Gratitude. E will be discussing pathologies, undeniable pathologies that exist in american Higher Education these days. Ompromising of compromising of academic education. The lack of Viewpoint Diversity. The phenomenon of trying to win debates by labeling other people haters. T bigots or those pathologies are undeniable. They exist. They are very widespread. Many people in the academy across the political spectrum not only recognize them but recognize that they present an urgent problem and truly a stanford ovost of university recently in a public letter called that threat the threat from within the you university within the university. Saying no threat to Higher Education come interesting outside the universities is the equal of the threat inside the universities stemming from a certain kind of ill liberalism. A lack of Viewpoint Diversity among faculty and students. A tendency to group think and unwillingness to question established orthodoxies or permit discussions of key issues to go forward. Some of you perhaps read the oped piece in the wall street journal by the selfdescribed left wing president of the university in connecticut calling for of all things not something i personally favor but interesting that he would make the proposal, affirmative action for conservatives. In american Higher Education. And his reason is the need to have viewpoints across the spectrum represented for earning to take place. I said i wanted to begin with an expression of gratitude. Thats gratitude to my home university, Princeton University, which is sponsoring our conference here today. The James Madison program is a program of Princeton University. This program has flourished at princeton for 17 years now. Im enormously grateful to my colleagues and to suck skessive president s at Princeton University who have not only permitted our program to live but indeed to flourish. I am now completing my 31st very happy year at Princeton University. [applause] mr. George thank you. Perhaps not all my colleagues would cheer, but i would like to think that some would. I entered this University Fresh out of graduate school in the fall of 1985, and i was out of the closet as a questioner, a denier of the local gods. A questioner of the established campus orthodoxies on political and moral questions from the very beginning. Ut princeton did not deny me a position at the university because of that. In fact, i was hired. I was granted tenure. I was promoted. I was installed in the chair of jurisprudence and permitted to establish the James Madison program in american ideals and institutions. So whatever is to be said about the pathologies afflicting american Higher Education, whatever we will say, and without claiming my university is or is near perfection, i do feel a profound sense of gratitude, especially in view of what i know people who are far superior to me in their scholarship and ability and achievements have suffered at other institutions around the country. I think well be hearing a bit about that in the presentations. To discuss these vital issues, we have assembled an outstanding panel and i will introduce them all right now in the order in which they will speak. A ph. D. Craiutu, graduate of this university, professor of Political Science at Indiana University at bloomington, where he also directs the detocqueville program associated with the political theory and policy aalcy. Allen gel zorks one of our nations most distinguished historians, is director of civil war era studies and professor of history at Gettysburg College in pennsylvania. His work on lincoln and the civil war is simply unsurpassed and has been acknowledged for its excellence with prize after prize, after prize. Indeed lincoln prize, after lincoln prize, after lincoln prize. Were delighted to have allen back. He has been a fellow and visiting professor in the Madison Program here at princeton. Zena hits hitz, also a ph. D. Graduate of our university is a tutor at st. Johns college and teaches across the liberal arts there, as all tutors at st. Johns college do. She writes in defense of intellectual activity, the pursuit of truth, the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake as against the defense of the intellectual life on purely instrumental grounds for economic or political reasons. And she was in 20102011 also a visiting fellow at the James Madison program. And then finally the distinguished scholar in whose honor we have convened this nference, leon kass, the scholar at the American Enterprise institute and Professor Emeritus in the committee on social thought at the university of chicago. Leon will bat cleanup. I will first recognize professor aurelian craiutu. Be mr. Craiutu im very honored to be on this panel. Thanks for inviting me to join the other panelists. Since its lace lathe in the day and gone through several passengers, i thought i should entertain you with a nice story which has a theoretical part and a juicier part which is the second part. Every Spring Semester like many in the audience i teach justice on liberty which is a book that defends vigorously freedom of thought and freedom of speech against the tyranny of Public Opinion and undo government interference. This is one of the books that should be on the mandatory reading list for all those who care about liberal education and can still read. I should add the complex 19th century sentences written for 19th century leaders, our students today im not so sure can master that amplet in this wonderful book were reminded we should listen to those who disagree with us and give us, the readers in the 21st century, a few compelling reasons for doing so. First, he tells us that our opponents are invaluable because they can sharpen our arguments and can point out possible flaws in our own arguments, claims, or beliefs. Second, he reminds us of the peculiar quote evil of silencing the expression of any opinion by doing so he warns us we rob the existing generation as well as posterity in general of the opportunity to test their beliefs and correct them if necessary. And this is what he writes, if the opinion is write, he wrote, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth. If wrong, they lose the clearer perception and livelyier impression of truth produced by he collision with error. Moreover, we can never be really sure that the opinion that were endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion. And quote, even if we were sure that, he added, stifling it would be an evil steal. This is because all silencing of dissenting or allegedly disturbing or threatening views is an arrogant assumption of infallibility on our part. And a failure to take any precautions against our own fal usual views. A failure to take precautions against our own fality. On liberty, as you well know, is widely taught in our universities today and here at Princeton University as well. And many of our colleagues seem to like the ideas of the book in theory. But what about applying them into practice, i would ask . Do they still guide themselves by mills recommendations . Do they live up to the recommendations . I dont want to imply anything and i do not pretend that these are rhetorical questions. I do not pretend that. What i would like to do is to answer them by telling you a small storery, hopefully a relevant one for the panel on liberal education. It is about the recent lecture given by Charles Murray from the American Enterprise institute on april 11 at Indiana University in bloomington a month after the now unfortunately famous lecture he had previously tried to give and had successfully given in the end at Middlebury College where the person who invited him was beaten and suffered a concussion. The middlebury event is wellknown and has been widely discussed in the media. The bloomington lecture is less known, but i think it can teach us something important about liberal education today. In particular, about free speech and pluralism and disagreement. I think it also it can also remind us that taking free speech, disagreement, and pluralism seriously is not such an easy task as they would want us to believe. Quite the contrary, im afraid. Murray was invited so here are the few details. He was invited to speak in bloomington about the 2016 elections as the author of coming apart, a book that he published sh published in 2012. The invitation was extended by a small group of students, two students to be precise, that formed a very small American EnterpriseInstitute Chapter on campus, an Informal Group not registered with the university on the bloomington campus. The main sponsor of the talk was the American Enterprise institute and the Small Program that i have the honor of directing at indiana chose to cosponsor it without offering a monetary compensation. The reason for doing so is that this past semester like everyone else in the country we have struggled to come to terns and to terms and to understand the results of the 2016 elections. To this effect in collaboration with the Provost Office and sernts on Representative Government led by the former representative lee hamilton, we have organized a series of lectures and round tables that sought to shed light on the increasing ideological polarization in our society and now campuses. We began in february with bill kristol, who was here earlier, who spoke about american politics in the age of trump. Yes, he did mention that name during his talk. Next, we organized a round table on of all things civility in moderation with a group of philosophers and political theorists. And we thought that a discussion of Charles Murrays ideas from coming apart would be a good fit for our series since his 2012 analysis highlighted several events that led to the vicktry of donald trump in 2016. Murray caught indeed early on a zite guys, speed of the age that others seem to have missed and seems to have been exploited rerentlessly relentlessly by the media. This year hes been invited to speak on many campuses from middlebury to columbia and were happy to work with students again, the two very brave students, to join our efforts and bring him to bloomington for free. We had no doubt that the controversial nature of his previous work, the bell curve, described by his critics as would and misogynist bring strong points. There were claims linging success to cognitive intelligence or possible link between them and race and genetics. Some judged this claim to be plausible if still controversial. Others accused it of racism. But few if any of the serious academic critics treated it as hate speech. Worthy of being censored. Maybe worthy of being discarded but certainly worthedy of being discussed. It was seen as a claim based on data, perhaps true, perhaps false, which must be taken into account and verified for their accuracy. Yet we invited murray to speak not about the bell curve but about the coming apart. This is what really interested us. While we were concerned about all that, we were also aware that major scholars on the left, and as colonel west, Roberto Unger at harvard had been teaching this semester, coming apart. The book that interest us at Harvard University this semester, this was one of the only five books on the required reading for their course on american democracy. I checked. There were only five. Along with of course, democracy in america. The next american nation, democracy matters, and the left alternative, and unger and west, the future of american progressivism. And coming apart by Charles Murray. So we thought if harvards people can digest Charles Murrays coming apart, so should people in the middle of the country could do it. Furthermore, only a couple of weeks before murrays talk at indiana, in the same room where he spoke in the beautifully furnished president s hall, Washington Post columnist deon urged our students to try to understand and listen to those whose values they do not share generally. He called especially on his friends on the left to try to develop empathy for cause that is might have motivated people to vote for donald trump on the right. Theres too much elitism, he suggested, that divides the country into bubbles. Think or thin. And prevents understanding dialogue and debate. It is time to end this elitism and treat the Middle America as something other than the flyover country between the two coasts. Between new york and l. A. And now follow the juicy details you have been waiting for. The announcements of murrays lectures was met with strong criticism and dismay by most faculty members and greater students. A good number were in humanities and i should add in the English Department. The critics implied that merely listening to a controversial speaker like murray would amount to endorsing his views. That is according to them racist views and miss songnies views that can have no place on any discussion on campus. An open letter, always an open letter so that more people can sign it, was drafted at the initiative of two students from my own department that challenged exercise their right to free speech, which is wonderful, and challenged the universitys decision to offer a platform to an allegedly racist writer and promoter of white nationalism. The signatories of the letter, more than 100 last time i checked, perhaps 200 by now, believed that providing a platform to Charles Murray was unwise. Here are their words, and i beg you to Pay Attention to that. I quote, were strong believers in Academic Freedom and speech. We do not advocate for blanket censorship of controversial views by state institutions nor by private actors. For that reason we respect the right of Charles Murray sponsors, i. E. Myself and others, to extend to him an invitation to speak at Indiana University. At the same time, public universities and institutions within them also have a responsibility tookt judicial when providing venues for speakers, particularly in the present climate of racial tension. In this case, we believe that providing a platform to Charles Murray is highly irresponsible and detrimental to our university community. And in a perfect logic, after declaring its commitment to free speech, the open letter asked the university to disinvite Charles Murray. It was followed by questions about the legality of the invitations, which hi to answer at the request of the chairman of the faculty counsell and a complaint was blodged with the bloomington faculty council. A few wanted to know about the format of the lecture claiming it was inappropriate since it did not allow for a debate or question and answer period. It did have a question and answer here as youll see in a moment. Others claimed that Charles Murrays scholarship was shabby, reprehensible and frankly loathsome and he was a charlton or provocateur, Something Like anne coal tore. The implication was his place was not in an academic setting a. Respectable one like bloomington, in spite of the fact that murray earned his ph. D. From m. I. T. And authored more than 10 books today, to be precise 12. And some of which were published by major presses. Even murrays latest work coming apart they blamed builds upon the same discredited evidence discussed and used in the bell curve. A others spoke with indignation about the damaging decisions to invite to campus an author who promoted hate speech or incited albeit vie variously to hate crimes and who discredited i. U. And my own department. His despicable ideas do not deserve to be debated because they are racist, sexist, demeaning women, and threatening in general. If you think im exaggerating. Lets listen to what they actually said. Murray views are not just one side of an interesting debate. They are vial and wrong, someone wrote. They are also being indorsed and disseminated in some form from the highest office in the country right now and from many members of the congress. It is an intimidating and frightening environment for many of us in this speaker brings that Chilling Effect home. A student actually said this. I am for free speech but i am against giving people platforms to speak whose work isnt up to the academic expectation of Indiana University. Plus its hate speech, she said. Indiana lecture was not canceled, as the signatories asked the provost to do and the provost backed us and went on with Massive Police protection offered by the Police Department of my university. They worked very hard to make sure that the violence that had previously occurred at middlebury would not be repeated at indiana, and it was not. The venue for the talk was carefully selected and the number of free tickets distributed w