Course, the whole of the issue of the Oberlin College dispute where the gibsons bakery was awarded 44 million in damages, which was a very exciting thing and people at Oberlin College are beside themselves. I think one of charles cousin went to oberlin and totally turned her into a marxist communist. Im not a big fan of oberlin. So Steve Hayward is the senior resident fellow at the institute of Governmental Affairs at uc berkeley and a visiting lecturer at Uc Berkeley Law School and, of course, a senior fellow at pri. And heard steve back in december 1991, our second hire, steve has been affiliated with us for a very long time. He was a Ronald Reagan distinguished professor at pepperdine and the first conservative professor in a special program at university of colorado boulder 20132014. I think the most exciting thing about steve is hes one of the people behind power line. If you dont read power line every day, you should. And the best thing on saturday morning is the weekend pictures. Charles and i were in hysterics every saturday morning looking at the weekend pictures that steve sends out. If you dont get it, you must. And our other speaker is Professor John yoo, who clerked for Larry Silberman. We were all with Larry Silberman and john in corsica a few years ago from one of johns conferences, which was great fun. He also clerked for Supreme CourtJustice Clarence thomas. Hes been a fulbright distinguished chair, in law at the university of trento in italy, the university of chicago, chapman university. Hes written several books and he hails from philadelphia, and when his wife doesnt want to go on trips with him, his mother is very keen to go and theyre going to peru soon. So please welcome our two panelists, dr. Steven hayward and Professor John yoo. [ applause ] you want us to put on this lab mic or i think were just using this okay, good. And, yes, it is live. Okay. Does this mic work . That old saying. So i thought what we thought we would do is have a bit of a conversation. Ill throw out a few initial propositions and then well have some back and forth. You can throw out your own propositions and then well take questions from the audience and see where it goes. I thought that was better than just giving your standard speeches. So sally gave me a few headlines. I think i will dilate them slightly. So the College Scene today, beyond the headlines i think are some, well, put it this way, one of my old mentors used to have his first law of insufficient paranoia, which holds that no matter how bad you think things are, it is invariably the case you look closer, you find out things are even worse than you thought. So in the case of administrative bloat on College Campuses what people think is thats whats running up the cost. Universities. The number of administrators soared much faster than faculty, all paid very large salaries. And thats true. However, there is a second part of it, which is and there has been a little bit of work on this, it made the press, even the New York Times, the administrators tend to be even worse than the faculty when it comes to derange radicalism. And thats because a lot of these, the deans of diverse taken inclusion, which remember the diversity on a College Campus means people look different but think the same. And a lot of them are drawn from some of the more politicized and ideological departments. And so, you know, your average college liberal professor is relatively sane compared to a lot of administrators, thats especially true at private liberal arts colleges. Sally made mention of the Oberlin College verdict and if youre not following it closely, you might be wondering why did the court find a college, a private college liable for the actions of students off campus. And one of the chief reasons was is that the dean of students and adviser to the president for diversity and inclusion participated actively in the student protests, helped the students organize, passed out the flyers, sent lots of incriminating emails about how awful the bakery was and reinforced the harassment about some totally bogus charges. And the next thing about america, we still have trial by jury. The jury in that part of ohio didnt think this was didnt take too kindly to all this. I think that the remedy and ill come back to this in a couple of minutes, just about every university ought to fire half of their administrators. It wouldnt matter which half. Things would get better if you hired half your administrators. Ill say that there are few universities just in last few weeks that have announced cutbacks in the administrative positions. And reason for that is declining enrollment. Were already seeing declining enrollment putting downward pressure on tuition. You havent seen colleges cut their sticker price, but the actual price you pay is falling fast and a lot of universities. And thats going to get worse for demographic reasons. Reason for that is just think back, 10, 11 years ago, the world comes to an end with the financial crisis and what happens then, the birth rate fell by quite a lot. So the pool of young people that colleges need to draw on to fill up their classes is starting down and it is really going to go off a cliff in another four or five years. The colleges know this. This will put more downward pressure on tuition, their ability to price, and i think thats going to make a lot of them have to say we cant afford all these 300,000 administrators. So well see. I hope thats what happens. Second thing is we got a lot of good social Science Survey data showing that college and University Faculties have which have always been liberal for decades and decades, not a new thing, had a certain quotient of very visible radicalism, my own view is thats where radicals ought to be. If they wreck a few english departments thats better than having them on the street. The problem with the university is the borders are porous and sometimes these guys sneak out. Who wouldnt have preferred that barack obama remained a law professor . Instead he snuck out and next thing you know hes president of the united states. Okay. But used to be some conservatives around, 15, 20 of the faculty overall and you can always find one or two or three and most of the social sciences and the humanities and that number in the last 25 years has dwindled dramatically, cut by twothirds. The reasons for that are complicated and disputed. The point is colleges are more of an echo chamber than they have ever been and in practice, a lot of good social science on this, grows out of what you we all know as group think, is the more people with a common opinion, especially ideological opinion spend time together, the more radical they get. The more narrow minded they get. And thats why you see these repeated instances on College Campuses of the students, faculty member, visiting speaker, that strike anybody, not on a College Campus, as utterly unreasonable is a mild word to describe it. Completely insane and off the hook. And so that is a big problem. I think it has two consequences. One that is obvious and well known, one less so. First consequence is if you know the data, the number of students majoring in the humanities and social sciences has also been plummeting in the last 25 years. Number of history majors has fallen off a cliff, english majors, philosophy. But also Political Science is holding its own, but ought to be doing better in some ways, sociology, economics is the one exception. And, of course, thats the most robust of the social sciences and the most successful. And also the one where you find the most libertarians and conservatives and nonleftist professors for the most part i think thats correct. And i think there is a connection there. A lot of people say students arent taking arent majoring in history anymore because theyre more concerned about getting a job, want to study s. T. E. M. Subjects and business and economics. And there may be some truth to that, though there say reason to dispute that finding, i think it is because the increasingly radical content of those humanities and social science departments simply turn off a lot of students, the majority of students who are not radical themselves, not leftist themselves. The majority of students are not. The large plurality of students describe themselves as moderates to some extent. I mention economics. Really curious thing was happening right now, that i think is a canary in the coal mine. At a number of prominent universities, columbia, m. I. T. , trying to think of where else, have applied with the federal government to change their official classification. It is a funny little thing i didnt even know existed. But you can has to do with various bureaucratic ways of Higher Education, classified and accredited. Economics departments are reclassifying them receives as s. T. E. M. Fields. Like engineering or physics or chemistry. Why are they doing that . Well, i think part of it is even liberal economists who are data driven, they look around at the other social sciences and humanities and say we dont want to be in the college of arts and sciences with these loanons. We would rather be in a more rigorous part of the university. I think youre already seeing a de facto divorce in universities taking place where rapidly especially big research universities, moving toward a situation where youre going to have the a university that is s. T. E. M. Subjects, economics, business, prelaw to the extent thats still done in a selfconscious way and Political Science and the rest of the university of the humanities and Goofy Social Sciences which will wither and die and everyone will understand, theyre all crazy people and no one will want to not no one, but fewer students will want to be in those departments and that will be an interesting one. Finally, ill mention a couple of remedies and provoke john, i hope. I already mentioned firing administrators. Second, one thing to do is figure out ways to create competition within universities. I know a lot of you are familiar with things here in california, like the hoover institution, of course. Stanford. Also the James Madison center at princeton, Robbie George founded 20 some years ago. Arizona State University has set up its own new school on economic thought and political thought that is independent of the traditional departments. And it now has a competitive curriculum in the traditional departments and the faculty are not happy about that, but the legislature says this is going to happen, thats nice. Another idea that has been thrown around is maybe somebody needs to step up and start a new university or two. Real prestigious elite university. We havent seen Something Like that now since brandeis, which is 70 some years ago. And thats it, we can talk about that some. Finally, the craziest idea, the one that is the most remarkable, not remarkable, reallien conventional, this is something that trump education might take up just to scare people is say, what is all this fixation with the bachelors degree . Why dont we create some alternative way of certifying that someone is educate and capable, like we do the cpa exam, so you can take alternative methods of education, online classes, study on your own, and the Kim Kardashian approach to passing the bar exam. Well, maybe. We should experiment with these things. Part of the story is the cartel of the accreditation agencies, which push colleges to the left. And the nature of colleges reinforcing that. Youre nothing if you dont have a ba. Maybe create some competitive avenue that the wider world that wants to employ people will know, here is a person with some skills. A lot of employers use the ba as a screening mechanism to find people that show they have the discipline to complete a course of study. Thats not bad. Maybe we should be bolder than that. I will stop there. See if you want to add, contest, whatever. Wasni want to thank steve an sally for inviting me to join you today. Getting steve to join berkeley is probably the only thing ive done on behalf of ideological diversity at berkeley other than continuing to exist and not leave the campus h you be t. You be the judge of if it has been successful. I agree with the diagnosis im not a scholar of Higher Education, policy. I think im here more because, like, you know, im, like Robinson Crusoe on the island. Youre just curious, how did you survive and what lessons can we draw by looking around on how we made it on the desert island. Very happy to share stories and lessons. Everything i see from being one of the few conservatives at berkeley comports with everything that steve gave in his diagnosis of what is wrong with the universities, academic, bloat and personnel. I think i read a figure for every one new professor added to a faculty, universities are adding more than ten administrators in the last 20, 30 years. There has been a huge rise in tuition, often subsidized by the federal government through very cheap student loans. And universities are using those theyre not using them to add professors, using them to add things to attract students like better dorms, gyms, several universities that have added water amusement parks to their campuses. I always thought eating bad food was part of the college experience, not i would not have met my wife if it were not for bad food in College Campuses, we had to go off campus somewhere to eat. But one thing i would add or maybe emphasize that steve didnt emphasize as much, though i think he did mention it, is one of the i think one of the main problems with Higher Education today is the elevation of identity politics and racial diversity and gender diversity among all other values in the university. I think if you look at what the university was before this it is not that this came late, this is where it started, now spreading to other parts of society. A Great University like a berkeley, maybe stanford, just teasing, the deal was you wanted to have a faculty that did the very best research for the benefit of society. And at the same time you want students to surround the faculty. So they can learn from the very best people. The best professors were not the best teachers. The best professors doing the cutting edge research. We want excellence and research and they were teaching the students who would be around them to learn how to take their place and do that. I think that has been replaced at most of the Top Research Universities by a desire to meet gender and racial diversity goals. And so once that becomes the highest value of the university and all other values take second place, of course, universities are going to suffer and so the story about oberlin is a great example. Bureaucrat and professors, you should also add that at oberlin, wasnt just an administrator, there were a lot of faculty also involved in this kind of lynch mob mentality to go after this bakery which had done nothing wrong as far as i can tell from the case i read. And they see that as the most important thing that for the university to achieve now is diversity. Where all the bureaucrats being hired and diversity and inclusion. I think at berkeley we spend many millions of dollars on racial and diversity bureaucracy. I think 1 million could put, what, about 50 undergraduates free through berkeley. Instead were choosing to spend taxpayer money on gender and racial diversity issues. Thats just the tip of the iceberg. Every school, every department has an officer who is paid to do this. Every time you do a search for new faculty member, you have to write a lengthy report about how it meets gender and racial diversity goals. The other thing steve didnt get to, the terrible scandals in College Admissions now look at Harvard College, one or two people came up to me before the event who admitted secretly they had gone to Harvard College like i did. I cannot believe the amount of distortion that has gone on in the admissions process just to hit certain racial diversity goals to the extent take asian students in particular, on the five criteria that students are measured on, they are in the top four and the fifth one is personality, asian students rank at the bottom. Even though the no stereotypes there. No, no. Even though the harvard admissions director admitted that most of those students had never been interviewed by a harvard admissions officer. I think the asians have no personality will come as a big surprise to the billion and a half people in china and the other billion in india who might be eating our economic lunch these days. So i think the interesting thing is what do you do about it . What is the remedy . I differ with steves idea of sort of disassociating what i think is true in terms of diagnosis, universities can live in this world, even prosper because what theyre selling is a kind of credential that is used by businesses to hire because it shows that students can crawl through the mud and crap of universities and theyre so disciplined and they can persevere. Well, they can do anything a corporation wants them to do. I wish this werent true, but a fellow named Michael Spence won a nobel prize in economics about what education actually is. I can see the merits, steve would say, why do we overfund these left wing crazy people at universities who are really just performing credentialing functi functions, lets move the funks somewhere else. I know they do things like this in germany and other countries. Im not sure it is a great idea. My little effort at reform is inspired by being one of the few conservatives at yale law school. Something called the federal society in law school, one of the head of the berkeley federal society over there, she just graduated. And shes alive too. She didnt get killed off by anybody. And so the federal sciences are debating club, brings conservative ideas to law schools, libertarian and conservative ideas. I have to say, yale, that was the only exposure, thats the only time i ever heard about scalia and thomas actually was at federal Society Events and not in class. So, to me, one thing we could do with reform is rather than complain about bureaucrats and how much money the university are spending is try to create the problems to bring speakers and visiting faculty to at least expose some students to conservative ideas and get a debate going. For those of you that donate to schools, the best thing you can do, we all want to support our alma maters. Dont have to give a blank check to the university to say spend on building another lazy river amusement water park to attract the best students. Instead, give money in very focused ways to programs like the one steve is another, brad barber will help us start running the program to give conservative speakers to campus. The few students and more and more i think will be more rec t receptive to hearing conservative ideas can hear them this is where the universities do have to step up, in a setting where there is no riot. Where police arent going to allow people who are so scared of hearing different ideas that they actually want to try to engage in violence to try to suppress it. As berkeley witnessed two of those incidents and it has been spreading all over the country. Thats where i think if you want to give money to a university, ill give money to the Campus Police department to protect conservative speakers on campus. That will be the most effective donation you can give. Thank you. I do want to say because it is true berkeley will never live down its long reputation, going back to the Free Speech Movement and before. However, berkeley is quite a bit better, especially than the private liberal arts colleges like oberlin, like Sarah Lawrence where sam abrams got in trouble and harvard and yale, that behaved disgracefully. And the current chancellor carol crist, you know, when the left said were going to shut down ben shapiro, she said, no, youre not. And she said i will the school is running a deficit, she said i will spend whatever it takes to make sure his free speech rights are vindicated and the event can come off. I was very proud ended up being pretty borg and dull. It is, however, i remember one of the problems with the campus at berkeley, it is hard to secure. It has porous borders. I showed up and realized the night before shapiro would show up at 2 00 in the morning, the trucks showed up and installed jersey barriers and had an opening so you could have crowd control and brought out an immense police force and they were going to be sure they didnt have a repeat of myla riot. The left was very mad at her for that, spending the money and we hate shapiro. So good for her. The conservatives have, you know, do get some blame here. Not not responsible conservatives. They want to stick it in the face of the campus admissions, get the most outrageous, most flagrantly provocative person. I kind of understand, but it is sort of if students on the left invited people from the nation of islam to speak, right, theyre going to it is going to be a campus explosion. I think conservatives should try to aim, you know, maybe like a ben shapiro, more responsible, better people who arent just there to who would like there to be a riot. I think the problem is, they benefit too. They have an interest in there being a riot and things getting shut down. I would like to see Heather Mcdonald or Steve Hayward show up and engage in an intelligent debate with the other side. Thats an important point. There is a good book called becoming right how campuses shape young conservatives. It was from two sociologies, they interviewed students at harvard and university of colorado boulder before i was there. They also talked about places like berkeley, santa barbara, oh oh state, you name it. And ill restate the question they were looking at, why is it youll get conservative students want to have milo or ann coulter at berkeley but not at yale or harvard or princeton or name a few others . It is not because those are elite ivy league schools, it is because what Harvey Mansfield calls conspicuous conservatism. The Madison Center of princeton, Harvey Mansfield at harvard. The reason they have a speaker almost every week, growing like crazy, after that ridiculousness at yale a few years ago over the halloween costumes, alumni quit giving mound to college and gave it to the program. The point is that for students who have no conspicuous conservatism, it is understandable they want to give the middle finger to the campus. And milo is a handy way to do that. Youll find that conservative students at other universities, Arizona State is a good example, with their new center, theyre less interested in the provocative model. More interested in having more serious debate and now have a a home, right . Backup. They dont feel isolated. Berkeley is a huge place. Were trying to replicate that in a small way. Thats an important point. Even though i had this idea for form at heart, were fighting a losing battle to maintain the idea that we should study the best that has ever been written or thought, and try to advance the frontiers of knowledge, but it is hard to see turning the universities around too. Even if we have a program, people bring conservative speakers to campus, having been at the Berkeley Campus for 25 i finished my 25th year. Cant see any way to turn the ship around. I think if anything in the last ten years, the left added another generator, engine on, and turbocharged off into the wilderness. I dont see how we can prevent the direction things are going, im afraid to say. Well, first of all, i have the attitude of a late hungarian friend of mine who lived by the adage, things are serious, but not yet bad. That may be too optimistic. He was a college fro fess profe the way. Great timing. So a couple of thoughts. One is the good thing about human nature, it is on our side. That manifest itself in a couple of ways. Almost all students grow up and start paying taxes. Thats a sobering moment for a number of students. An educational moment. Not for all of them. But for some. And then even my experience is there are some and usually the brightest of the left of the students. Theyre actually eager to learn Something Else and kind of tired of the conformity of the left. You wont turn it around. It doesnt take much to create a different dynamic. The most fun students i had have been the liberals who told me directly they wanted to hear Something Else. And by the way, i could say i wont go off on it now, at some point i got to write an article about most conservative academics, not just their ideology that differs, it is their method and manner of teaching in the classroom that is different. Not universally true, but true for half if not more. There is more to that story. I wont go on about that right now. Even liberal students understand that. And see that. I dont think my standard line about this is i think this is actually true to a laurencer sense, one of us is worth 20 of them. We dont need very many of us to have an effect on good students, serious about their education in the humanities. There are several more dimensions i could go through. And ill give you one little angle on it, i had fun with. Ive been thinking for the longest time of writing an article i was going to call i dont know if you know that guy, that crazy guy who chairman of the Ethics Studies Department in colorado and got caught saying the people in the twin towers of 9 11 were eichmanns of capitalism. They said it was plagiarism, found out his scholarship wasnt any good. They fire him because weigh he embarrassment to the university. One of the reasons that so many students flock to the radicalized departments, critical theory and gender studies and all the rest, is that for all the jargon and ideology they are asking the basic question, what is justice. They do engage the passions of stunts in a way that a lot of Political Science courses and ideology dont. A lot of it is regression modeling. And not coherent straightforward discussions of justice. So one thing that a lot of conservatives are good at, i think, education the oldfashioned way that talks to students trying to transform their souls in a serious way. Thats a competition, not just ideological but stylistic. Being a professor of law school, we dont want anything to do with anybodys souls. Were trying to beat that out of them, actually. The soul is professional, sure. This is interesting. You see the hope in students. I worry more about the faculty and more just from an internal perspective. When i was hired, there was new deal liberals, professors who are liberal but thought lets have a diversity we can agree with. Ideological diversity. It was fun to have people of different views them dont want all the people in their symposium to think like them. You want different views and people. Thats disappearing if it has not already disappeared from some departments other than the hard sciences. I think a lot in the social sciences and humanities departments, you have people that dont believe in ideological diversity. They wont hire conservatives. I think when i retire, which will be when i die, many, many years ago many years in the future, i hope, not getting me out of there, though if there was a good buyout, i would think about it. I would be shocked if they replaced me with another conservative. I think the faculty today dont believe they think that what theyre doing with diversity is the right answer. You would never have people who think the wrong thing. And i think that has a lot the right thing these days is rir racial and gender diversity. The students are hungry for different opinions. You see faculties constructing what are considered legitimate points of view and arguments. I think we should turn to questions or comments now. Well take a mic and tim will come around. I see a couple of hasnts in the back. Ill let you pick them, tim. I saw the firsthands in the back. So run back there and that seems to be the most active table. Helen, you must have gotten into them about something. Okay. My name is mary ann. A and administration universities, my late uncle who was at mit and eth in switzerland, he said the International Students office at m. I. T. Has as much as many administrators in the all tch and that was in the 50s. I do challenge mr. Hayward on one thing on one thing about the english professors cant do that much damage there than on the street. The problem is that there was just an english professor at uc davis who basically told the students to go kill policemen. Right. And this guy hasnt been fired. And the third thing id like to say is, i just witnessed a student from high School Getting a scholarship by a republican womens group. That student read an essay. I as a teacher think that essay was about a third grade essay. Yeah. Okay. I think youre limited to three. So my comment about english, whats wrecked english departments, not a big price to pay to keep radicals off the street. I was being somewhat facetious. The counter argument is that its no longer confined to the crazy english or critical studies department. I saw this just in the last couple of weeks. I guess theres some website or algorithm or search engine, im not sure what, but it can sweep the entire texts of every New York Times article for the last 20 years and select certain terms and words and see how often theyre used. All of the jargon of the Higher Education left these days like intersectionality. The last three years all the graphs skyrocket. How has this gotten into the New York Times . A lot of people in these departments have graduated and been hired by the New York Times. Theyre also hired at facebook and twitter and thats why theyre censoring people. A High School Teacher used clips of the hitler era to teach german and they took that down. It was a history teaching tool and theyve taken down from youtube because of idiots. Why are they idiots . They marinate in the stuff. Youre right. I meant my comment to be a little bit flip, but to the extent it was true that all the silliness was confined to the classroom and kids would go out and get jobs and be a little bit more sensible, theres less reason to think this. I think there is this kind of not deal or even strongly an understanding, but you do see this diversity push really primarily taking place in the softer disciplines where its harder to observe whos good or bad as a scholar. I think you dont see this in physics, you dont see it in the sciences. Administrators im sure are constantly demanding it, but i dont think you see this kind of level of demand for diversity or at least its implementation in the hard science departments. Once that happens, if that were to happen, then i would become really worried about the quality of our universities. If you look at International Rankings of universities, american universitys are far and away better than any other universities in the world. That has to do with the performance of our hard science departments which constantly win nob nobel prizes, continue making great innovations. I dont think theyre ranking world universities on the quality of their english faculties or history departments. One of the few things that gives me great confidence of when i review the applications of foreign students and we get thousands of applications from china. Every time i see a Chinese Students transcript and i see marxist lennonist required class. Maybe theyll require it at american universitys too. Then our great advantage is going to disappear. I would like to weigh in on what seems to be your conflation of racially inspired admissions and gender inspired admissions as though the two were coequal evils. Im here to tell you i have a daughter who graduated with honors from bucknell in Mechanical Engineering and management. However, she was bitterly disappointed when she was rejected from cornell and uc berkeley. She took Summer School courses taught by professors at cornell. In calc, she got an a plus. The professor came up to her and said, my dear, i dont know where you go to college but i will personally write a letter of recommendation for you to come to uc berkeley. My daughter stood up and said, sir, ive already been rejected by uc berkeley once, you will not have the opportunity to do it again. Obviously there are going to be individual cases where you are going to see discrimination. Im not saying discrimination occurred. In fact, i think berkeley in the sciences and engineering would love to have more women students and faculty if they could. I actually would bet that what has happened this is a longer story, but i think what has happened is that we have moved away from a system which i think of as a very meritocratic system based on performance and courses. And we have totally moved away from that to a system of wholistic evaluation of applicants, which im afraid is really just a cover to allow Admissions Officers to consider race. So thats one. Second thing is look at the other College Admissions scandal we havent talked about, which was the one about buying your way into college by suddenly finding a sailing prodigy in your family at high schools that dont have sailing teams. Of course it was usc that was mostly involved in all of this. Stanford. Actually berkeley has not been involved yet. I just like teasing our competitor schools. To me that shows that when you move off of this meritocratic system and anything counts, of course youre going to have all kinds of gaming of the system. These people were just more obvious than other people because they just bribed people. Youre going to have lots of competition flow into these other areas like activities. Whos going to be better at sending their kids to third world countries to build Sanitation Systems or to become really good at a sport or an art . Its going to be, i think, wealthier people. So the unfortunate thing, i think, is that this new system of admissions that all these schools are moving to the university of chicago doesnt use s. A. T. Scores anymore which i find incredible. Once these schools move away from a more merit based system of admission, then youre going to have all kinds of abuses and unexplainable results. Admissions officers are now using this as a cover for social engineering. Ill just add real quick that its been true for several years now that more women than men are going to college. Its more skewed at private liberal arts colleges. Sometimes its 6040 women to men. Especially if you say the second and third tier liberal arts colleges back east. Theres a million of them, it seems like. There they really have a struggle. You talk to Admissions Officers. Theyre terrified of going below the 6040 ratio. They get so many applications from women. Berkeley gets 20,000 applications a year for 11,000 spots. Beyond the aggregate numbers, i think its now true that women outnumber men slightly in law school nationwide. I think theyre close even in business schools. Then you go down the whole list of graduate and professional degree programs, phd is 80 women. Then you go down to physics, engineering, chemistry, its 20 women. You could do the bars. They go from 80 for education and you see that youre not supposed to talk about these things. Were embarrassed about it. But i do know women who are stellar in science. Take advantage of that. I know one young lady professor at a very prestigious Engineering Department in iowa. She was up for tenure and she called me up and says, oh, im getting some opposition. She had written one oped article. Shes got a long list of impressive publications. And she calls me up and says, the dean has said theres some trouble with my tenure review and approval because i wrote that one oped article about Climate Change that wasnt following the orthodoxy. I said, look, you go into your dean and tell him, you know, i know all the science departments want women professors. If you dont want to give me tenure, let me know now and im going to get on the phone and another another job by 5 00 this afternoon. Good luck to your daughter and people like that. In reference to the admissions scandal, how do you see all of this Going Forward with the decline of enrollment . Do you see it would be more of this kind of abuse, or do you see it selfcorrecting . Give us your prediction, please. The harvard admissions case and theres another companion case which group im on the word of the Pacific Legal foundation is bringing on behalf of students in York Public Schools because the mayor is trying to introduce racial quotas for the magnet schools in new york city. So there are these two cases moving forward. I think the Supreme Court will eventually take one of the two and if you look at the lineup of the justices, there are at least four justices on the court who i think would vote to strike down the use of race in College Admissions. Its actually quite bizarre as a matter of Supreme Court precedent that race can only be used by the government when it has the most compelling interests and race is basically the only way you can achieve that interest. The only two areas the court has recognized that this can happen is wartime and College Admissions. Its such an anomaly and its only because i think Justice Oconnor and Justice Kennedy just felt that was elite opinion to be in favor of the use of race in College Admissions. I think its an aberration in our constitutional jurisprudence. Assuming these five judges vote the way they have in the past, i assume that if those justices vote consistently with their past, that they will use one of those two cases to strike down the use of race, which i think would be a good turning point to restoring or at least turning the direction of the ship back towards a more meritocratic system. They wanted the standardized tests 7580 years ago. Then they woke up and said the results were not happy with. Is the university the place where you start trying to fix the problems of minorities who have bad schools . So actually we dont take the more fundamental problems seriously enough. There have been always been exceptions to the meritocratic rule, people in drama. Then as we learned you could exploit the side door by bribing the sailing coach at stanford. The public reaction to this has been not surprising to me. People suspect theres something rotten going on here across the board. Im picking this up a lot of places, at berkeley and elsewhere that you might say the liberal elite establishment in universities is now rethinking the idea of meritocracy directly. There are people openly speaking, maybe meritocracy is not the way our organization should be structured and organized. I was wondering if you could comment on the work that Mitch Daniels is doing at purdue and his reform there and how hes been able to control costs, bring bureaucracy under control. If thats not a model or a sign of hope for improvement. Yeah, its absolutely a model. Mitch daniels has been president of purdue for ten years now maybe. Tuition has not gone up a single dollar. He does exactly what you expect a republican politician with a business background would do. No, we dont need new desks. We dont need cars in our fleet that half of them arent used. He sold off assets, didnt buy new desks, not hiring lots of people. Im always asking, hello, why cant this be copied. [ inaudible ] i think thats true too. I wish he was more aggressive in the way john silver was 30 years ago at Boston University on curriculum reforms and what not. Hes playing his strengths and god bless him nar. But that ought to be a model for people. Sooner or later people are going to wake up to that, i think by necessity. I think youre absolutely right that the departure from meritocracy is responsible for both the recent admissions scandal involving rick singer, involving the claims of bias against asianamericans at harvard. So would a passable solution be to require the admissions process to be more transparent so that it was clear to the public just how the selection was being made, which might push towards a more meritbased process. Or is it hopeless to think that the admissions process can be made transparent in this country . You know what i want to do or im going to argue for, suggest and watch peoples heads explode is for the really elite places like harvard and yale, lets set a baseline to be a qualified applicant, whatever a test score might be. I myself not uncomfortable with some aspects of wholistic consideration of students maybe from a bad school but have a good test score, maybe dont test well but have great grades. In other words you get a qualified pool of people and then you admit them by lottery. Lets do that. Of course, the universities dont want to do that. Part of the legacy admissions is, oh this person gets flagged because their parents are big donors or will be big donors. Its corrupt, right. If im a minority and you havent hardly any minorities at harvard 50 years ago, wait a minute, that is an unjust privilege. Thats why i say i am not uncomfortable of some ways of trying to puzzle this out. It has its problems, but lets go to a lottery system as the end game. Then its a lot more honest. I think this is crazy, crazy idea, having a lottery. It could be like powerball. You could have the drawings on National Television to get into harvard. I think dan is right in the sense of berkeley, what it could do is take the identifying data off of files and have the confidence to say here are all the people we admitted this year. Here are their scores. If were so proud of the values but theyll never do it. If i was an admission officer i would use meritocratic data and scores and test performances. And then if the universities think that being a good sailor should put you in the freshman class, then admit it. Higher education is a market. The one maybe area to hope for is that theory predicts there should be some institutions which will act counter to this whole cycle and emphasize these kind of values. That used to be the story about why the university of chicago became a Great University, because they would not play that game. Now theyre the first Big University out of the gates saying were not using s. A. T. S anymore. Thank you. One of the concerns that i have these days is about the attitude of students on campus about free speech. When i was an undergraduate during the free speech era, students wanted to have no limits whatsoever on what they could be exposed to. Now it seems or they could expose themselves. Now there seems to be a significant, i hope minority, but a Significant Group of students on the campus that are essentially demanding to remain ignorant. What do you suppose is the origin of this change . What you call safe space culture and so forth . Well, there are several roots to it that are deeply idealogical. There are doctrines that say that free speech is merely a tool of power and thats why it should be suppressed. Theres no such thing as free speech. Theres another doctrine that says free speech actually satisfies the old principle of physical harm. Theres dodgy social science studies saying when someone is upset on a College Campus, their Blood Pressure goes up. Its stressful. Really . Is the knowledge that milo is giving a talk that youre not going to more stressful than the midterm exam . Seriously, what is life about but dealing with stress . I have some fun with this es essential especially with liberal students. They pick this up really fast because whats the disposition of that document. We want to grow up. We want responsibility. We dont want administrators looking after us. These are things said in that document. We want to take responsibility. In other words, its an antisafe space document. From the contrast of disposition between the radical students then and now, i bring this up and i do it indirectly. Its embarrassing to students now. Now, i do think its a minority who are crazy about all this, but theres an awful lot of pressure on students to conform and lots of survey data of students showing students are afraid to tell their opinions, not just conservative students but most students. We know that a lot of college consists of nogo zones. People are selfcensoring and thats terrible. Steve and i forgot to issue our trigger warning at the beginning of this event. I start my class by saying the whole class is going to be filled with triggers so ill just give one at the beginning of the semester. I dont do micro aggressions. I only go in for full tilt macro aggressions. One other element is i think all of you are to blame for raising their children the way youre raising them these days. A lot of students i found, the number one thing they dont want to do is offend anybody else. They are so worried about sensitivities to the point where theyre not willing to say maybe the sharpest thing or the clever thing to advance the discussion because theyre worried that someone else will be offended. One thing i have noticed in my years of teaching is i have to push them harder to carry out their ideas to their logical conclusion because people are so worried about offending each other. I have to say this is an effect of the kavanaugh hearings. Students are completely worried i think anything they say from middle school on is going to be used against them in their confirmation hearings. The kavanaugh hearings themselves are a product of this kind of environment and culture were living in now. I think students themselves are, i think, a lot responsible for this antifree speech attitude on campus along with the faculty and administrators. We have time for two or three more questions. First, i want to thank you both. This has been a fantastic discussion. But i notice in the discussion there is a tendency to refer to the universities as though theyre a monolithic block. I wonder address the issue of private versus public universities, what different rules should apply to the issues that were discussing . And among private universities, distinguish between those who take government funding, say like stanford who takes a tremendous amount, and say hillsdale that takes no government funding. So hillsdale, ive been many times. How do you get to hillsdale. You fly to detroit, turn left out of the airport and drive 200 years to brigadoon. Hillsdale has to be good or no one would go there. I did mention that i thought private colleges are worse than public universities. I think thats true and big universities. Thats true for a bunch of reasons. A private university, i think they do have more latitude to have a speech code. Now, it is the old civil rights hau applicatio law application. If you take federal funds, thats why civil rights laws apply in admissions, right, for harvard. A good example is most of the administrators at berkeley in sort of the diversity offices, ive met a lot of them. The current dean or provost is from the chemistry department. Im sure hes a liberal but hes not one of these crazy idealogues. The private universities tend to have more people like that in their administrative roles than public universities. Its not uniform. Theres a few deans at berkeley who i dont want to meet. Thats one difference. Actually in this state we have the leonard law which says even private universities here have to protect free speech rights just as much as a Public University does. California is a little bit different in that regard. One big difference is legals. Public universities have to obey the First Amendment and they try not to but they have to. And ultimately you can sue them and force them to. Also california, theres prop 209, which i think the use of race was even more obvious and pronounced even before prop 209 than it was here. Asian admissions, for example, in pre prop 209 was always 15 at berkeley and after 209 i think asians are about 3540 of the class. Theyre still cheating at the margins but they cant cheat as blatantly as they used to. Big public state universities all want to go with the herd. Thats one of the reasons i think steve is right, is all these administrators, they dont want their heads to stick up above the grass. All of Higher Education is moving in this direction. You would expect private universities to just be more diverse in outcomes. So there will be some that are really bad, but then there could be space for private universities to emphasize a return to a more conservative style of education that should prosper when everyone else is making a mistake. Oddly, you might find the source for hope and reform in a smaller private college that can show the benefits of acting against the herd mentality. Thanks for being here. Im going to reward you both with a really easy question, which is how much, if there is a limit, should a university have to spend on security when controversial speakers come to campus . I ask this against the background of two of the incidents you spoke about, the milo incident and the high security at the ben shapiro. I was there at both events and there was no security at the milo event and there was incredibly security that supposedly cost 600,000 or something at the ben shapiro. How much should a university be expected to pay . I dont have a good answer for that but ill give you the prudential one. Chancellor chris decided she needed to spend whatever it took to break the fever. I think she did that. Thats a reasonable expense. They want to talk to a conservative, what do you think. Also milo is threatening to come back to campus. That was a funny story. It was all fraud on his part. He kept announcing speakers who were going to come with him and then one day Charles Mooney is coming. I thought i doubt that. I email charles. He says first ive heard of it and by the way hell no. I told the chancellors office. This is obviously hes trying to fleece some donors. Chancellor chris said, you just tell us what you need and well try to ensure you get to speak, didnt make a fuss. It all collapsed because it was a fraud on his part, that second proposed trip. But she broke the fever. A contingent answer is you should spend whatever it takes to maintain the authority of the campus to control the campus. Theres no objective figure nfo that. The lawyer in me has a much more pragmatic answer which is i would say that you should because it will have the great effect of paying for security and reducing the number of protests, which is to say every time you need to spend on security, the dollars shall be transferred from the Diversity Inclusion office, dollar for dollar. I like that better. Perfect. Well, im going to be debating at berkeley against a very left wing professor on Single Payer Health care. I hope im going to have the appropriate security. Ive sort of been thinking im not a national name, but its still kind of worrying when you think about going into well turn up so you have at least two supporters. Good. Harvey mansfield whos about 86 now and still teaching and still very much with it, we were attending our god daughters graduation from harvard last may. My husband was a student of harveys. As was i. He did tell charles that when he retires, they will never replace harvey with a conservative. So he has to go on forever and ever. And then john will go on forever and ever at berkeley. A wonderful event. I want to thank everyone for coming. A particular warm San Francisco thank you to steve and to john for an excellent job. [ applause ] heres a look at our schedule. Starting at 8 00 p. M. Eastern, a hearing on developing future political leaders. At 7 30 eastern on cspan 2, live remarks from jim mattis about his book. And American History tv with programs commemorating the 400th anniversary of the first africans arriving in virginia. Watch cspans campaign 2020 coverage of the democratic president ial candidates at the New HampshireDemocratic Party convention. Our live coverage is saturday at 9 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan, online at cspan. Org or listen with the free cspan radio app. This weekend on American History tv, saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on lectures in history, the California Gold rush and the environment. At 10 00 on reel america, the 1977 film on an italian newspaper journalist. And at 4 30 scholars on the history of u. S. Policy toward iran and Irans Nuclear program. At 6 00, historian dan albert talks about his book are we there yet. Explore our nations past on American History tv every weekend on cspan 3. Saturday on book tv, at 9 10 00 p. 9 10 eastern our interview with haben. Other students can just go to school and expect teachers to teach them. I couldnt do that. I had to think about what might i be missing. What are the potential unknowns here, how can i find those unknowns. And all my life has been this process of trying to identify unknowns and figure them out and come up with solutions. And at 10 00 p. M. On after words, America University professor talks about his book how to be an antiracist. I dont think even well meaning people, even people who are trying to be part of the movement against racism recognize really that the history of this term. When jim crow segregationists were charged with being racist, they said im not racist. Today even white nationalists are saying im not racist. No matter whether theyre in the white house or planning the next mass shooting. Then at 11 00 p. M. Former defense secretary jim mattis recounts his military career and his thoughts on leadership in his book call sign chaos. Watch book tv every weekend on cspan 2. Up next, students on issues impacting their communities. Gun violence, mental health, the environment and other topics. These are winners of a National Public speaking competition called soap box