lead the university, embodying the values that institution stands for and treating people equally, that can be it was in his case kind of fatal to his leadership, and its a very happen draconian consequence but the stakes are higher the moe lofty your position and is thats a duty of care has to be stronger and that for him that might have pan perfectly acceptable thing to say if if he was among a small group of friends or on the faculty but he had to recognize as the University President that you no longer have that leeway and can be construed in a way that can undernine a significant segment of the population you serve and represent as president. Lets end on one other example of a College President and this is wasnt aware of. Aitken fuchs who either its ken fuchs who was the president of the university of florida and he very adroitly handled an incident where richard spencer, famous hate mongerer, was invited to speak on campus and you make a disk between public and private universities and as a Public University the university of florida could not elect to bar spencer from speaking but fuchs gave kind of what you paint as a shining example how leadership should respond in this situation. You had richard spend their a i vowed he White Supremacy and milo, a garden variety provocateur and they would you elicit an invitation from student groups and sometimes book an auditorium and their purpose was to be shut down. What they wanted more than anything else and thats happened to milo was for the university to call it off and insist they couldnt speak so they could then become a great champion of free speech and sue the university and grand stand and rally their followers to protest this outrage and this is part of what gave free speech sort of a bad name on many campuses over a period of time, and what we advocate as pen america and what i think fuchs did well was to avoid falling into that trap and not give the spencers the milos to the world the gratification of being shut down but said, all right, fine you come speak on campus. Let me make christopher the factor coming here in any tho respect constitute in no respects stutzman endorse. Or rat fix indication of you and your message and when spencer trade to characterize i that way fuchs shot him down and then he did his own campaign. It date gators, not haters. To reject the message both of spencers right to speak but Crystal Clear the administration and the institution condemned his message. Two things that the University Leadership needs to do at one time. Its walking and chewing gum. Have to uphold First Amendment rights and reinforce the values of the institution and i think he did that well. This has been great and the backes fascinating and comes as a timely moment in our nations history, and there it is right behind you. Yes. Dare to speak. Please buy from magic city books. In the chat there are several links you genetic to. If you want to order the book from magic city which is an independent, nonprofit book store, and you can also get the discounted membership in pen america. And friends, yes. Yes. Friends of pen america. And listen, congratulations on your book and thank you so much for joining us and please stay safe with you and your family during the pandemic. And i know that you have many you have an extensive virtual book tour and we were delight you were made this virtual stop here in tulsa and we hope to see you when circumstances allow. Likewise, thank you so much for doing this, it was great to see you. I feel like i visited your house. Made at foray into your city and your life and thank you, jeff and magic city and everybody. Its a wonderful store and were so proud to have a chapter of pen america in tulsa. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Every a good night. Its planning longterm contract negotiations. In other news the National Book foundation has announced author Walter Moseley is the first black man to receive thats award which began in 1988. Also in the news, npd book scan reports that britain book sales jumped 171 2 percent for the week ending september 5th. And are now up almost 6 for the year. And book shops in britain have also seen a recent surge in sales. Accord dog uk Publishing Industry news sores the book seller total sales were 33. 6 millionpounds for the first week of september. The best numbers ever recorded for that time. Booktv will continue to bring you new programs and publishing news. You can also watch all of our archive programs anytime at booktv. Org. President Trumps National and Foreign Policy decisions consult your Program Guide or visit booktv for more information. Good evening and welcome to gibsons bookstore and elizabeth and joined by arthur rick tyler the author of the still right and immigrant loving hybrid driving composting american make the case for conservativism. Hes joined by friend