To the National Constitution center on the road. [applause] i am jeffrey rosen, president of the National Constitution center in philadelphia. The National Constitution center is the only institution in america chartered by congress to information about the u. S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis and the centerpiece of our aspiring Educational Mission is a partnership withmtwo great lawyers with to dubya a great lawyers associations. [applause] the National Constitution center has brought these two great organizations together to sponsor a series of constitutional debates across america. This is our third time here at the be a full chicago cultural center, and we have also hosted debates from washington, d. C. Ted dallas to san francisco, educating and washington, d. C. , ted dallas to san francisco, educating at to francisco,an educating and illuminating. Using this amazing free online tool, which you can download ads in the app store, and which i want you to download at the app store not now because i am talking but after the debate, you can click on any part of the scholarsion and see with a thousand words about what they agree the provision means and separate thousand word statements about what they disagree. When you click on the First Amendment, which is the topic of our conversation this evening, you can find Jeffrey Stone from the university of chicago, who is here with us tonight, and eugene volatile from the ucla school of law, with a thousand words about what they think the First Amendment need means and their disagreement. It is an online tool that is illuminating and educating citizens across america. This is exciting tonight because we are here to discuss a question which has riveted campuses and citizens across the country. Namely should public universities have the right to define and ban hate speech on campus. Noted that this question is phrased in a legal and careful way. Public universities, unlike private universities, are bound by the First Amendment to the constitution. In the course of tonights you tont debate, i want separate your political views from your constitutional views. That is the central injunction for all of these debates and all of our educational efforts. You might conclude that hate speech is a terrible thing, but the First Amendment protects it. Or you might think that hate speech isnt so bad, but the First Amendment allows it. So when you vote on the motion, do public universities have the right to define and ban hate speech on campus, you are making a constitutional judgment. This is a remarkable topic on which members of the federal a society and the American Constitution Society often agree. We will start our debate with jeffs down geoff stone and eric poser who will tell you that the Supreme Court has construed the First Amendment to prevent the banning of hate speech on campus. They may disagree a bit on where the doctrine should go and when you cast your vote, you might conclude that the First Amendment doctrine should be changed so that it should be hate speech. Ban th then we will broaden the conversation to include three other remarkable scholars, keith long, andn, colin bed susan banish. They have nuanced positions that you will hear and you will vote again. You will vote at the beginning and that he will hear the arguments and then vote at the end. The winning team is the side that has changed the most opinions, not the one that gets the ultimate majority. Questiony it is a hard and people are debating it with an open mind. Another thing i need to say is that todays debate is produced as part of a great series of free speech debates sponsored by the stanton foundation. They are helping us take this conversation across the country. Its now time for us to vote. Ill say you finally we will have to talk with eric and geoff and then we will broaden it out and then we will take your questions on note cards. Resolved is Public University should be able to define and ban hate speech on campus. You can use vote anonymously using these wonderful clickers. We will have you vote again after the motion. Using your device, please answer that question. Do you agree with the resolution public use of Public University should be able to define and ban hate speech on campus. If you support the resolution, press yes. If you oppose it, press no. Then hit send. Once you hit send, your answer is displayed back to you. There is only a yes, that would be a very bad debate. . The soviet union . Scroll down. When you scroll down, you will see every option. The constitution center, we allowed yes and nos. Then press send and see your answer displayed back to you. Now you are about to hear from two of the leading First Amendment scholars. Both are here at the university of chicago which passed some really important intervals about free speech that we will talk principles about free speech that we will talk about. Stone served as provost of the university of chicago. Sex andrecent book is the constitution. He contributed to the field about free speech. Posner is the author most recently of the twilight International Human rights. Gentlemen, join me in welcoming geoff stone and eric posner. [applause] geoff you are one of the latest defenders. Why the Supreme Court has construed the First Amendment to prohibit the banning of hate speech on campus. F the Supreme Court has taken the position that, it in the realm of restrictions on speech, the most problematic are those that for bid the expression of a particular point of view. For the government to decide that certain viewpoints is impermissible, that puts such a serious intrusion into the marketplace of ideas and the ability of individuals to express their own positions into the capacity of people debate openly and fearlessly with one another that restrictions on the ability to convey a particular point of view are basically per , unlessstitutional perhaps they create a clear and present danger of truly great harm in the immediate. That is a general proposition that the court has stated. Context, case in other the application of the general principle applies as well to Public Discourse at public universities. Therefore, in the same way that a Public University cannot for bid speech today that advocates communism or advocates gayrights or opposes abortion, it cannot restrict speech that advocates what is regarded as hate speech. I say regarded. One of the khan said one of the concepts is that it doesnt have any acceptable definitions. That there are instances of what we would recognize as hate flags. For example, nazi yet the court has said that that speech is fully protected by the First Amendment. That institutions cannot prohibit individuals, students,. Aculty or staff and visitors it is not saying that it is not good or bad or indifferent. It is hateful. Thank you for that concise and powerful summary. You told us that the court has allowed hate speech only when it and causingto lawless actions. Do you believe that the First Amendment, as described by jeff, should be construed . Ifferently do you believe private universities, which are not formally bound by the constitution, should be allowed should allow hate speech . Eric let me put aside the doctrine for a moment and talk about what happens on campuses and what should happen on campuses. Hard tomentioned, it is know exactly what hate speeches. Speech that occurs that is sometimes called hate speech occurs in all types of different context. Depending on the context, relation may be appropriate. Let me make a few distinctions. The classroom. In the classroom, students dont have any freespeech rights, or they shouldnt. The professor is a dictator and the Student Speak only if the professor allows them to. Regulation. Ncial if students started saying if they were in favor against gay rights in my financial relation class, i would tell them to stop. And if they did it, i would kick them out. It is simply not relevant to the pedagogic mission. The livings conditions of the students. Students live in dorms. They dont have any privacy. There are not like the rest of us who can withdraw into our homes when we feel battered by the political discourse that is going on. Im quite some prophetic to the view that, in that context, if, for example, a black student is constantly hearing racist comments from his white roommate that the university should step in rather than saying this is an opportunity for educational benefit or useful giveandtake. Complicated setting is speech on campus, when speakers are invited in or when students are debating outside of class. Those are very complicated settings for which a range approaches can be taken appropriately. Im sympathetic to the view that a university could say, look, we have limited resources. We want students to hear from people who have something valuable to say. So, students, if you want to invite a provocateur who is just going to call people names, you cannot use university facilities. You can do it offcampus. You can do it online. And then other universities might take other approaches. And i think universities should be free to experiment. University bodies are different. Universities are in different parts of the country where norms of civility and behavior are different. As long as different universities are expert mentoring different regulatory maybethe students over time, we would get a sense of how to better regulate speech. Im not willing to take the position that hate speech under all circumstances should be allowed. I think that is far too extreme. My personal hand, view is i like what has happened at the university of chicago, thanks to geoff. Work on this. Fs but i wouldnt say that what is right for the university of chicago is right for review or berkeley or the universe right for you or berkeley or the university of texas. Respond to eric. Tell us what the chicago principles are. They allow what eric has endorsed, including the invitation of controversial speakers . Do you believe the chicago principles should be adopted by all universities are not . All, when i of describe what i thought the inst amendment is to mean public universities, you will notice that i said in Public Discourse. Eric is completely right. In the classroom, universities clearly determine what subjects can be discussed, what is appropriate on a given day, and similarly in deciding who gets appointed to the faculty. We evaluate the quality of the work in a way that is essential to the functioning of the university, decide who gets tenure, grading exams. You are evaluating the quality of ideas and how they are justified and that is not part of the basic contours of free speech. So the public aspect of directly, that is controlled by the First Amendment. The dorm situation is a complicated one. I agree, again talking about public, not private. The dorm situation, the argument can be made that a captive audience is there and students have to go out and look at the Bulletin Board and so on. The question is can the resident head or some other official in the university decide which messages are permissible in which are not . The difficulty with that is exactly the point about what hate speech who defines it . What does it mean . Does a hate speech have a swastika . Does hate speech have a noose . Does hate speech have a sign that says people who have abortions are baby killers . You can go down that line. Nobody knows were to end it. To put resident heads in charge of deciding which of those messages are ok and which are not trump should be impeached, is that hate speech . What about the trump supporter . The solution is to basically t neutral rules. You cannot put signs in the dormitory Bulletin Boards. In the question of private universities, i agree with eric that private universities have the right, indeed a First Amendment right, to decide for themselves free of Government Intervention what speech they ,ill allow, not allow promote, not promote in their facilities. They are not restricted by or governed by the limitations of the First Amendment. Chicago principles for a private university, like the university of chicago, which has a long and extraordinary tradition of commitment to Academic Freedom and freedom of expression in 2014, the president of the university being aware of the factor that some institutions around the country, these issues had begun to percolate, appointed a committee of seven faculty members with the charge statement of principles for the university of chicago on the question of free expression. The statement we drafted to the theat universities universities committed to the free, open, robust expression of peoples points of view. That the purpose of a university should be to encourage discourse, debate, argument, the teach people how to deal with ideas in a fearless, in a courageous way and it is not for whatniversity to decide ideas should or should not be permitted. If people dont like ideas, they should challenge them, expand why they are wrong, discuss why they should be rejected and exercising the skills are at the center of what university is about. And our responsibility is to train students to enter the real world where they will not be protected from ideas they dont like, from speech they find hateful, to train them to be able to deal with that speech in an effective and powerful way. Of the chicagoea principles is to celebrate that notion, to recognize that there are limitations on speech, even in the Public Discourse. There is speech that is illegal. There is speech that constitutes real threat, rossman tedbased privacy harassment to base privacy. It is up to the individual student, the individual faculty member to defend themselves. On the question of what university should do, as i said, eric is right. Institutions are free legally to decide for themselves what they want to do about this issue. And a private university could say, for example, in the same way that we will pick faculty and pick students based upon their ideas and their values and their viewpoints. We will have our university will only allow people dedicated and supported donald trump or dedicated and support abortion. They are allowed to do that. My view is that is not a university. What makes a university a university is the fact that it is open to all ideas, to challenge all ideas, and it should not be playing the role of sensor in that manner censor in that manner. My own view, when they do that, they sacrifice a core part of what should be their aspiration to education and to create knowledge, to test ideas in the fiercest way possible. Jeff great. Thesegeoff basically says chicago principles are not only right for chicago, but right for all universities because they get to the essence of what universities are about. And our audience in voting on this important question is deciding how they think the First Amendment should be construed, not how the Supreme Court has done it. Can you make a case for why you public and private university should define and then hed speech . Define and ban hate speech . Universityung universities that engage in Significant Research and valuable teaching. It is possible to have an Educational Institution which is committed to research and teaching, but also has certain bright lines they dont let people cross. I find it hard to believe personally this approach at notre dame will produce better ofolarship at the University Chicago to be provincial about it. Im not willing to rule that out. I like competition. I like him petition in the same way that we allow newspapers to take a single position. Is basicallyes liberal. Wall street journal is basically conservative. Thats fine. We could have better public debate if all newspapers had both liberal and conservative debates within their pages. That may be true, but it may also be better if we have a diversityof cross across institutions, not just within an institution. The point that geoff makes that it is difficult to draw lines come i dont think it is difficult. The employers have the same problem that universities do. Their employees might want to talk about politics and when they do, they might upset each other and call each other names and get angry. All employers have various rules that they use. Sometimes they say no politics. Sometimes they have vague guidelines. If people get upset, Human Resources will its will address it. I think universities are capable of doing that sort of thing. This sort of thing for a long time until this issue polarized. Logically i think the universities were going along fine until all this tension was directed on them. So in terms of the first more sympathetic to the view that public universities should not engage in speech regulation. I dont really trust state legislatures to allow universities to operate the way they should. But im not going to be i do think the First Amendment should be interpreted flexibly in the case of public universities to allow them to regulate speech to a limited extent while at the same time, in the case of private universities, i think they sperm and tatian should be much more should be allowed to flourish much more. Says it is important for the students to learn how to defend their ideas and to criticize people and so forth. But the really important part of what the uni