ahead in congress wi bloomberg government congress reporter zach cohen. and the des moines registe on the state of the 2024 pridential race in iowa. we will discuss the rise of anti-semitism on colle campuses and last week's congressional hearings with author and free speech advocate greg lukianoff of the foundation for individual rights and expression. c-span's "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: welcome to 1990 -- welcome us as 1995, the washington

journal has been on c-span. this morning is no different. much of our discussion will revolve around free speech, censorship, and college campuses. we are going to begin with this piece by andrew sullivan, harvard college grad. the day the empress's close fell off his what he titled it. it may be too much to expect that congressional hearings last week storing the three presidents of harvard, m.i.t., and penn will wake people up to the toxic collapse of america's once great ivy league, but i can hope, can't i? as you listen to these people, you see how far the termites have spread and how long and well they have dined. the mediocrity condescended and stonewalled. take a good luck these are the people who now select our elite.

they select them as they select every single member of the faculty and every student, by actively discriminate against members of certain privileged groups and aggressively favoring other marginalized ones. they were themselves appointed in exactly the same way, from di approved pools candidates. the harvard dean's top priority was making more progress at the university, intensifying the already systemic race, sex, and sender -- gender discrimination that defines the place. thanks to the recent supreme court case, and your sullivan writes, the energetic discrimination against it -- asian american candidates at harvard is no longer in doubt, but counts other candidates for admission have little to no chance, regardless of their grades or extra curricular's, because they belong to the wrong race, sex, sexual orientation,

and gender identity. as soon as students are knitted under this framework but they are taught its corporate saps -- its core precepts, that the truth is not a function of logic, reason or open debate and dialogue, let alone of western civilization, but an -- of power structures rooted in identity that need to be dismantled first . identity first, truth second, because truth is rooted in identity and cannot exist outside of it. we will read some more of mr. sullivan's piece in just a minute. we want to get you involved as well. we are talkingbout andrew sullivan's opinion about the toxic collapse of higher ed, especially when it comes to censorship and free speech. you can see the numbers there on the screen.

(202) 748-01 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 f democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to send a text message, (202) 748-8003. please include your first name and your city, if you would. you can see our social media site as well. you can go ahead and continue the conversation there. now, a little bit more from andrew sullivan. in the hearings last week, the congressional hearings, the president of harvard said with a straight face that, we embrace a commitment to free expression, even of views that are objectionable, offensive, or hateful. this is the president whose university mandates all students attend a title ix framing session where they are told that cis heterosexism is a form of

violence on using the wrong pronounce is abuse. they engineered an ouster because he represented a client of whom students disapproved. they watched a brilliant and possible -- a brilliant professor be hounded out of her position after public shaming campaign by one of her department's di enforce matters -- enforcers because he dared to state on television that biological sex was binary. this is the president of the university were a grand total of 1.46% of faculty call themselves conservatives and 82% call themselves liberal or very liberal. this is the president of the university which ranked 248 out of 248 colleges this year on free speech.

penn was 240 seven according to the foundation for individual rights and expression. harvard is a place where free speech goes to die. that is a little from andrew sullivan. a lot of articles in the paper, including the washington post. this was a front-page piece. penn leader's exit fuels debate on campus speech. others called the resignation a loss for free speech, predicting it will imperil the rights of students and professors to speak their minds as donors shape campus codes of conduct and discussions. university leaders are balancing policies favoring full and free campus debate with the need to protect students and faculty from violence and harassment, a real threat in the current discourse that affected people on both sides of the conflict in

recent weeks. the board of advisors proposed a broad policy that would discipline students or staff who engage in hate speech, veiled or explicit. a professor of law and philosophy wrote an op-ed in the washington post calling for the restriction of free speech to protect students, urging university presidents to rethink the role that open expression and academic freedom play in the educational mission and democratic governor of new york issued a letter to state college and university presidents saturday promising to take aggressive action, including pulling funding against schools that fail to clearly and unequivocally denounce antisemitism and calls for genocide of the jewish people. that is a little bit of an example of what is going on this morning in the papers and now we want to hear your voices.

we will begin with tony in new york on our independent line. we's are making our conversation on andrew sullivan's piece, the toxic collapse of higher ed. what do you think? >> i want just caller: -- caller: i want to start by saying, from the river to the sea, palestine will be free. i called out of work. i encourage people to do so as well. i currently attend an institution in new york state. i have been part of registration on campus and my university president has yet to say anything showing support for palestinian students on campus. when i was out demonstrating, one of my professors told me not to get involved. rather than joining -- coming to our events, they have called the

university police department. she has yet to say anything about students shot in vermont over the thanksgiving weekend. she has yet to condemn any of the violence that has been going on against the palestinians. host: do you feel you have free speech rights on your student campus? caller: absolutely not. we have actually -- when we were promoting our events, our posters have gotten taken down. there were campaigns against students as well. i encourage everybody who is marching in solidarity to mask up. absolutely not. host: why the call for mask up? caller: if you know, you know. in general, especially with the rise and covid and stuff. host: is it to hide identity or because of covid? caller: a little bit of both.

there has been doctoring -- doxxing of students and faculty. host: let's hear from nate in baltimore, democrats line. what do you think? caller: i think that not that we are focusing on the wrong things because we have to go back to october 7. totally anti-hamas. the thing on campus, i'm perturbed. she is going to be -- yet she does not call out anti-semitism from the right at all, so this is all feeding into the right-wing attack on i guess colleges anyway. it is playing into that. then who pops up with the article today? andrew sullivan, who has been quiet on the issues of anti-semitism.

now he is coming up because it fits into his narrative. i think it is more the same as far as attacks. it goes back to october 7. as far as tony with his mask up and his hide your identity and anti-covid restrictions, i think that he and his repeating hamas slogan is pretty foolish also. host: this is the front page of usa today. one student reported a swastika scrawled across a whiteboard. another said he was asked if you would be willing to stand up in front of his peers and rap. i brushed it off, the student told college officials. but he added, this is not the only incident of behavior like this. the complaints funneled into a group of schools -- virginia

tech brought together to review and confront bias on campus. sexist jokes or racist name-calling. known as bias response teams, the groups have proliferated at universities across the nation as schools wrestle with a series of high-profile hate incidents. now these efforts are facing first amendment challenges, including a contentious case pending against virginia tech. the lawsuits have been successful in forcing schools to rewrite what critics call speech police policies. conservatives say these policies intimidate students from speaking their mind. usa today goes on to say that though the first amendment contains no exception for hateful harassing or biased speech, universities often try to suppress it. a group called speech first told the supreme court in its suit against virginia tech.

if speech first is right, than bias response teams are chilling the speech of millions of college students. the legal fight has reached a court at the moment when speech on campus has become particularly fraught. school and ministered are navigating a push for inclusivity at student bodies that, like the rest of the nation, are often divided over politics and foreign affairs. eric in new hampshire, independent line. what do you think about higher ed and free speech? caller: i think free speech is not allowed on campus is now, mainly being shut down, right leaning speakers. we have seen examples of that. one is the law school that had a faculty member that protested. they would not let that person speak.

i believe she lost her job, which was surprising to me. there are numerous examples of right-wing speakers being shut down by the left. the left is always calling people fascist but who is shutting down speakers? it extends off-campus. recently, the attorney general sued a group are protesting and shutting down a drag queen story our. i have yet to see this attorney general try to sue any groups for shutting down right leaning speakers. i echo what the previous speaker talked about, the thing that -- this palestinian thing -- people support the palestinians after october 7 is crazy to me. host: are you a college student? caller: i was a long time ago.

host: politico this morning, a former obama advisor, do not let politicians take over harvard. amid outrage over comments made during a hearing on anti-semitism on campuses, the presidents of harvard and m.i.t. have faced calls from politicians and donors to resign. one is already out of a job. some, according to a former obama advisor, urging the school not to bend to external pressure. we have work to do as a school on anti-semitism, islamophobia, academic freedom, and free speech, on viewpoint diversity. we need to redouble these efforts on many of these, he wrote, but caving to donors and politicians will ultimately cost us our academic freedom and free speech. we are basing this morning's discussion on andrew sullivan's

piece from the weekend on free speech and the hearings last week in congress. "the day the empress'clothes fell off" is the name of it. if you want to talk about his view of the toxic collapse of higher ed, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002, independents (202) 748-8003 on -- and dependent. -- mitt romney weighed in. [video clip] >> it violates the premises of american unity come a not recognize that calling for the genocide of a people is awful, is a hate crime. this was an extraordinary breach

on the part of the judgment of the heads of these universities. people are saying, if a conservative speaker wanted to come to their campus, they will be outraged. but they are saying it is ok for people to call for genocide? of the jewish people? this is not just about jews. it is about members of islam. it is about tolerance for people who are different in our country and these university presidents have to stand up to that their failure to do so was an extraordinary failure. host: next is mel in jamestown, new york. caller: i would agree with what andrew sullivan is saying. it is similar to what dennis prager has to say regarding the left. the left ruins everything it touches. we see this manifest in education, not just at the higher ed level, but also in

government run schools. this leftism is manifesting itself not only in racial overtones but what you see in the gender discussion where you notice how you cannot even define a person biologically. because of this, we see a decline in academics. it becomes more of an indoctrination than it does as an environment for learning and academics. sullivan, i appreciate him exposing what is going on. just because you get rid of a college president does not mean the cultural marxism has been removed. what we see is culturally marxist presidents -- culturally marxist professors defining everything by oppression and

oppressor. host: we appreciate you calling in this morning. shirley, republican line, you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you for taking my call. i am glad that she resigned and the other two need to follow suit. that is the first thing. the other thing is i am all for free speech. i think how i feel is not necessarily have somebody else feels. so they need to be able to express how they do and may as well. when you go to the polls, you see what is going to happen. but these degrees cost so much money. these kids going to these colleges, it is costing so much money. i do not know why they are not in class being educated instead of out prancing in the streets and making spectacles out of themselves.

that is not what they are therefore. -- there for. host: back to andrew sullivan's article. freedom of speech in the ivy league extends exclusively to the voice of the oppressed. they disrupt classes, deplatform are shout down controversial speakers, her lips entities, forced members of oppressor classes jewish students and teachers in the latest case, into locked libraries and offices during protests and blocks from classrooms. jewish students have even been assaulted at harvard, umass amherst. assaults by woke students used to be rare, such as the 2017 mob that put a neck brace. since 10/seven, they are intensifying. what do you think about this discussion? caller: thanks for taking my

call. higher education is to me -- i am for biblical higher education. we think we note freedom of speech is, yet here i am. i have freedom of expression and i treat everybody equally. i do not go to the left or right. i stay in the narrow. that is what i learned in the bible. even in the bible, you had the left-wing and right-wing. you had things people interpret this way or that way. who is oppressed but a person who has been oppressed by the rule of foreign governments? host: that is timothy in georgia. this is willy in texas, republican line. caller: good morning. i believe totally in free speech. i have a criticism for c-span.

i think you suppressed speech because there are a lot of conservative writers, investigative journalists, and the like that we would like to hear. we would like to actually have the opportunity to talk to over the air on your program. host: do you have some names for us? caller: mike davis, julie kelly. from the new york post -- i cannot remember her name. miranda divine. here is the thing. just like you put -- back in the day when russia gate was big, you had malcolm on all the time.

we would like to hear some of these people talk about the evidence they have and the things they have written about so we can make our own minds up about the specific instances and ideas. host: appreciate the suggestion of the names. toxic collapse of higher ed is the topic. andrew sullivan is the article author. caller: that is a ridiculous claim. so many things wrong about what is going on here. free speech, constitutionally does not apply in higher ed.

i worked at several universities and you will notice most of your concerned calls are coming in about things like pronouns and eei. opposition to dei, they do not even know what it is. they think it is critical race theory. that is not what it is. diversity, equity, inclusion. when we say inclusion, it means everyone. no one is excluded. what they are talking about is excluding people that support a palestinian state. supporting a palestinian state -- i am pro israel and pro-palestine.

that is not genocide. if a student says, committed genocide against the jews? that is a violation. if they say from the river to the sea, the school's hands are tied because those supporters are talking about a one state solution as opposed to a two state solution but no one says kill all jews. host: how do you think the president of harvard, m.i.t., and you pended in the hearings? my guess is you have watched. caller: the public affairs officer who does messaging -- i have worked in scientific publishing out of london. for instance, 600 professors as of today have written a letter in support of the president of harvard. the president of penn should not

have resigned. there is free speech on campus. i have never been indoctrinated. i have two masters degrees. i am a student of caller and went to predominately white schools. i did have arguments with some professors. but that is part of higher education. your callers calling and complaining, a lot of them are over 70 and have never gone to school and conservatives hate higher ed. host: conservatives hate higher ed? caller: if you -- they even say -- i watch a lot of fox news. they say that -- do not go to college. you will be indoctrinated. they have been saying this for decades. the war on higher ed. it is ridiculous. host: is that the point of entry sullivan's -- andrew sullivan's

article, that the empress's clothes have fallen off? that the hearing last week was an exposure of shortcomings of higher education? caller: i am 63. do you remember college campuses in the 1960's and 1970's? they were hotbeds of volatility. ohio state students were shot for protesting the vietnam war. we have such short memories. they have always been hotbeds of dissent and debate. between the left and the right. and what you have now is a great deal of diversity, women getting degrees faster than men, white men not going to college, a high population of asian students. that is why you are seeing those protests, because the asian

students do not want to see a palestinian genocide. most of them do support a two state solution, so you have to be specific. when we see -- say antisemitism, one important point i want people to remember, arabs are semites. host: that is keith in denver. this is jay in arlington, virginia, independent line. caller: good morning to you and c-span listeners. one thing i think is lacking in this conversation is that you have highly accomplished presidents of some of the leading institutions in higher learning, probably the top schools, absolutely terrified and unable to make concrete conversations and responses.

under insane cross-examination about the fact that free speech is available to all students in the school. host: just to be clear, you are saying the interrogation was wrong or that the presidents failed in their answers? caller: they failed in the entire thing. it was a sham and they were cornered to the point where they could not reply to even put a statement on genocide. you cannot be asking this question in this way. i should be allowed to answer my full answer. what is going on here is you are trying to prod me to say you cannot talk about it. you can talk about anything

anywhere, anytime, but this seems to be the one taboo you cannot talk about, which is it is an occupying power oppressing an occupied, illegally occupied population at that. what happens here is, while this article you were talking about -- there's a lot of work talking about the fact this is the one thing you cannot talk about. host: jay in arlington, virginia. i will reread two sentences from andrew sullivan's piece, the day the empress's clothes fell off. take a look at these college presidents. these are the people who now select our elites as they select every member of the faculty and every student by actively discriminating against members of certain privileged groups and favoring other marginalized ones. back to your calls, maggie and

kentucky, democrat. good morning. caller: my only thing to adhere -- i really appreciate the caller that just called, was just the hypocrisy of elise stefanik calling anyone out. her own party campaigns on antisemitism with their constant calls about george soros and globalists and their codewords that agitate anti-semite voters. for her to sit there and only practice political hygiene outward and not inward is just -- it maddens me. host: saturday night live had a satirical take on the hearings. >> thank you, chairwoman. i'm going to start screaming questions at these women like i am billy eichinger.

antisemitism, yay or nay? yes or no? is calling for genocide of jews at harvard? >> it depends on the context. >> that cannot be your answer. >> same question. >> we are serious about stopping all forms of hatred. >> not the second one. keep in mind if you do not say yes you are going to make me look good, which is really hard to do. so i will ask you straight up. do you think genocide is bad? >> could i submit an answer in writing at a later date? >> am i winning this hearing? somebody pinch me. host: that was from "saturday night live." christine, what do you think about our conversation?

caller: it is making my stomach turn. i appreciate it in more ways than you will ever know. i have a problem with all these pro palestinians protests. if you could just bear with me for a moment, if we all close our eyes and we thought about september 11 or more so how we felt september 12 of 2001, we did not fly flyers over there warning people we are coming. what hamas did, and it has been proven that it was done, there have been anchors that have seen the footage, there have been several different groups that have seen the actual footage,

these young people were either too young or not born. they did not live through what we lived through. this was horrible. this was worse than what we went through. host: if you could conclude about -- by talking about higher education, censorship, and free speech, go ahead. >> caller: i am a proud owner of a degree. i find it deplorable that these schools are endorsing this. when i consider myself a moderate. host: the students who support the palestinian side, should they be allowed to protest? at schools? caller: as an american citizen, they have the right to protest. however, they do not have the right to call for the death of anyone.

it does not matter who they are. that will be like inviting the kkk or the black panthers to a protest. they can protest all they want, but the minute they call for genocide of the white or black race, that is crossing the line. a lot of these that are protesting are here on student visas. the ones that are calling for the genocide, these ones that are here on student visas and not students -- citizens of the country, they should immediately be deported because, as far as i can remember, if you are not a citizen you don't have the rights that we have. host: that is christine in pennsylvania. this is larry in los angeles, democrats line. good morning. caller: it is good to see you. i have not seen you in a while on the journal. i am a longtime listener,

calling in occasionally. the topic you have come across today and have brought up is a very complicated one, to say the least. as far as free speech goes. it is kind of difficult that you do not step on someone's toes when you were in that free speech arena. i believe in free speech. i believe in speaking our mind. i do not believe in calling for the death, genocide, or hatred of any group. i know that is going to be difficult. you have had some astute callers this morning, especially the caller from colorado who brought up past instances, especially during the 1960's. host: can i ask you a couple

questions? may i ask where you went to school? caller: i went to school in los angeles. high school, elementary, colleges. i went to a couple colleges here. i spent 30 years with the government and worked overseas and i have spoken to you before. go ahead. host: i do remember you and it is nice to hear your voice again. in the article, and you are a self-described democrat, 1.46% of professors at harvard identify as conservative. do you think that is on purpose? do you think -- what do you think of that figure? caller: that is a low percentage. the label democrat, i vote along

the lines of what is best for the country. host: that is the line you called in on pure that is the way i can identify you. caller: i appreciate the question. that is a low percentage. i would like to think they can understand and be rational about their decisions and the things that they teach and how they teach. i think the truth will win out. i appreciate you, peter. host: it is good to hear from you. if i get to do this show again, i hope you call into say high. daniel is next from new york. republican line. go ahead. caller: they are both semites. host: antoinette, virginia, independent line.

we are talking about higher education, free speech, censorship. what do you think? caller: i think it needs to be protected for sure. i also have higher education. the college i went to, there were multiple protests there. i agreed with some. i did not with some. i participated in maybe be one. that was a long time ago. my main concern about this is the freedom of speech on a campus, younger students particularly are idealistic and want to be heard. they should be heard. this is a way for them to be heard without getting out the guns and hate. some people, there are exceptions. hopefully if you did something that is harmful that can be taken care of. one thing i wanted to add the

disturbed me about this hearing is that it was a congressional hearing and that is a meeting where we call in experts or people who know we can learn more about what is going on that we are concerned about and investigating. in this hearing and others in the past, she was asking so many pointed questions. these educated minds, you ask them questions that do not -- you want something more than a yes or no answer. you want to know why. that is why we invite these people, so we can understand. you can understand whether they are right or wrong what you cannot understand if you are always to mending a yes or no answer. there is always more than that. host: thank you.

emily, philadelphia, democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am very pro-free speech. i want to say good morning to my friends out there, marcus and winston. anyway, i have a daughter who graduated in 2015. i now have another son who is looking for colleges right now. we are in the middle of all of that. honestly, i want a campus that encourages free speech. from what i have read, i see nothing wrong with these palestinian protests at all. i do not know if students are being bullied on campus. i have not done a lot of deep dives into that. one of the things that is disturbing to me is elise

stefanik, very poor faith here. i agree with many callers who were saying she was not calling out other forms of anti-semitism that have happened. i do not know if she mentioned the horrible thing that happened at the pittsburgh synagogue several years back. it seemed to be very pointed at attacking the left, attacking voices that are critical of capitalism, attacking voices that are critical of frankly the united states and their stance on supplying weapons. host: we got your point there. did your daughter go to you penn? --u penn? caller: we had a horrible,

unrelated group at that university come in and do disgusting, anti-lgbt stuff. things that were acting against -- host: let's go back to the topic we are talking about, higher ed, free speech, censorship. do you think it was right for liz mcgill to resign from you penn -- u penn? host: she -- -- caller: she and her friends peaceably protested protesters no problem. i am not anti-speech. i am pro-promoting speech that is protective of people. host: thank you for calling in and sharing your experience with us. host: annie, ohio, independent line. caller: i am very concerned with elise stefanik. very concerned.

i want her to resign. all she has done for the last three years is cause problems. her stance on these college professors pisses me off. that is all i have to say. host: irene is next, north carolina, democrat. caller: good morning. it is eileen. i can see people are having problems keeping to the subject you brought up. because there is such an intersection between this hatred of groups in this case anti-semitism, and free speech. they come together, so it is difficult to separate the two. i am concerned because i believe

in free speech, but i think you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. this seems somewhat the same. yes, these people should have the right to protest, if that is what they choose to do, but they should not be able to use language which is so inflammatory. and causes harm. in terms of people saying this never went on before, that is certainly not true. i went to -- in the 1960's, i was in college and higher education and there was much more repression then. you are not allowed to speak out at all at most state universities and some private universities. most of the state universities,

you certainly could not without causing harm to yourself, protest for civil rights, for instance. i think we have only -- actually become better. it is just there is always a tipping point and we have to come back to a more reasonable level place. it was not better in the past. host: that is eileen in north carolina, who pointed out this is a complicated, intersectional issue. we appreciate that. the new york times this morning, state leaders support jews as rift shakes penn campus after the president of the university resigned over criticism that she did not condemn anti-semitism forcefully enough. state leaders showed solidarity with jews at a philadelphia rally while students and professors lamented the continuing rift on campus. speaking on sunday, the

government announced anti-semitism and voice support for the decision by the university president to listen -- of the university president to step down. liz mcgill has come under heavy criticism from donors, politicians, and alumni over her testimony in front of the house committee last week. a doctor of harvard has given no indication that she is considering resigning and the executive committee of m.i.t.'s governing board has declared his support -- its support for its president. caller: i have been holding off for weeks now to call c-span. i really appreciate the calls of other americans. this is not about anti-semitism and free speech. this is about anti-american

democracy and the right to express your opinion. they attack our primary institutions of higher education. this is where the best and brightest come from. that is where americans who are going to affect our future -- what about the thousands of jewish people who were arrested on the capitol steps? i did not hear anyone saying anything about that in terms of anti-semitism. this is about supporting a terrorist regime of israel cut the netanyahu people who will even kill his own people to stay in office. host: in new york city.

wall street journal this morning, the ivy league mask falls. editorial on the great benefit of last week's performance by three elite school presidents by congress off the intellectual and political corruption of much of the american academy. the world was appalled by the equivocation of the academic leaders. when asked of advocating genocide against jews violated their codes of conduct. the episode revealed the value system has become endemic at two many procedures schools. wall street journal goes on to opine, the schools may attempt to mollify the fury by adding jews to the class is deemed oppressed. that may make anti-semitism less tolerated on campus but will not change the deeper rot of anti-american, anti-western instruction that dominates so many campuses and will not root out the diversity and equity,

and inclusion policies that use race, gender, and sexuality as political weapons to enforce intellectual conformity dictate tenure decisions, and punish dissenters. the answers must lie with boards of trustees willing to appoint presidents who will stand up and require intellectual diversity among faculty. donors will have to follow through on boycotting schools. until they do, too many trustees and donors are happy to settle with getting their names on buildings and their children admitted. that is the wall street journal john is in tuscaloosa, alabama. caller: what i notice here is i watched some of the questioning of the ivy league presidents of the school. in looking at that, we have governor desantis, the governor

of florida, and i think the governor of mississippi, they are banning certain books, which are history books concerning the history of this country and of black people in this country. and why don't they get called before congress to explain why they are doing it? and how it affects not only the african-american people who needs to know about their history but also the other people that live in this country, white and black or whatever, but no one has called them before congress and questioned them. that is something i look at as being one way.

host: that said, since you have conflated these, is that -- should these college -- how do these college presidents come across to you? was it fair to have them at a congressional hearing? caller: i don't think a congressional hearing was necessary. i think that could have been done almost in house or through the faculty at the college. are we going to continue down this road with whatever other schools or somebody makes a statement, whether it is anti-palestinian, anti-muslim, anti-black? are we going to continue to call all these folks before congress because of something like that? host: thank you for raising

those questions and issues. mark, republican. you are on the washington journal. caller: one thing i heard rot up was the jewish students who were on capitol hill saying how much they felt harassed and unsafe on the campuses because of the anti-semitic rhetoric going on and at one of these colleges people were banging on windows of the library because they were jewish and the fact that people were suddenly concerned about free speech. i did not see the concern when conservatives are being censored and shut down on college campuses every time a speaker comes here and they try to shut down that speaker. riley gains showed up and was harassed. she was in a room for four hours while these people were making

threats and everything. it is not really about free speech because it is about anti-semitism being allowed on campus. if kids are feeling unsafe and like they cannot go on campus without -- just because they are jewish and chanting "from the river to the sea," which calls for the disruption that instruction of israel -- destruction of israel, a simple yes or no question -- people are saying this is a complicated answer. it is not. if they are calling for the deaths and murder of jews, jewish students should not have to deal with that. host: this is the front page of the new york times.

anti-semitism on campus let's write start a cultural battle. conservatives have struggled to persuade voters that the left-wing tilt of higher education was not only wrong and dangerous. you never cities and students have been pressed by suffocating ideologies and woke us -- woke-ism that should not be dismissed as harmless fads or zeal. the rise of anti-semitic speech and timid responses of some academic leaders presented an opportunity to flip the political script and cast liberals as hateful and intolerant. that is a little from the front page of the new york times. jacob in sarasota, florida, go ahead. caller: good morning. on the topic about free speech, the professor -- the president from u penn that made the

statement about the jews, i do not care how many degrees you have. if you do not have wisdom, you do not have much. you can have 100 master's degrees and no wisdom at all. the standard wisdom in the bible is fearing the lord. if you do not have fear the lord, you do not have wisdom. the saturday night skit you played on air reminded me, i often wondered in the past how all these shows with the three stooges and such, a hogan's heroes, came about. people like you and the media have put that out there. it was vulgar and tasteless. you should never have put it out there. it was disgusting to me. the other thing about the free

speech is those who bless israel will be blessed. those who curse israel will be cursed. they are not occupiers. god promised abraham, isaac, and jacob that land. that is their land. host: shirley, tennessee, democrat. caller: good morning. i feel that -- i heard the testimony of the young student. host: turn down the volume of the tv. just listen to your telephone. or we will have to move on. caller: ok. i am away from itv. host: just talk. caller: i saw the testimony of the young student who talked about feeling unsafe on campus

and i looked at the dichotomy of the presidents of those universities. they were all women. you had one thousand african-american. i am sure if she was allowed to talk about her experience on the college campus and feeling unsafe and not wanted there, she would have had some very interesting information to share. the outline prescribed curriculum of the university. why are they being attacked? they are merely abiding by what has been established. and established by males, i would venture to say. so why are they under attack? in the manner in which they are? i was looking forward to hearing them testify, but i did not expect our representatives to attack them. i was looking for answers. i wanted to understand more

about what was going on. i felt like they were attacked viciously and that was wrong. i feel the african-american students that go on these various campuses, my daughter attended a prestigious university. she is black. when they feel unsafe, who do they turn to? she did not have congress on her side in the manner in which the students have now. host: thank you for calling in. in georgia, independent line. >> glad to see you back. i want to talk about a couple things with you. with the hispanic people all becoming woke and all the other white folks waking up, it is only natural for them to become

more aware of a campus where you can now think for yourself. you're not young anymore. you can develop opinions. then the antisemitism, ok. people need to read by antisemitism and. back in 1948, they moved to israel. with that being said, they have a lot on youtube, tiktok and all these places. there are people who are waking up. they are definitely against it. host: we are going to leave it there. we appreciate everyone calling and. one thing to say and i want to read one final paragraph from an

op-ed in the new york times this morning. this is david french writing. he writes that the best, clearest plan for reform that i see comes from harvard's own pinkard. he writes that campuses should enact clear free-speech policies and adopt a parser -- a posture of neutrality. reform cannot be confined to policies. it also has to apply to cultures. that means disempowering the diversity inclusion apparatus that is itself all too often censorship and extreme political bias. david french writing in the new york times this morning. coming up, we will continue this

conversation on free-speech a little bit later. he is the author of coddling of the american mind. he will be on a little bit later. >> this year, book tv marks 25 years of sending a spotlight on leading nonfiction authors. nearly 900 visit will 900 vessels visited.

tv provides viewers with programming on the latest discussions on politics and biography. you can watch book tv every sunday or online at book tv.org. tv, 25 years of television for serious readers. >> traveling over the holidays? make the c-span podcasts part of your playlist. featuring nonfiction books in one place. it features multiple episodes of critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biography, current events and culture from our signature program listen to c-span's feed this season. you can find it wherever you get your podcast.

on c-span.org/podcast. >> apparel, books and accessories. every purchase helps support a nonprofit operation. check out any time at c-spanshop.org. >> friday night, watch the 2020 for campaign trail, a weekly roundup of the campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover where candidates are traveling across the country and what they are saying to others. this and first-hand accounts. watch c-span 2024.

you can download it wherever you get your podcasts. to c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> if you haven't missed any assistance coverage, you can find it any on c-span.org. videos of two hearings, debates and other events. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> washington journal continues.

host: i apologize. i was hearing myself there. not hearing last week, that has some legs, doesn't it? >> it does. actually, university of presidents -- they actually resigned over the weekend as part of a backlash. very high up in leadership. a violation with a large hearing . i am -- i imagine the debate around college campuses to the

degree that is still on campus. certainly others try to get added. host: was that on your radar last week? guest: it was. i did not personally watch it. later in the hearing it was first out of the gate. host: is that typical of a member of congress to ask a question? guest: these committees are made up of thousands of members.

they can use their screen time to make the point that they want to make. you have numbers that use the opportunity to make a particular point. you will find out that the more effective members of congress are the ones are not trying -- there trying to make one particular point while they have witnesses in front of them. host: it seems as a casual observer of congress, we have not seen speaker johnson nearly as much as we saw speaker mccarthy or speaker pelosi. is that a fair assessment? guest: i think so. he has done a couple press

conferences, but not as forward as speaker mccarthy was. he is relatively new at this. he was the vice chairman right below stefanik. it is certainly important. i think it has only been a month or so. funding for israel and ukraine. it is not unusual. it is like building a plane. host: we will come back to that

in a second. we want to get you involved in our discussion. if you are a republican, call in at (202) 748-8002. if you are neither of the above, you can call -- if you have a question or comment about congress, please post it to -- please text it to (202) 748-8003 . what is the buzz among congressional reporters? it seems to have settled into in order. guest: it is a narrow majority

that we have seen. obviously, two weeks of balloting fell through. there is some appetite. at some point, there are other hardliners. i think a lot needs to happen before that. he will not take up any more stopgap measures. they are trying to get a full government funding deal by the

february deadline to get the last resolution set up. host: how much have you focused on this issue? hunter biden's tax charges, the house inquiry and the biden impeachment vote this week. the only place i could find it was the washington times. guest: it has been remarkable that the impeachment inquiry is in phase to be of -- is on page 215 of newspapers. there are other things like aid for ukraine and israel. the government shutdown deadlines, one after another. this impeachment inquiry vote does not change much. all you can do is hope to bolster the legal case.

that case has not really been made yet. hunter biden has a career, advocating for governments abroad were for businesses abroad. no documented case yet. using that connection for corrupt purposes. host: washington post, bite into host zelenskyy for a debate on capitol hill. guest: it will be bright and early on tuesday. ukrainian president zelenskyy, it is his first time on campus. that is since september of this year. that is when he spoke to a joint meeting of congress. he will speak to senators in a private session and then speaker mike johnson before a meeting at

the white house. ukraine is trying to rebut the invasion from russia. but there is a political play here, coming to washington, asking for an ally to give more aid. it might make it tougher to get a down the road. host: where do speaker johnson stand on the issue? schumer and mcconnell -- where do they stand on the funding for ukraine? guest: you have schumer and mcconnell who have been opponents of aid to ukraine for a long time. it is something that they have stood together on. schumer and mcconnell had a

joint invitation for zelenskyy to speak with senators last night. he voted against several ukraine aid packages when he was a rank and file member or further down in house leadership. ukraine does need that funding. as well as investment in domestic manufacturing. the only issue is that johnson had the same issue that mccarthy does. that margin -- there are probably as many in the senate. in the house, things get done and it is harder to get an agreement. johnson has been one of those full arguing for aid.

host: should we see a vote this week? guest: we could. it failed largely along party lines. democrats voted against it. we could see another vote. not just for ukraine but israel. mainly taiwan. as well as on the border. border part is in the senate. republicans have asked for a significant policy changes on things like asylum and how they deal with the southern border. but they can support a majority of both caucuses. host: easy and adjournment

without funding for ukraine? guest: it is possible. that deadline was kicked into january and february, so members of congress are eager to go home with the full reset. campaigning at home ahead of the election. it is obviously within their purview to cancel the first week of that to get substantial progress. they made it pretty clear that there is no secret pot of money as they go into the winter with this war in russia. certainly, time is of the essence. i cannot imagine why they would not stay in town.

host: remind us of the deadlines for government funding in the house and the senate. guest: there are four charges of money that expire in january and mid january. generally less controversial funding packages. those would expire in mid january and they get some sort of agreement on that, they could reach an agreement in february where they take up the rest of those packages for the department defense. all the authorizations will move this week. that will have to be taken up in february. the first issue for that, they need to figure out how much money to spend for the current fiscal year.

right now the government is running on a stopgap measure. they want to keep levels. they have been negotiating how much they want to change the level going into the rest of the fiscal year. there is not much that can be done beyond that. the house and senate have passed packages over the last couple of months, but for there to be an agreement between those chambers , for them to pass a bill, they have to agree how much to spend and then everything works from there. there was talk about getting agreement on that figure. if that happens this week, we could see some action in january over the recess, finish writing those bills, something that can be agreed to. host: what is the buzz about former speaker kevin mccarthy leaving congress now after the

incident with the tennessee congress? guest: former speaker mccarthy says he might resign. he has not said what he is going to do after that. it is not uncommon for former speakers to leave in the middle of their term. we are waiting to hear for sure. nancy pelosi might run for reelection. she has not filed in california had to do so. that is coming up quickly to do so. there was some scuttlebutt that he would be a lobbyist. mccarthy is too qualified to do that. there is a long tradition in washington of former speakers, former lawmakers staying in government relations base and the lobbying space and

continuing to be part of the conversation. he has been lobbying on cannabis issues. it is unclear what his next steps are, but certainly anything that he wants to do, there will be plenty of people interested in him doing it. host: let's talk with wayne in new york. go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. in regards to speaker johnson, this man has been groomed into being a speaker. on the other hand, nancy pelosi groomed jefferies. you can see the difference in style in how they operate. the other one, as far as mccarthy, he has no way to get back into politics. it is said.

if you stop for donald trump, you have nowhere to go but down. they are attacking biden for his age and his memory loss, but the country is still running smoothly. they are attacking him and it is discrimination against elderly. host: thank you for calling in. let's start with jeffries and johnson and their relationship at this point. guest: it does not seem to be as productive as the one that jeffries and mccarthy had. if democrats flip the house, he would not become speaker of the house. certainly, somebody who has been rising through the ranks and has leapfrogged a couple of senior lawmakers like mike johnson did, they are not the minority leader right now.

i think that was a purposeful move to try to elevate the next generation. but to his point, certainly, jeffries had more time to prepare for this. he can sort of get his feet way in the leadership space, running a caucus without running a full chamber. he would have to take on that role. host: who is the most accessible? guest: all of them will chat with reporters. johnson is relatively new into his 10 year and has not been as accessible -- as accessible. the connell is very careful about what he says. more, it comes down not to

access but strategy. some of them are much more focused on what they want to say this week. i would put mitch mcconnell in that camp. i think jeffries is the most likely to speak off-the-cuff. you usually only get a couple of seconds. host: richard, please go ahead. caller: we have a new house speaker who does not even know where the front door is because he is still sticking up for a man who wants to be a dictator and he is not doing anything to make the country better for the american people. also, johnson is dangerous. they want to be a dictator leadership party and -- host: how do you think that

dictatorship is going to come about? caller: if trump gets elected as president again. that is a scary thing. host: that would automatically be a dictatorship? caller: no. he would start easing in his policies to start rolling as a dictator, over a period of time. if the american people do not wake up and see this, they are going to miss it. china, north korea, dictator's ruling with an iron fist. as a veteran, hopefully people will see that this guy, donald trump is dangerous to this country come along with the new speaker of the house. host: that is richard in georgia. that is probably the first time in an hour and a half we have heard trump's name on this

program. how much time is spent talking about dealing with thinking about president trump? as much time as we see in the papers? guest: a lot of the focus on trump, his trials are undergoing. he is under indictment in d.c. florida and new york, so those trials take up a good amount of time. he was kicked off of the website formerly known as twitter. he has not actually taken elon musk up on the offer. republicans continue to be soft supporters of trump. just last week, i saw north dakota senators endorsed him.

certainly, republicans see trump as the leader of their party. there was a poll showing trump ahead in florida. governor desantis was seen as the main challenger to trump coming out of these republican debates. governor nikki haley, the former un embassador has built momentum on that. i think it will become more clear to members of congress who develop their agenda for the next year and arguments for why they should watch. tom is indeed a nominee. i'm sure there are members of congress who would prefer that trump not be the nominee but are not quite ready to say so publicly. host: hakeem jeffries seems to be out on the trail raising money, giving speeches. guest: an important part of

leadership is campaigning for members of your caucus. mike johnson was in the hudson valley recently. michael lawler is one of the more vulnerable. it is something that both leaders are doing. schumer and mcdonough -- mcconnell as well. that is something that you see up-and-down leadership. the top member of minority and fundraising vehicles for their caucus, as they tried to hold on to those leadership positions. i imagine that will only pick up. part of that is to make sure that they are able to get that time away from washington to fund raise. host: jess in hyattsville, maryland. caller: my comment is that, as

relates to the possibility of donald trump becoming president again, i will say at this point that our military will have to make a decision because the fact that he claims to want to suspend or do away with the constitution and the other things -- for some reason people have these grandiose ideas that everything is going to work to their benefit and they are not seeing the bigger picture. that will be detrimental to the whole country and to all the media, everything that he is setting out to want to destroy. if the american people do not wake up, there will be a lot of people suffering, and it does

not have to be that way. if we think about what it is going to take to protect our children and protect our republic, it will require the personal fortitude of everybody to step forward to do what is right. host: from hyattsville, maryland. is there anything that you want to add to what he had to say? a really good profile in the atlantic of former joint chief of staff chairman mark milley, who i think, more than anyone else, spoke to what this caller was referencing, challenges of the relationships between the commander-in-chief and the military, and i think it is a fine line that milley was able to walk the last couple of days of the trump presidency. the military was part of the

solution for getting those rioters out of the capital complex. so, you know, trump is out of power. he does not have the ability to be a dictator unless he is elected to become president again, and there are even some legal arguments that he could not become president again, if he is charged with instruction in d.c. host: if you get elected, i'm curious what he's going to do to become a dictator? he has even said to some republican, i want to be a dictator for a day, so we control oil. guest: i think he's talking about executive orders. it is something every president does, takes unilateral action, but it is something every president can undo. doing the job of what congress and the judiciary should be

going through we saw at the end of 2020 that there is a role for congress and the judiciary to remain -- making the balance of power between the three branches of government, and certainly that could be the case. host: zach cohen of bloomberg, we always appreciate you. what we be focused on this week? guest: the defense authorization act. host: an end of your type thing that has to be done? guest: it is. it has passed congress six decades in a row now, something like $880 million in authorizations and policies for the military for the next year, includes a 5.2 percent increase for pay raise for the troops, and is something that lawmakers have been negotiating for the last couple of months. certainly republicans would have liked to include in that particular measure something to prevent the pentagon from helping troops travel out of state to obtain an abortion.

but that provision was stripped out for lack of support. so i anticipate that that particular policy will pass coakley house and the senate, the senate first, and then the house on the web why bipartisan majorities -- with why bipartisan majorities from both chambers. host: we appreciate you very much. an hour and a half to go this morning our program. coming up in about a half an hour or so, greg lukianoff, foundation for individual rights and expression, we will continue the discussion of free speech on college campuses and elsewhere, etc., with him. up next, it is public forum. what is on your mind? public policy, we want to hear your voice. we will be right back. ♪

>> a healthy democracy does not just look like this, it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed them a republic thrives. get informed, stray from the source, on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> stay up-to-date with the latest in publishing with book tv podcast about books, with nonfiction book releases plus bestseller looks, trends, insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app,

for wherever you get your podcasts. >> c-span's campaign 2024 coverage continues with the presidential primary. watch live on the c-span networks at the first post in the country are cast in the upcoming presidential election, along with candidate speeches and results, beginning with the iowa caucuses on january 15 and the new him for primy on january 23. campaign 24 c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> c-span's studentcam documentary competition is back with this year's theme looking forward while considering the past we are asking middle and high school students to create a succession minute video addressing these questions.

in the next 20 years, what is the most important change you would like to see in america? or, over the past 20 years, what has been the most important change in america? as we do each year, we are giving away $100,000 in total prizes with a grand prize of $5,000. every teacher who has a student to space in this year's competition has opportunity to share a portion of the additional $50,000. the competition is friday, january 19, 2024. for information, visit our website at studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: thanks for being with us on "washington journal." an hour and a half left to go in this section of the program. what public policy is on your mind? you see the numbers, dial in, (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrats.

(202) 748-8002 for independents. and if you can't get through and you want to send a text message, (202) 748-8003. if you do send a text, please include a city and your first name, and you can post on facebook and/or twitter @cspanwj as well cared washington times front page, as republicans prepare to launch an impeachment inquiry into president biden, they were given a special gift against hunter biden, the new tax evasion charges billed on a felony firearms charge and helps the gop leaders' case for impeachment and could help sway some swing voters. the president is not mentioned in the indictment filed in federal court in california, detailing his son's drug

addiction and abuse of sexual partners. the three felony and six misdemeanor tax charges give them new avenues to pursue if they try to figure out if the president was involved with his son's questionable business dealings. that is an "the washington times." this is in "the national review," sheila jackson lee defeated in bid for houston mayor. state senator in texas john witmer is the mayor of the fourth-largest city in america. sheila jackson lee has not made a decision about whether or not to run for her current seat in congress. now to your voices, melissa, cleveland, tennessee, democrat. hi. caller: good morning. how are you guys? i guess the policy that i'm

really concerned about right now, women's rights, particularly reproductive rights. there a lawsuit in texas going on right now of a woman who is 20 weeks present -- pregnant, has a baby that will die almost immediately after birth from a rare condition, and has been trying to get permission to seek an abortion in the state of texas, because, you know, it requires that, and that she is not able to get an abortion, she says it will impair her ability to have children in the future, and it will affect her her rest of her life. host: that also, melissa, what is your view on that? caller: my view on that, as a woman, i'm sick and tired of government officials thinking that because i am a woman, somehow i deserve fewer rights.

if a man wants to, you know, did a woman pregnant and then abandon her and not pay child support, he is legally allowed to do that. i mean, he could potentially go to jail, but he can make that decision to do that. a woman cannot. a woman has to be forced to end ure dangerous pregnancies, endure labor and delivery, and then in the future, not get any support once the child is here. host: that is melissa in cleveland, tennessee with her public policy issue. steve, indiana, republican line. what is on your mind this morning? caller: yeah. i tell you, i'm really concerned about all our -- since the government took over our schools from all our schools, and now it looks like they are kind of running our colleges, too,

there's no republicans, no teachers in our schools, no republicans teaching any of our kids and our colleges. you talk about a dictatorship, that is what the democrats look like they are doing in all of our schools and then all of the -- and even in our workplaces, with -- they are all -- democrats running all the unions, all democrats, pushing all the republicans basically out. host: all right, steve in indiana. this is robin in cullman, alabama. hi, robin.

caller: good morning. everyone thinks that trump is a dictator, a russian spy, he lies, everybody lies. democrats, republicans are liars. people we vote for are liars, too. you guys need to wake up and realize that the government is for the government and not for the people. and president trump is just as good or not as good as everybody else in government. and sheila jackson lee, i hope she does not get back her seat in the house, and you guys have a nice day and a merry christmas. host: there is robin in alabama. this is roger who is a democrat from fort wayne, indiana. hi, roger. caller: good morning, america, and thank you, c-span, for taking michael. i just want to give my opinion about a couple of things. one, education.

america needs to know that the conservative has been having their hands in our public schools for decades. they don't want no public schools, actually. what they want is all private christian schools. think about that, folks. how many of us out here, working class folks, would be able to afford that? and just think how many of us out there would be brainwashed, our students come our kids? another thing i would like to touch on, i've got a question for you maga folks. y'all always claiming that the government, the left, the media, our social media, that every thing is trying to control us all, that we should be afraid. here's my question -- what are they actually trying to control is for? to get us to do what exactly? if it is our vote, they already

have mine, so what are they trying to control us for? if a maga person can come on this line and tell us, what are they trying to control us for? one other thing, please don't cut us off, can some maga person please tell me what is this mr. trump has done a great that, no matter when you do, no matter how wrong it is, we are supposed to say, is americans, oh, he's right, let's overlook it, and then turn around and point right at a democrat and say, ok, you did the same thing, and you are guilty. host: ok, roger, two questions for you. you opened this talking about education. did you go to fort wayne public

community schools? caller: no, i did not come i went to michigan public schools, but i just recently graduated from fort wayne i.t. tech community college. host: guest: congratulations. caller: thank you. public education is all about moving the working tool of the economic ladder, and the conservatives, they don't want that. host: we got that. what did you study at tech? caller: i got my associates of science and technology in hvac. host: oh, ok, alright. final question, what do you do for a living now? caller: right now, i'm in the process of trying to get myself in the right company. i just graduated this past may, so i've been bidding companies

and really taking a look at the companies i'm trying to get in at. host: all right, roger in fort wayne, indiana, thanks for calling in and spending a little time with us. this is the "new york times" this morning, giuliani to go on trial for defamation and damages of election workers. there will be no goods only bad -- good news, only bad for rudy giuliani when he appears in court today for a trial to determine how much you will have to pay two georgia election workers he lied about after the 2020 presidential election race nearly two years ago. the election workers sued mr. giuliani from defamation. after fighting the case for months, mr. giuliani reversed himself this summer, seeking to avoid crippling legal fees, abruptly acknowledge that his serial attacks against the women were false. now mr. giuliani will have to endure a trial on the single?

whether he should have to pay what could be more than $40 million in damages. the proceedings begin today at the federal district court here in washington. charles, bentonville, arkansas, republican. what is the public policy issue that is on your mind this morning? caller: these demonstrations, pro-hamas demonstrations, peter. i was in a lot of demonstrations in the 1960's for civil rights, antiwar, and no one wore masks. so why are these people wearing masks? that is an interesting question. i wonder how many are actually american citizens. the last time we had people demonstrate en masse wearing masks is winning ku klux klan did in the 1920's in washington,

d.c. these demos rations are very large, well coordinated, well-funded. the signs, the banners are preprepared. they seem to be synchronized all over the world, including the united states. and i just wonder if they have had direct hamas input. and it is illegal to give thorough support to terrorist organizations, and i think the fbi should investigate those demonstrations. host: that is charles in bentonville, arkansas. well, it is about a month from now, iowa caucuses for the republicans will be happening. glenn is a political reporter with the des moines register. is this your first round of caucuses, or have you done this before? guest: this is my first caucuses in iowa as a reporter. yeah. host: what you think? guest: it is an experience. i've gotten to be on the

campaign trail whole bunch, attended a few events, topsoil bunch of iowans who are trying to -- talked to abel bunch of white who are trying to figure who they will vote for. host: do you understand how valuable the access is that you are getting to these candidates, because whenever they get nominated, they will be locked down? guest: absolutely. that is part of what is so important, certainly, folks who are shaking hands, talking out of pocket, for other folks run iowa, it is really kind of a privilege to be a close and personal with these folks, try to prove themselves before they, you know, sort of hit the national stage in a major way, so it is really an interesting, special period. you don't get a whole lot of access -- unfettered access like this a lot. host: galen bacharier, give us

an idea of who will be caucusing. guest: it will be happening january 15 at 7:00 p.m., so republicans will host their caucuses, folks will come and gather, republicans will participate. they will divided up according to the proportions of votes they received, democrats are doing it a little differently this year, given that they have changed their calendar. iowa is no longer first on their calendar, so they will have the results through a mailing system release on super tuesday. so those are the main details there. host: galen bacharier, i apologize, i believe i called you glenn at one point. i did not mean to do that. just a republican will be caucusing, because jacob guest: yeah. this event because of a change in the order of the primary calendar this time around. south carolina is now the new state for them, i think it is

fairly well-known in the political round how in the 2020 caucuses, things went a little bit awry here in iowa. partially as a result of that, has resulted in i would longer being first on the democrats' calendar. it is still first for the republicans, so that is why we see so many candidates here so often. host: is there anger, presented, disappointing on behalf of the democrats that they have been canceled, in a sense, in iowa? guest: not so much. i think for democrats here in iowa, it is sort of a time to refocus, focusing a lot of energy on local and state races. the midterm elections were not so hot for democrats in i will, and i think they are looking for a path forward, to look away from, you know, a lot of the national attention and, in some ways, for them, distraction some of the caucus system has been a way to channel that energy into grassroots. that's what we hear from a lot of organizers and elected officials here in iowa. host: galen, do you know offhand

number of registered republicans in iowa and the number that will be predicted to purchase paid in the caucus? guest: i don't know off the top of my head, but generally it requires so many folks to be at a specific location at a specific time. you can expect the caucus to be geared toward, engaged, registered republicans who are involved in the party and interested and actively going and it does not necessarily always represent the entire scale of every registered voter by any means, but certainly expect a fair number of folks to turn out on the 15th. host: give us two interesting tidbits from the campaign trail and the iowa caucuses. guest: one of them, i would be remiss if i did not talk about our iowa poll just released this morning that showed former president trump still has the commanding lead. i think as we see a vast

majority in the field visit iowa and one form or another, and we will talk about it, and president trump pose a case, or maybe try to refocus on their attention on the case of governor ron desantis or former governor nikki haley. this disorder feet crunch time, so we have seen this past weekend a lot of folks in the center for the congressman's catechol event, where they brought the candidate, who spoke a lot about their families taking a personal tinge on the usual politics of the campaign trail, making things a little more personal. we can see them five there messaging the closer we get to voting. host: galen bacharier, we look forward to meeting you when we get closer in iowa. now back to your calls on public policy issues that concern you.

pat, wisconsin, he didn't like. good morning. caller: yeah. good morning. i am concerned over support for ukraine. not that long ago, maybe six month ago, seven months ago, republican party, the majority of the senate was in favor of support for ukraine. the majority of the house of representatives. now, it is silent, you know, the support has really dwindled. when this thing for started and putin lined up 200,000 troops at the ukrainian border, trump said it was a beautiful thing. now, apparently everybody in the house and everybody in the on the republican side has taken the cue from donald trump. my question would be, why is

donald trump helping ukraine? i mean, putin went in there, and, you know, he killed, they killed civilians, bombed churches and hospitals. almost like hamas did when they ran across the border in israel. so i don't see the difference. i think if we can support israel, if the republicans want 100% support for israel, why not support ukraine? host: that is pat in wisconsin. up next is brent in michigan. brent, good morning. caller: good morning. hello. i would like to point out a pattern i've seen emerging in trump's defenses on his many indictments. considering the trials surrounding the events of january 6, prosecuted by jack

smith and fani willis, trump's defense seems to be despite all the evidence to the contrary, despite what the attorney general and that experts told him to the contrary, his defense is that he's deal believes that he won the election in 2020. trump was the is simply to deny reality. this i characterize as an insanity plea. the stolen classified documents case in florida, trump says he believes as president, he can declassify documents simply by thinking them declassify. now consider the ongoing trial in new york, where trump is accused of defrauding his assets to obtain bank loans. he says as that valuation is more an art than a science. if the asset statements he submitted are subjective, he believes there's no requirement that is agile statements have

any basis in reality or any relationship to the world of the rest of us actually inhabit. i wonder if my bank will grant me the same fantasy when i apply for a loan. once again, trump thanks -- host: thanks to brent, we appreciate your take. james is a republican in lawrenceburg, tennessee. james, what is on your mind? caller: free speech. i'm 87 years old, and i don't calling to talk shows much i think this is the first time i've ever been on talkshow. anyway, i spent the main part of my life up until retirement with two major media corporations, the hearst and tribune. i was a west coast rep. prior to that, i publish a small newspaper for eight years, which was very successful. one of the things that never

comes up in all this discussion of free speech is libel and slander. some of the people that call in sometimes get away with slander, and then there's the libel aspect that is in print, but it is never discussed, free speech. there's people out at these colleges demonstrating, and they have no clue that there is laws against some speech. every kind of speech is not free, and that's about all i've got to say, and i prescient you taking my call. host: james, thanks for sharing a little bit of your past professional experience with us as well. welcome to c-span. we hope to hear from you again. "washington post," bite into host zielinski a been debate -- biden to host president zelenskyy amid funding debate.

seems unlikely to pass additional funding for ukraine and u.s. officials warned the country will run out of money. zielinski will also meet with some congressional leaders including senator schumer and mcconnell, who invited zelen skyy to speak to senators tuesday morning. house speaker mike johnson will also meet with zelenskyy. sheila, in line, happy monday to you. caller: happy monday to you, peter. so good to see you again on "washington journal. " you remember that little couple that used to call in? host: yes, they are from texas. the petersons. they were adorable, weren't they? my guess is they are no longer with us. that was several years ago. they were adorable. and you know what? they sent me a painting that mr. peterson date that i've had in

my office for years and years. i always remember the petersons. they were adorable. thanks that memory. caller: anyhow, a couple of things going on here, that bill that has been holding up everything, for "washington journal," i called in, and i called in on the office phone, kennedy, and played that whole thing, kennedy in front of the senate doing a campaign speech. the reason, the gentleman on their couple days later and you played a little bit of it again. well, he admonished that whole thing. i had called cory booker's

office and admonished him. how can you let him up there? you are the head of the whole thing. i had to call him back and apologize to him because he is not bad. anyhow. host: sheila, what is on your mind this morning? you want to talk about senator tuberville and his military holds in the senate? caller: that was ridiculous, and he is still holding up 11 generals. host: you follow public policy pretty close, don't you? caller: yes, and i want you every day. host: where else do you get your news sources besides c-span? caller: i watch cnn, msnbc, i will watch fox every once in a while. host: what about reading?

do you have any publications that you go to? caller: we have the carrollton paper here. when you read the papers every morning, i listen to that. i am not too much of a reader because i am to busy on the phone with my doctors, watching you. host: i'm going to guess you are retired, is that correct? caller: yes, i am 73. i have all the time in the world to sit here and watch. but i tell you, when cory booker had to sit there and listen to tuberville saying, objection, objection. cory booker come the look on his

face, i was sitting here waiting and looking, i was afraid to move away from my tv set, because i was waiting for cory to get up and pound the dickens out of that man. host: what are you retired from? caller: several things. i was a baker. i worked in offices. me and my husband had a bakery here in carrollton. that was back in the 1980's, early 1990's. he passed. i gave that up and went into floor covering. i dabbled in quite a bit of things. host: sheila, thanks for spending some time with us this morning. we look forward to talking to you in another month or so. terry is in rogers.

what is on your mind this morning? caller: we had a couple callers earlier who said the military better be ready, because when donald trump comes over, they will have to take over. i don't think they realize how ridiculous. they are going to stop a dictatorship by having a military coup or something? mark milley had no business going behind the president's back and calling china and saying he is going to give them warning if we do any attacks. that is wrong. this is my main point, though. everyone has to understand, when you hear people call in and say "maga" like it's a dirty word, the people like me calling in our zealots. you have 20% to 30% on each side. the 40% in the middle are going

to make the decision on president. they don't care about court cases, they think it's all political b.s. what they care about is wars, what they are paying for their food and gas, interest rates for their homes. that is my trump is going to win. host: what do you do in rogers, minnesota? caller: i am retired. i was in the auto industry for 40 years. host: where is rogers? caller: you know where minneapolis is? northwest suburb of it. host: thanks for being with us. dan, what is on your mind? independence, oregon. caller: hello. four years in the air force, five years in the army national guard, 15 years at the post office, and i'm also retired. i have two facts for you.

if the tax breaks that the republican gave to the big businesses, they gave us a tax break, too, but in 2026, that goes away if the republicans are in office. that is one fact. second, on israel, we have given israel $250 billion over the last 50 years. we are giving them $6 billion a year now. they don't have to pay any of it back. in all of that time, we have given the palestines $1.5 billion. we are giving israel more money every year that we have given the palestinians in 15 years. thank you very much. host: dan in oregon on armor democrats line. this is the style section of the washington post. a commanding presence. john kirby keeps biden's messaging on gaza clear.

a reporter asked john kirby at a white house press briefing where president biden supported israel's military response to hamas constituted genocide against palestinians. the national security council spokesperson was having none of it. this word "genocide," is getting thrown around in a pretty inappropriate way by lots of folks, kirby said before turning the accusation around. what hamas wants, make no mistake, is genocide. they want to wipe israel off the map. if we are going to use that word, fine, let's use it appropriately. it was a typical kirby response, direct, unmistakably supportive of the administration's pro-israeli policies. officially, the retired rear admiral speaks for the security council, an advisory print for the white house, but the twin crises in gaza and ukraine have given the effect of giving kirby, 68 years old, and even

more prominent role as the biden administration's point person on both topics. his profile on those issues have eclipsed that of press secretary karine jean-pierre, fueling speculation within the white house press corps that kirby is in line to succeed her as biden's chief spokesperson, although white house officials adamantly insist that is not happening. kirby is increasingly perceived as what one one veteran reporter called the de facto co-press secretary. that is a little bit of a profile of john kirby in "the washington post." let's hear from john in cincinnati on the independent line. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. when i was 16 years old in high school, i had a job, and i paid social security. when i graduated, i got a full-time job. then i was a volunteer in the

community i lived in. later on, [indiscernible] then i work full-time and part-time again for a local big chain. host: john, where are we going with this history? what is on your mind? caller: well, anyways, the democrats wanted to cut my social security by 67%. what i want to do is, i am in congressional district one. the congressman get lifetime

benefits and salary. what i want to do is i want to be able to make what they make instead of them -- host: thank you for calling in from cincinnati. denver from south bend, indiana. republican line. caller: good morning, peter. how are you? ok. the only thing i can say is, i am concerned about our human behavior in this world that we live in. no one, to me, is talking about october 7, the human behavior of this attack. no one is talking about that.

they want to bring that in with free speech, this and that. i cannot mix all of that with one human behavior. if we are going to be immune to that type of behavior, and a war comes up, what happens to the people that get caught up in kidnapping, a war, how are they going to be treated? if we are allowing this attack that happened, october 7, and we don't do something about how we are going to treat each other, whether we are in the grocery store or wherever we are at, this type of attack should not be allowed in our society. no one is addressing that.

that is disturbing to me. host: deborah, thank you for calling in from south bend, indiana. dennis. duluth, georgia. democrat. caller: how are you doing? i have a few things to say. i will start with misinformation. there is so much misinformation out there that it is hard to believe this and that. people who watch fox news really need to watch other news stations so they can understand that fox news is never telling them the truth. me personally, i sometimes watch fox news, but i watch cnn, msnbc, other news stations. fox news never tells you the truth. if you believe anything you are getting from there, you need to check yourself. donald trump knows that he lost the election. he knows that he is lying to you.

if you believe that he is not lying to you, if you believe that the election was stolen from him, you need some kind of a psychology check. couldn't be further from the truth. host: thank you. what do you do in duluth? caller: i own a tree service. i climb trees for a living. host: what kind of licensing do you have to have two cut down trees? caller: regular business license, make sure that you have insurance. host: you are climbing the trees and cutting them down, that type of thing? caller: i do my own personal climate because i don't trust others. i have done it all my life. host: duluth, georgia, in case somebody needs a tree guy. i just want to share two pieces of information i found in the paper last week that have been sitting on my desk, just because i found them interesting.

i have no idea if you will or not. this is an article from december 7, survivors on pearl harbor attack return for the 82nd anniversary. they had a couple of survivors there still. and it reports here that the department of veterans affairs says 16 million americans, men and women, served in world war ii. how many do you think are still alive? the answer is about 120,000 world war ii veterans are still alive in america. i just thought that was an interesting little fact. this was an enterprise piece done by "the washington times." federal office buildings in d.c. average 70% vacancy still to this day. office of personnel management, 80% vacant.

general services administration, 89% vacant, etc. in case you're interested in learning about whether or not workers are returned to washington, d.c. in person work. scott is in l.a. hi, scott. caller: hello, good morning to everyone in the c-span audience. first of all, i really want to give tremendous kudos to the producers, executives, whoever is involved with c-span who brought us cornell west. it was a tiny rally, tremendously interesting. host: the one in nebraska? caller: yes, sir. the one in omaha. what i loved about it was how the c-span cameras and microphones stayed with the proceedings. you actually saw about a half-hour aftermath of him mingling with the supporters. it was just tremendous, the

little bantering that was going on. i have seen five or six minutes of rallies after the rally ended, but this was by far the longest they stayed with it. just tremendous kudos on that. the reason i called, i would like to talk a little bit about ukraine. this is the public policy that i want to talk about. i am not in favor of it. i am not in favor of the war, period. i don't think this is our country's business to have basically what has been up to this point a blank check for the ukraine. i am watching a general testify not long ago, maybe a month ago on your station, and he is being grilled by a senator. and the question is, to the general or whoever it was, i believe it was a real high up

general, the question was about tracking the money that goes to ukraine. i am not kidding you, my right hand to god, the general's answer -- i don't think i'm leaving a word out when i tell you -- you know what, senator, we don't have as good a way of tracking the money as you think we do. at that point, sir, it would be great if c-span had a laugh track. that is -- the thought that that is being said in the opening is nothing short of frightening. host: we have to end this quickly. from what are you retired? caller: i bet on games. if anybody needs christmas money, dolphins -- host: you do that for a living? caller: yes, sir. host: are you good? caller: one of the few that you will talk to.

it takes tremendous discipline, maybe do one game a week. it is a very unique thing i do, sir. now you have all of these advertising sites. they want people to bet on every last thing there is. host: are you a bookie? you just bet on your own? you make a living doing this. have you been doing this for a long time? caller: i have been doing this for the last eight or nine years. host: how much time do you spend in vegas? caller: i fly back and forth to make the bets. i don't stay long. i go to the casino and make the bet and leave. i don't look at dice tables, card tables. with all the advertising that you are seeing now for it, i really feel sorry for a lot of folks that are going to be getting involved in this. again, it takes tremendous discipline. host: scott in los angeles, we

are not going to let you recommend anything on the betting site for us, but we appreciate your time. thanks for sharing your story. 45 minutes left in the washington journal this morning, and we will return to where we started, free speech, college campuses, censorship. greg lukianoff is the head of the foundation for individual rights and expressions. he will be here shortly. >> since 1979 in partnership with the cable industry, c-span have provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row

seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio, and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 eastern, important congressional hearings and other events throughout the day, and weekdays at 5:00 and 9:00 eastern. catch washington today for a fast report on the stories of today. listen to c-span anytime. just tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. ♪ >> c-span's studentcam documentary competition is back, celebrating 20 years, with this

year's theme, looking forward while considering the past. we are asking middle and high school students to create a video addressing one of these questions. in the next 20 years, what is the most important change you would like to see in america? or over the past 20 years, what has been the most important change in america? as we do each year, we are giving away $100,000 in total prizes, with a grand prize of $5,000. and every teacher that has students participate in this year's competition has the opportunity to share and an additional $50,000. the competition deadline is friday, january 19, 2024. for information, visit our website at studentcam.org. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcast for you. listen to bessel and nonfiction outdoors and influential editors on the afterwards podcast. and on q&a, here wide-ranging

conversation with nonfiction authors and others making things happen. book notes plus episodes are our long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. andy about books podcast exceed behind the scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with insider interviews, industry updates, and best of our lists. find the podcast by downloading the free c-span at, wherever you download podcast, or at our website. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this, it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, when citizens are truly informed, our republic drives. get informed straight from the sources on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word, from the nation's capital to wherever you are. because the opinion that matters the most is your own.

this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is greg lukianoff, president and ceo of an organization called the foundation for individual rights and expression, used to be called the foundation for individual rights in education. we have been talking this morning about the intersection of free speech and college campuses, censorship. guest: that is in the news? [laughter] host: congressional hearings, college presidents resigning. one of the things that we learned this morning is your organization rated harvard 248th in free speech out of 248. why did they get a reading, what were the criteria? guest: it is funny because harvard initially responded like this was our guest. no, it is based on the largest survey of opinion of freedom of

speech, plus student cancellations, teacher cancellations, and when we put it together, harvard got the only negative score in f.i.r.e. 's history, so it really earned its last-place. host: you looked at teacher cancellation? professor cancellation? what does that mean? guest: if someone is suspended for their speech, if a tenured professor is fired for their speech, that is big. whether or not their policies live up to constitutional first standards. we hold that to private schools who promise freedom of speech to the same standards. we asked them are you comfortable shadowing down the speakers? we evaluate all of that versus each other. michigan technological university, university of virginia did well. university of chicago did well. every ivy league did terribly.

host: why do you think that is? guest: i remember being in boston and having an incredulous mit's student and say it cannot be that these ivy league schools are that much worse. i was just like, i'm so sorry, i've been doing this for 22 years. they absolutely are. a lot of the anti-free-speech ideology is friendly more concentrated in the most procedures schools. it is not a subtle effect at all in my experience. host: in your view, greg lukianoff, as president and ceo for the foundation of into original rights and expression, should students be allowed to protest on student campuses and say out loud from the river to the sea? guest: i understand the argument that that is a call for genocide but there was an interesting article with somebody asking students if they knew what it meant. they actually showed them the map. here is the river, here is the

sea. once they saw that it meant israel wiped off the map, they started not to before it. from a first amendment standpoint, from the river to the sea is protected. however, any speech including that, in certain contexts, can actually be threats. it can be discriminatory harassment. it can even be an incitement of violence under specific circumstances. these shouting it protected? i absolutely. host: you have a law degree from stanford. where did stanford rate? guest: not great. in the bottom half. i have a little bit of hope for stanford because jenny martinez, the former dean of stanford law school, really fought back after there was a very embarrassing shout down of fifth circuit kyle duncan last spring. we were very embarrassed by this, the alumni, that is.

what jenny has done is actually advocate for political neutrality at stanford. she has talked about shout downs not ok. the administrator involved and that was asked not to return to stanford. and promoted her to provost. i have some hope that stanford is on a better trajectory. host: we will put the numbers up on the screen. you get the idea of where this conversation will go. free-speech, censorship, college campuses. (202) 748-8000 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for democrats. (202) 748-8003 for independents. social media if you want to conversation -- continue the conversation there, as well as our text number. the wall street journal this morning says that the ivy league mask has fallen, the title of their op-ed.

they say the great benefit of last week's performance by three elite school presidents before congress is that it tore the mask off of the intellectual and political corruption of much of the american academy. that is a little bit out of your free speech bailey week. what do you think about that? guest: the biggest fear that comes out of the hearings is that university presidents will take the message that we have to clampdown on protective speech more in the name of preventing offensive speech. meanwhile, he decision at the university of pennsylvania president to step down, no way that a free-speech person can limit that. one thing that happened before president miguel stepped down, she said we are going to abandon constitutional standards as informing our policies. university of pennsylvania was second to last on our readings. am i concerned about what message future university presidents take from this? yes.

at the same time, is there a free-speech record at ivy league speech indefensible? also isn't. host: we have been reading about donors pulling money, withholding money unless this happens. is that a fair tactic? guest: a lot of these schools have felt entitled to the $100 million that these people have, and of course they are not. i have a serious issue with donors if they are demanding professors be punished or students be punished for speech. however, if what they are saying is we need to remove impediments to speech, and some of them are saying -- one of the complaints about the offices is that there is conformity inducing institutions. unfortunately, i've seen a fair amount of evidence of that. the administrator at stanford was a dei administrator. one of the cases at stanford involves a graduate student. it is the same thing repeated over and over again.

we have also seen this problem at yale. talking about the mask falling off, we need serious reform in higher education. even if you are just concerned about cost, we need serious reform. when it comes to freedom of speech, we need a lot of steps here. the argument that i've been getting increasingly worried about, canceling the american mind, is finally breaking through to people who didn't realize it had become this strange on-campus. host: greg lukianoff, these are private institutions, they can make their own rules, can't they? guest: they can, but almost all of them promise freedom of speech and academic freedom. in california, by rick that private non-secretary and standards are required to live up to the standards as a condition of taking money. stanford is typically required to live up to first amendment standards. it is not an official position at that should be a national

law, but as we see schools actually voluntarily say they are no longer going to live up to first amendment standards, people should ask themselves, should they be getting all of this federal money? host: should twitter have been allowed to cancel a u.s. president from its website? should x the allowed to put alex jones back on its website? guest: when it comes to freedom of association, one thing that we do support at f.i.r.e. is that social media companies have the right to make their own rules. they have a freedom of association right to function essentially as editors of their platforms. we definitely think -- that doesn't mean there are no free speech implications to this. could they remove trump? absolutely that is within their power to do. of course the argument is, he is also sitting president of the united states. it is probably valuable to know what he says and thinks, which i'm sympathetic to. when it comes to alex jones, the

argument is not about perspective -- protected speech, it's about misinformation. i had a friend who used to come to parties all the time who lost a kid at newtown. to say that parents were paid actors fitting that their children were killed. the justification for kicking alex jones off of x was actually pretty strong. still, is it within their power to do that? of course. host: what is f.i.r.e.'s relationship to the aclu? guest: i worked there in 1989. the former head of the aclu is a senior fellow, who i'm honored that i get to write with sometimes. amazing to work with her. the former executive director of the aclu is on our advisory committee. we work with them whenever we have cases where we are on the same page, we are happy to work

together. host: people sometimes consider you to be a conservative organization, aclu to be the liberal organization. is that a fair assessment? guest: f.i.r.e. is not a conservative organization. our staff leans more to the left and to the right, but regardless of that, if it is a free-speech case, we defend it without apologies, without condemning the speech we are condemning. we are striving to be the real deal when it comes to defending free speech all across the spectrum. for the most part, if people make the accusation, it shows they don't know very much about us. host: you are the author of two books. what is the topic? guest: canceling the american mind is my follow-up to coddling. i wrote coddling with my friend jonathan, a social psychologist. this when i was able to write with a brilliant 20-year-old.

she brings a gen z perspective to our work. the point of canceling the american mind is threefold. one, to prove that cancel culture is not only real, it is happening at historic levels. we mean the uptick in campaigns to get people fired or expelled or otherwise punished for speech that would be protected under the first amendment. we compare it historically to other massive censorship incidents. the second part of it is to get people to think about cancel culture differently. to think about it only as the meanest way of winning arguments without actually winning arguments. we situate it in a series of techniques, used both by the right and the left, to avoid the substance of your opponent's argument, basing it on identity or aspersions of their political belief.

a third of it talks about potential solutions. we spend that time talking about solutions to this not because we are super optimistic about it, but we know this has to happen starting with parenting, k-12 education, corporations have a role to play, and higher education needs to take a look at itself. host: the guest is greg lukianoff for the foundation for individual rights and expressions. our caller is jessica in trenton, michigan. caller: good morning. so nice to be able to talk with you, greg. i just want to be able to specifically go over with you the argument about the capacity for private institutions to be able to self regulate freedom of speech. correct. if twitter is able to self regulate against things like white supremacists, and considering the fact that there is a very hard hierarchy of -- in charge to determine what is going on, why shouldn't universities be able to commit

to self-regulation and the capacity to free speech, if you will? host: we are going to leave it there. before we get an answer, are you a college student? you are calling in on the college student line. caller: certainly went to college, and it is most important to be able to express myself, going into the arts, and able to express myself with consistency. host: greg lukianoff, what is your answer to her? guest: private institutions have been allowed to self regulate in a variety of ways. also required by federal regulation, and higher education is extremely federally regulated. a lot of the policies coming out of the office of civil rights and department of education are used to clamp down on freedom of speech, used as justification to provide less free-speech. the idea that they have been perfectly self-regulating is just not true. when it comes to freedom of speech, there are schools, why we do the campus free-speech

rating, they are doing a good job. but the elite colleges are proven they cannot handle the responsibility well and can i do it without roast double standards. host: greg lukianoff, do you see yourself as part of this discussion that we are having over the last two weeks as antisemitic? guest: i believe there is an antisemitism problem on campus. that is something that will get me a lot of hate mail when i say it, but at the same time, i think it's a fact. i see this. it has become too clear to me that it is actually a problem. host: kenny in wilson, north carolina. independent. go ahead. caller: good morning. this is really bad. america is going down a really dark road. i noticed trump -- and they are making such a big thing out of this college campus. trump said that there were very fine people in charlottesville. nobody said nothing, it was the

president of the united states. i don't understand. i am a black guy. nobody has been persecuted like my people have. weakened -- we can fly confederate flags, all kinds of stuff, all kinds of stuff against blacks, and nobody says anything. host: i want to ask you a question. in your view, should somebody be allowed to fly a confederate flag? caller: that is speech, it is their right, free-speech. am saying, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. if they can have statues of me being in slavery, depicting me and all of this stuff, that i have to put up with all the time, and if that is ok, why is this ok? these people are only speaking. i don't understand how this

nation has controlled so much by israel. it makes no sense. i don't have any problem against israel. a lot of jewish people were protesting, just like they were on the college campus. these are the rich jewish people like rupert murdoch and all of those people who swindled the american government, take over the media and brainwash our people. host: we got your point. caller: when it comes to nobody saying anything about charlottesville -- guest: when it comes to nobody saying anything about charlottesville, we get orders of magnitude more of hate mail for being critical about how trump handled charlottesville than from the left even though we are more critical of the left in that case. host: next call. where are you calling from, caller? are you with us? please go ahead.

where are you: from? caller: iowa. host: please turn down your volume and tell us what your point is that you would like to make. caller: i just wanted to talk about the state of our nation right now. people just need to come together. we are in a really bad position right now. i don't think dividing all of us are the answer. host: thank you for calling in. edward is calling in from manhattan. republican line. what is your question to greg lukianoff? caller: fascinating conversation, thank you very much. the three presidents at the hearing last week, it was interesting, their comments, back to the hearing. it was all mechanical, the

context, the context. i am curious to know what that means. saying intifada, from the river to the sea, what do they mean by the context when it becomes derogative of free-speech? guest: the first thing to say on that is it looked like those university presidents, at least penn and harvard, came unprepared. as a lawyer, who trained them, did they get any advice before they came on? that was kind of shocking to see. when it comes to context, i wish they had said it more persuasively, but in a real sense they are correct. take a case that we had with the university. you can ban any mention of genocide or anything that encourages genocide. we had a case where in response to the great replacement theory

a professor jokingly wrote, all i want for christmas is white genocide. in context, clearly joking. some might argue obnoxious lee, but unquestionably protected. can intifada, if you are just saying it, is it protected? no doubt about it. if you are surrounding jewish students and shouting intifada at them, as discriminatory threats, absolutely as well. they were right on the context thing, they just explained it so badly. host: bill from california. we are talking about free speech, censorship, higher education. go ahead. caller: good morning. great conversation and insight this morning. i was wondering if your guest had seen one question i had, did you see the snl skit? ok. i guess the bigger, broader

question on my mind is, some people calling in this morning, people lie on fox, this and that. i consider myself an independent. i am retired and now but i constantly channel surf through the different networks. i land more on fox because i just feel like i guess i lean right. i don't find that anyone is lying on all the different stations, but it is the only station that i find has the right perspective. everything else, when you watch, before they used to make fun of everybody on snl whether you are right or left or whatever. they were making fun of the people that were asking the questions. it was so exaggerated. i didn't find that to be accurate whatsoever. it is the young people of our

country which i am so concerned about, the education, the people, the perspective that people are getting from tiktok. they get their news from tiktok and snl. host: we got the point. thank you, bill. greg lukianoff? guest: it is funny to see on campus among the scholars arguing that essentially if something happens on fox news it cannot be true. this is part of what we call, in the canceling of american mind, a way to not address the argument of the other side. even an article saying that people who believe cancel culture israel is not just right-wingers but the confederates, completely saying that cancel culture is just a right wing myth, production of fox news. meanwhile, i am more left-leaning. there was a time when pretty much the only outputs that would take the issue of free speech on campus seriously, despite trying to get these in more

left-leaning outlets, was fox news and the other conservative media. there seems to be, among some on the left, you shouldn't have done those outlets. my job is to get the message out. if you don't want to hear me, i will talk to people who are. there has been a serious free-speech problem on campus in particular for a long time now. host: when did it begin? has it always been this way? i think of william f buckley. guest: i call my sub stuck the eternally radical idea. censorship is usually on the winning side inhumanity. for my lifetime, we were lucky to grow up in a lifetime where the law was very strong on free-speech, america had a free-speech culture. everyone is entitled to their opinion, to each their own, all these old idioms that express ideas of free-speech. when it comes to on-campus, i

was surprised at how bad it was when i started in 2001, but nothing had prepared me for the last six years. according to our data, we cannot find a period like we have seen since the beginning of cancel culture -- we explain in the book -- where this many professors have lost their jobs for their speech, for their academic freedom. this really accelerated around 2017. just to give a quick example, in terms of professors fired, you are talking twice as many fired as were fired, according to the best estimate, of those fired during mccarthyism. host: greg lukianoff, our diversity, equity, and inclusion worthy goals? guest: of course. i deftly know people that work in dei who do a great job of talking across lines of difference.

however, the way it works on campus however is it actually includes policing speech. sometimes the dei administrators are the ones that are encouraging students to do shout downs, who signed the petition second professors for their academic freedom. i think there's a major problem the way dei is done on campus and i have a hard time thinking about how to fix it on campus without seriously de-bea arthur ties and universities. host: according to the peace that we have been talking about regularly, top priority as harvard dean was making progress on diversity, intensifying the already systemic race, sex, and gender discrimination that defines the place, and all students there attend a title ix training session, fat, phobia, cis, hetero sexism are forms of violence, and using the wrong

pronouns constitutes abuse. guest: university presidents seem to be almost embarrassed to be able to say that the primary function of higher education is the search for truth and promoting inquiry. when you talk to presidents these days, sometimes they will mention the pursuit of truth, but many goals that we have. we have presidents who can unapologetically say, the truth is difficult to know, it requires being radically open-minded, and unfortunately as we talk about in the book, we have constant conformity pressures on students. don't be too much of a squeaky wheel. there are a million ways to pressure you or punish you if you say the wrong thing. that is not healthy, not what we need in higher education. host: talking about your first book "the coddling of the american mind." this most recent, "the canceling of the american mind."

you have also appeared on book tv. you can find longer videos of him talking about his books there. robert in texas. democrat. caller: we wouldn't have all of these problems about race, about the jews, until donald trump came down the escalator. things that white america may have thought of but did not say it as much. now they feel that they can say it with this freedom of speech junk. front is a racist and everybody knows that he is. what he says about blacks coming from shithole countries, and if you notice, all of the white americans are doing all of the shootings. white males. host: thank you, robert.

when it comes to free-speech issues, is donald trump an impediment? guest: everything got more intense when it came to the culture wars on campus after trump was elected. that being said, i think pre-existing culture wars on campus is one of the reasons why he was elected, which is why it is absolutely maddening when you get caught in this culture war debate about who started it. you are never going to get to the bottom of it. the question is how we fix it. one thing that campuses are clearly not doing well, at least the ones that do badly in f.i.r.e.'s free-speech ranking, is getting people to talk about the dialogue. as soon as you can put yourself in the shoes of the person you are disagreeing with and say, everyone who disagrees with me is neither stupid nor evil, that is when you start to make progress on this. i refer to this in my first book, campuses are supposed to be sophistication engines, supposed to be making you deeper thinkers on things.

one of the things that is coming from campus isn't over civil find way of the world. host: since the hearing last week, what has your world been like? guest: [laughter] it's been pretty exhausting. host: have people been reaching out? guest: everyone has been. nonstop work friday, saturday, sunday. free-speech is on everyone's mind. the thing that scared me the most of the responses i had seen was in the washington post yesterday, the head of their free speech and freedom committee at penn saying, free-speech is a problem here. i don't want to urge conservatives who think this is the right way to go. this is the argument that the anti-free-speech movement on campus have been making since the 1960's. essentially writing in free-speech is already what campuses are doing. do not believe them if they tell you that the problem on campus is too much free-speech. a lot of the stuff that we

point out are described in sawyer harassment, disruption of classes, all things that universities can and should be punished, but the problem of how you get this level of radicalization is lack of free speech, lack of dialogue across lines of difference. host: in his piece, he wrote, freedom of the ivy league extends occlusive lead to the voices of the oppressed, and that the absolute worst thing you can do right now is what the presidents of those woke institutions now say they intend to do, switch jews out of the oppressor class and into the oppressed. guest: i don't think that will work at all even if it was a desirable goal, partly because of in "the coddling of the american mind," we talked about the problem of identity politics on campus. we have moved from common humanity identity politics, the spirit of mlk's famous "i have a dream speech" and people realize that we are not also different,

too common identity politics. the identity is we are all oppressed by you, you are the bad people, we are the good people. that kind of moral valence will never work out unless you get rid of it. the idea that it will eventually work to the benefit of jewish americans, i think, is foolish. host: if the former upenn president reached out to you prior to that hearing and said what should i say, how should i said it? guest: the problem is she would have never done that. when it comes to the way that penn has handled all of these situations, showing more intellectual humility themselves would have been a good step. what they should have done is before there was a crisis, be reliably pro-freedom of speech, stand that for professors like amy waxman. then you would have had the credibility you needed to be taken seriously. but the problem is they showed up before congress, sounding like they talked a good game on freedom of speech, but nobody

believed them because their track record was rightfully understood as terrible. host: joanne, florida. republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you. i really admire how much you are standing up for the free-speech. i am a republican. when i'm concerned about is free-speech at the college level is out of control where they are suppressing everybody. but it is actually starting in your elementary and middle schools and high schools, where they are not teaching children how to question, research, look at both sides, compare and contrast. it is all one direction from them. they are teaching them not to think for themselves but how to think. then when you get to the university level, like my daughter was, she couldn't even speak. it could cost her her grades, her reputation. she kind of had to so the line, be quiet, follow what the

professor said, and when you are writing papers, you have to write them in a way that the professor's way of thinking is going to be in a certain manner or you are not going to get a good grade because it is subjected to that professor. host: thank you, joann. let's leave it there. guest: i could not agree more. i wrote something called the empowering of the american mind talking about goals for k-12 reform. all the things you are talking about, principles they need to follow, is encouraging intellectual humility. talking across lines of difference. unfortunately some of the things i see coming out of k-12, it is an ideology machine, they have given people and over civil find picture of the world that is not teaching people to think for themselves, but rather what believe you do have to be a good person. that is really inappropriate for a free end of the credit society. host: joanne called from

florida. wasn't there a reverse situation down there where the new school and ron desantis kicking off some members of a board? guest: absolutely. as far as one of the most unconstitutional things i've seen come out of a legislature, it was what was called the stop woke act in florida. it banned talking about certain topics and advocating for certain topics in florida classrooms. in order to defend it, they had to make the argument that under this law, you would be allowed to argue against affirmative action, but you could not argue for it. you don't have to be a constitutional lawyer to know that that is complete the unconstitutional. they thought it in court, so did the aclu. we defeated it so far. i believe it's on appeal, and i believe we will defeat it again. as far as solutions to this problem, the stop woke act isn't it. host: mike in california.

you are on with mike looking up -- greg lukianoff. caller: i just want to ask if he got high on overtime. host: you left. you had an idea of what he was talking about? guest: he was asking if i got stonewith bill maher. you were just on. what did he want to talk about, what was his attitude toward this topic? guest: it was so great. being with someone who is an old-fashioned liberal like i am who believes in free speech to our core, we talked about the current situation on campus. i am watching people react to it on twitter who clearly didn't watch it. he just wants to clampdown on speech. when he was talking about was, from the river to the sea is protected, intifada is

protected, what are the lines? it was a really refreshing discussion with him. host: richard. grove city, ohio. independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. my question basically is what is a semite? what is an anti-semite? host: richard, why do you as close questions? caller: i am thinking that the usage of semite is inappropriate the way it is used publicly. if you look at it in the dictionary, it is talking about a person who speaks a language. it is not talking about a race. host: richard has gone to a technical thing, but he is asking an opinion, anything that f.i.r.e. works on or would you rather move on? not really a free-speech issue. we are going to end the program with kurt in cocoa beach, florida. go ahead and make your statement. caller: good morning.

more of an experience i had in life. i graduated in 1982 with an electrical engineering degree from a technical college. i don't really understand the free-speech or things like that because i went to engineering school, there was a correct answer to a test question. there was not an opinion. i don't really get the argument that is going on on the campuses , per, se, your guest talking about is is right, cannot be wrong. basically i have a comment versus a question. host: is there a difference between the arts and engineering? guest: i without to be as kind about this as possible but a lot of first amendment people come to this because of our profound interest in the scientific revolution. i know it all seems certain now, it was based on the systemic application of doubt.

i named my son after james clerk maxwell. i get excited about electrical science. that was a process of, maybe electricity works more like a fluid, more like a particle. by the way, my first son, named after benjamin franklin who learned that electricity is lightning. all of this application of doubt and questioning. whether or not you know it, you can thank your entire discipline to freedom of speech and inquiry. host: "the coddling of the american mind," "the canceling of the american mind." we will be back tomorrow.

♪ announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more. >> we believe that whether you live here or right here or right in the middle of anywhere, you should have access to fast, reliable internet. >> media come supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> the u.shoe is back at noon eastern. lawmakers wi consider several bills including extending f programs set to expire at the end of the year and bni the importation of russian uranium.

thsenate also returns at 3:00 p.m. eastern which covers kansas and five other states is excted. a vote to advceis nomination will take place 50 p.m. eastern. watch live coverage about on c-span, the senate on c-span two,nd a reminder that you can watch all of our coverage with our free video app or online at c-span.org. tonight, the u.s. supreme court hears oral arguments in harrington v. pretty pharma, a case concerning the makers of oxycontin and the potential victpensation. that is tonight on our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org. c-span's campaign 2024 coverage continues with the presidential primaries and caucuses. watch live on the c-span