sacred reality. every human being is a sacred reality, and because every human being is infused with a soul, that means every human being is eternal because sole sowls are eterm, and because -- because souls are eternal and because of that each and every human being is more important than the state because states are not eternal. souls and human beingses are. ... speech to a small room of pro-life leaders. i had to go to reagan library to find this. he talked to them and said i know some of you have been accused of being single-issue voters but what issues is of greater significance than this. he ended with this: uled i would

like to leave you with words from terence kirk and he wrote this the gift of special life is no less beautiful which acco acy with illany illness, lonliness, or anything else. human life gains extra splendor as it requires special care, concern and reverence. it is through the weakest vestals vessels the lord reveals love. a former student of mine who has a down syndrome child, i shared that with him and he said that is so true. another principle of reagan conservative. american exceptioanaliexception.

reagan thought america was a book beacon to all humanity and the last hope. he said that for 30 years before the presidency. i found a speech he gave to a tiny women's college wall william woods college in missouri not far from where churchhill made his irony curtain speech. and in that speech, reagan said america is less than place than an idea. chew that over. america is less of a place than an idea. it really is. the bases of this country and

our religion and the idea that deep within the heart of each one of us is something so god-like agustus said we have have a vacuum that is god shaped and only god fits that piece. there is something so god-like and precious that no individual or group has a right to impose his will upon the people so well as they can decide for th themselv themselves. and reagan said over and over again and was ridiculed for this thought: i in my own mind think of america as a place in the scheme of things that was set aside as a promise land. like america set god aside for a special purpose as a promise

land. i believe that god and shedding his grace on this country has kept an eye on our land and guided it as a promise land. and any country so incredible and blessed and if it were to turn its back on the god that showered it. what might happen to that country once it no longer gave gratitude where it is due. he talked about the shining city. that comes from john whinthrop. it is required at grove city college. how many have read him? he wrote it to describe the american he imagined. he was an early pilgrim.

an early freedom man. he journeyed here today on what we called a little wooden boat. remember the ricty boat rather it is coming from cuba, the south china see, a boat person from vietnam. he was looking for a home that would be free. i spoke of the shiny city all my life but i don't know if i communicated what i saw. it was a tall city build on walks and wind swept and god blessed. a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and crea creativity. the doors were open and anyone with the will and heart to get

there was able to. that is how i saw it and see it, too. reagan said that in his farewell address and that is fascinating because usually it is review what for reagan with a was like a civics lesson he is going to give. so i have 11 principles and those are five. i'm going to hit two more and i will go through them quicker. all right? okay. the founder's wisdom and vision. reagan more than any other president plainly rediscovered the founders. he quoted them constantly. so with the public papers of the united states which is printed by the government office went through and tried to count the

number of times that presidents cited the founders. jimmy carter and gerald ford did the least. which is odd because they were right around 1976. president's kennedy, nixon, johnson and bill clinton commonly cited them about 100-200. lbj was the highest at 240. cited them 850 times. president obama doesn't cite them very often. i have checked this. he doesn't. and he gave 4th of july statement just a few years ago where he referred to the

founders at men of property and wealth quote. but reagan would refer to the founders in this glowing language. here is the 1964 time for choosing speech. alexander hamilton a nation that prefers disgrace to danger is prepared forked for a master and deserves one. should moses have told the children to go to ahead rather than deal with the wilderness? are we to believe the people in history died in vein. he is saying step up and accept the risks and fight for freed.

he loved the reading of tom pane. his favorite quote was we have the power to make the change. the battle against conservatism was able to do that. he told richard alan a few weeks after jimmy carter was inaugurated and alan came out here and he said dick my idea of foreign policy is simple: we win they lose. what do you think of that? and around would have thought you are crazy. you are going to defeat the empire and the soviet union? reagan thought he would do. lower taxes. reagan conservatives from a policy perspective most identify with lower taxes.

and lower federal income taxes in particularly. and even more specifically the federal progressive graduated income tax. anybody know when the income tax was permanent in america? 1913. it is little over a hundred years old. passed by woodrow wilson and congress. this required an amendment to the constitution. young folks watching. they had to amend the constitution to be able to tax property. the idea of a permanent progressive income tax is new in america. this was 140 years after the declaration of independences. when was put in place this this was going to be a tiny tax on

the richest americans. put in place in 1913, it was a 7%, that was the highest rate on incomes over $500,000 a years. incomes in 1913 dollars. by 1931, woodrow wilson's final year in office that 7% upper rate was up to 73%. part of that was for world war i and people watching are saying that is because of the war. for the world it was 1914-1918 for america it was april 1917-1918. we didn't send troops until real late in 1917. that 73% wasn't to cover the cost of the war. the war was over in 1918 and this continues until 1921.

it goes up under fdr to 94% that was the upper income rate. 94%. read burt folsom books and he considered a 99.5% rate on incomes over a $100,000. now reagan who argued the progressive income tax was from the communist manfesto. it was written in 1948 and he listed ten-point plants and the top 2-3 points one is a graduated income tax.

reagan was a progressive fdr democrat. a bleeding hard liberal. and reagan who people made movie he was one of the top five box office draws. reagan made more than b-movies. reagan was one of the top five box office draws at warner brothers. they would make 3-4 movies a year. he realized once he hit the 94% rate there was no point in make another movie when you will lose 94 cents out of the dollar. he learned he as rich guy wasn't hurt. who suffered from that? the people that work at warner brothers, the camera man and the blue cull callers.

so the top rate was 70% and he brought it down to 28%. he came in and there were 16 separate tax brackets right? by the time he was done the were two. he simplified the tax code and this simplified and eliminated it removed 400 poor from the rolls. 19 1984, 1987 and 1982 he raised taxes but never on the income tax. reagan said not all taxes were equal and not all tax cuts were equal. federal income taxes were the

centerpiece of this. just a few statistics here: in the 1980's real income for a median african family had dropped by 11% from '77-'82. from '82-'89 it rose by 17%. in the 1980's there was a 40% jump in black households earning $50,000 or more. black unemployment which has increased under obama fell faster than whites in the 1980's. the number of black-owned businesses increased by 40% and the number of blacks who enrolled in college in the 1980's increased by 30% whereas

white was 13%. hispanics is the same. the number of hispanic businesses grew by 81% and enrolled in college jumped by 45%. again for whites it was 6%. liberals love to emphasis the income gap women ent from 60 cents to 61 cents. their employment and median earnings outpaced men and women enrolled in college in record numbers. and young folks ask anybody at your table every night you turned on tv in the 1980's you had dan rather yapping about the homeless. 2-3 million homeless and one

thing printed said in chicago alone there were 250,000. hud did a report in 1984 thereat estimated the number of homeless was 250,000-300,000. it is hard to calculate them because it isn't like the unemployed who register for benefits. that was all you heard about when reagan was up for reelection. reagan had around 300,000 homeless. in 2012, when obama was up for reelection, the national alliance to end homelessness, estimated 636,000 in america. more than twice the number under obama as under reagan. we are looking at 47 million americans on food stamps with obama and reagan it was about 18 million. last one and this is very quick.

limited government. this was an important different. conservatives are not anti-giment government. they are anti-big government. anti-nanny state. they are against what reagan called "creeping socialism. ". reagan said it isn't my intention to do away with government, quote, he said when it comes down to it, the federal government has new functions other than its core functions they do few things better than the private sector of the economy. he said in the crisis government isn't the solution to the

problem, what? government is the problem. contrast to obama in 2009 who said the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. it only government that can break the vicious cycle with jobs lead to loss of people. so obama does $800 billion government stimulus package. ...

>> is a source for a lot of the economic data professors. really good. it is all indisputable. i mean, those are government numbers. all right. questions? [silence] >> yes, sir. >> thank you so much for all of your detailed research. i really do appreciate the effort. >> and made it all up. [laughter] >> i certainly hope not. >> that had to do it all again now would not be allowed to use the same numbers. go ahead. >> i was just taking a couple notes here on what you said, and i was wondering, reagan was very

bold about what he believed. he said that we ought to wave the banner of bold colors instead of pale pastels. >> right. >> i was wondering, in today's current culture which is very conditioned against conservative values, you have things like the welfare state which is very entrenched, and tenements, things of that sort. if you say were going to cut taxes, limit government spending and welfare benefits, people are kind of repulsed or repugnant. i was wondering, how what a true conservative market himself to the american public while still standing on true reagan ideals, but in a way that is appealing to the public in a way it can achieve political success. >> and that's exactly what reagan did. bear in mind, these principles are principles. reagan said, you need a principled conservatives. you can't run away from the principles. you need to hold fast. if you look at these, none of

these are mean. none of them are bad. freedom, faith, family, limited government, cutting taxes, belief in the individual, and the communism. reagan said there is nothing more and i freedom and communists. communism is the antithesis of freedom. reagan did such a great job of articulating this eloquently, skillfully, in a very reasoned way and with a smile, and with a smile. he was so good. one of my great frustrations with george w. bush was how he would not even respond to a lot of the criticism. i don't know if he was being told that, advised that all white, there were times when somebody would go out and say something vicious. remember when he landed on the deck of the aircraft carrier? i think it was the senator from west virginia, robert byrd, went out and just jump all over him. reagan would have had to come

back. well, he's jealousy doesn't look as get in a flight suit, something like that. break-in was great at. bush just kind of grow up in a fetal position and not say anything. with reagan he responded with what, with a winsome quality. barry goldwater was conservative and with a frown. reagan was conservatives and with a smile. the book was written not that long ago called the wit and wisdom of a great communicator. reagan had that. he had that would. some of our spokespeople, they need that. i would say, too, that they need reagan's fearlessness and willingness to understand. i would advise this to attach crews in particular, marker rubio. takers and mark arubia are the liberals worst nightmare. they are conservative hispanics, and the last thing they want to see is that go to the republican

party. they must destroy takers at all costs, no matter what. but what reagan realized is you will never make those people happy. they are going to vote for your anyway. it will call you names. one of the liberating things was he did not care what the new york times thought about him. he made the comparison between abortion and slavery, and the new york times went nuts. he smiled and one on. you need that sort of quality. modern republicans and conservatives need that quality. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> i'm from college of the ozarks. recently the state of the union from one of our lounges on campus and noticed that. [inaudible] and the fact that libya to

public liberals fought back with 280 orders. >> i don't know. on a number of executive orders. >> would you say to my first response to that, the left attacks that is kind of hypocrisy. >> let me address this because i think it relates to the point. presidents rely on executive orders not getting a lot of bipartisan support. liberals say, well, that's unfortunate for obama because he has had a republican congress cannot reagan passed this 1981 tax cut at the reagan ranch august 13th 1981. in fact, and the exhibit up here at the reagan ranch center the "washington post" call this one of the most remarkable bipartisan political triumphs in history. he did that with tip o'neill stenographic congress. reagan cut those taxes like that with the democrats in congress.

so obama has not been able to do things like that. reagan convinced huge numbers of people not only to vote for him, but also the political opposition. this is a separate thought, but you mentioned obama's state of the union speech. he loves the work collective, which she uses often. at some point i want to give a content analysis and the number of times obama uses the word collective. dreams for my father bunch of times. in the state of the union speech he used the phrase something like the collector shoulder of the country. liberals are saying, come on. reagan used the term collective. but not in the same way obama did. get out of here. they use it in a totally different way. yet they -- if you have to rely on executive order to govern then you're not convincing enough people of your program. >> hello. >> hi.

>> i'm also from college of the ozarks. i know that reagan really adores american hegemony and the hard power kind of approach. in today's world, especially with all the proliferation and everybody on edge, and the instability of our relations with that country, the thing that same approach is appropriate, or should we go more obama style? >> well, reagan, contrary to public perception because he was seen as a hawk because the increase in the defense budget so much, but he did that for the purpose of peace through strength. a strong military so you don't have the needed. the strong military is what deters people from acting. there have been for wars in my lifetime. none of them or because america was too strong or something like that. he had -- reagan used military force only twice, in grenada

october 1983 which was fast and short and successful. in get the american medical students out that he feared could become hostages and feared that and i could become another soviet satellite or outpost in the caribbean. and in april 1986 a strike against libya. that was it. as of the only two times he used it. he is also seen as a hard-liner because of his rhetoric against the soviets. but reagan said, look, communism -- the soviet union is an evil empire. jails' its own citizens, shoots and kills people, and if you can't -- it stunned have some moral clarity in this relationship. jimmy carter literally how good taste. and that was june 1979, i believe. six months after that the soviets invaded afghanistan.

and that's carters christmas present. while he is at the white house enjoying christmas with his family, you know, the national security visor's come in and say, mr. president, the guy you just kissed just invaded afghanistan. so that didn't do anything, but with reagan's approach, reagan thought this, too. words were weapons in the arsenal. he did not want to fire missiles, because that would unleash a nuclear exchange, but in a sense he fired burble cruise missiles which could become even more damaging. and at the same time those words like evil empire were incredibly inspirational and uplifting to the people who were being held in the gulag. and he was in the gulag his captors brought to him a cover and said, look. here is your reagan. here is your reagan.

cowboy neanderthal cost us even empire. and as soon as they left he could not contain his glee. he was jumping up and down. the stars tapping in morse code on the cell wall to the guy next door. reagan called as an evil empire. next custers leaping upon them and start tapping. pretty soon you have -- imagine long long breaking with the words evil empire. the president finally spoken the truth commanded resonated. it made a difference. those words were more damaging than a fleet of cruise missiles. >> wrigley click on a follow-up, what do you think -- with that ideology what you think the reagan approach would do right now? have you think he would deal with this? >> a great question that i get asked all the time, and i'm always leery.

what reagan had invaded? i can say, really good example, and i was critical of obama. june 2009 when the iranian streets first erupted and obama made some really weak kind of carter-like statements. even the democrats were astounded and really put. an inmate a series of much stronger statements, but reagan would have probably treated enron like he did with solidarity in poland. he would have said, people of ron who want freedom, who want liberty, we're with you. we stand at your side. we support you. you've got the support of the united states. obama was saying things like that, certainly not at first. you don't have to aid the iranian street or the iranian freedom fighters, whether there would be, just as reagan didn't

give missiles and tanks to the solidarity movement, but ask anybody from poland in the 1980's, when reagan was doing solidarity day, solidarity week, solidarity not to making these statements about we are with you , that was extremely powerful and invigorating. obama's to do that because reagan believed that america was it, american exceptional as an. reagan conveyed that message to those people. as he put it, the captive people behind the iron curtain and needed liberty and need to be proclaimed. >> thank-you. >> sure. >> good evening. i'm from westmont college in santa barbara. i want to ask you a question regarding immigration reform. i want to ask you, you know, i was reading of pure research

statistic that was stating that, you know, our amount of illegal immigrants has risen to such high levels that actually we are able to of mass deport illegal mexicans. we could actually have an of open jobs to employ all the unemployed. liberal democrats attacked me and say that i am too radical and that's discriminatory and racist. i want to ask you, based on conservatism and reagan's domestic policy in such, with that pressing issue right now in california, how would he have dealt with that? is this really too radical? it seems that it would work, and we are and constance deficit and a taxes keep going up and our economy is tanking. jerry brown has only exacerbated the problem by giving greater and greater facility for illegals to get college scholarships, driver's licenses without being legal residents.

i want ask our true reagan conservative deals with -- >> reagan delegate. reagan had been california governor. but i quote this in the bark and should put this in the talk, the reagan -- reagan granted amnesty to a huge number of illegal immigrants in the 1980's. a think it was 1986. he is the argument that immigrants provide a valuable source of labor that not many jobs that americans will take making the classic argument year to date. rating granted amnesty, but the same time he did it in exchange for what he was promised would be a tighter border security that would allow people to enter the country legally. so really what he did was right, but what happened is the follow-up to what reagan did never took place. so that border security was not provided. there's a piece by peter

robinson who wrote the tear down this wall speech. he wrote it for the "wall street journal" a couple of years ago titled something like what would reagan do on immigration. very good. any of the questions? are you all wiped out? getting light? andrew, do i get them out? my former students. it must be the sea are given. [laughter] no, he gotten any. >> as bono it talking about. >> of been waiting for this opportunity. [laughter] >> thank you, paul. >> thank you.

>> weather an award for good journalism but for public service for possibly the greatest betrayal of the irrational secrets of all time strikes me as quite bizarre.

i do still think there is the danger patting itself on the back without fully understanding the consequences for the dangers that we face in a dangerous world so there is a disconnect their. with the newspaper itself my view is with the individual take the names of operatives that would be in breach of the terror is a match. why would that not applied to the newspapers? 15

minutes. >> well, thank you very much for coming out on this rainy thursday. thank you very much to >> if thank you for coming out abhor on this racer'sal dayf to christine for inviting me to the center. conservative critics and has

thus thinkud tank and foundation and the media campus. in books with such titles as freefall of the american university and tenure of radicals critics charged that the american higher education has become the poison of liberal if not radical faculty in the classrooms, middle of the road students complacently consume their professors misinformation. moderate students are smog in feeling -- i'm sorry, liberal students are smart in front of their on the right to side of politics, and conservative students have to decide whether to endorse their professors tirades quietly or force their average run the risk of sacrificing a great. now, to mitigate the effects of the leftist campus conservative organizations have been put in place. david horowitz, for instance, has introduced academic bill of rights to illegally protect students from liberal orthodoxy while others like the young

americans foundation sponsored conferences that introduce thousands of students on the right to celebrities and the movement. the policy institute was targeted while intellectual organizations like the intercollegiate studies institute started by william f. buckley on the federalist society of the institute for humane studies at george mason university provide internships and seminars for budding conservative academics and future jurors. the list goes on. with the support of foundations with many familiar names. out, while this movement to build a choir of young, ideological lawyers, journalists , congressional staff, and voters has been a central priority of the right, very few social scientists have studied the effort to mobilize the students or to examine just how the students experience their undergraduate life in the first place. this has left us in an odd

situation of not knowing if the accusations leveled against the university's resonate with the students on his behalf vermeil, nor do we know what to anything else about the students such as when and how did they become conservative? were under political turning points? both before and during college. one of the issues that they care about, and how did these differ from their elders? who do conservative students know in a larger world of conservative thought and politics? we have also been more or less in the dark except for a few media reports about how students on the right actually enact a conservative is among campus, the kind of speech and action at the use and from what prep charges lacked. and just how does conservative speech and action very from campus to campus and fadel? in the absence of good social science research on these questions one can have a general sense that conservative college students are a fairly homogeneous but she more or less

mimic what the national gop does. is it true? and this is where my co-author and i come in. i apologize for the extremely crowded slight, but i'm interested in having a an understanding of our conceptual framework to become an with our book, "becoming right," which is a comparative case study. in choosing to study conservative students at eastern in the private universities and western fractured public universities our idea was to see if we could get better purchase on our universities might be understood to uniquely shaped tombs politics. sociologists and other social scientists have long been interested in universities affects on since political attitudes, behavior, values, but the political socialization, the national campus level datasets based on a survey to measure whether students change in the political participation rates

like voting, when the increases or decreases because of college. and it managers in college modify stevens political orientations one where another from conservative to liberal. but by my estimation as important as this work is, it's also a rather thin way of thinking about students political development. experience in politics during their college years, what the political, social invention literature can't do, it was not designed to do it directly or methodologically, consider the multiple ways that college campuses which were made at of distinctive organization features, housing, class size, steven to faculty ratios as well as cultural understandings of who we are on this campus has a campus community this might give

meaning to and shaping and people's political ideas and actions. so by using qualitative methods and particular in-depth interviews, field work on these campuses and also at conferences and conservative organizations, what you see if and how universities play a significant role in fundamentally constituting a new political ideas and discovering new models for action in one's conservative behavior. now, very fortunately we are not alone in how we think. college campuses should be understand as generative systems of meaning more than repositories of previously formed individual level perspectives among students. for those of you in sociology, you will be surprised to learn that we position our study on the same bookshelves and several recently published works which

show how universities act as hubs and incubators for particular types of students. for example, elizabeth armstrong and laura hamilton, although not studying political formation to look at how universities in the midwest for set up to facilitate what they call a party pathway to my party dorm rooms, very ample fraternity network and so forth which creates the identities of partiers at this university. the look at how elite boarding schools manufacture and stevens particular models of self-confidence and self deserving this as they move on the college and are also informed by overworked, as i indicated above. in particular will draw your attention to the various studies

of fire education in different ways to my chartering unique identities and last out possibilities and we are bringing politics into the next. the conservative research, also very fortunately because we really need to learn a lot more about the politics of the right. there's a new body of work the focus is not only on christian or extremist conservatism or conservatism among women which is our most sociological attention to conservatism, but also in fiscal conservatism. the infrastructure of conservatism, the think tanks, the foundation's, the university's. and on the historical advent of anti-establishment or movement conservatives and including an excellent new projects on the two party, and i have indicated a few of these educational and

conservative research projects on the slide, but in a grand scheme when i'm talking about today as well as in the book is bringing peace research streams to get a to look at how university campuses and today's conservative politics intersect and how college shapes the nature, the activities, and fundamentally the formation of politically conservative cells. turning now from our conceptual framework to our data, want to say a few words about our case to the schools and a sample. now, as i started thinking about this project in the summer of 2007i had a whole bunch of case studies that i thought i might look at, as many as six of one time. that did not prove feasible. i selected eastern elite and western public universities for comparison along dimensions of similarity and difference which is a classic case study selection methodology designed to yield insight you would not

get from a single case study. i can tell you why. in terms of similarity, both are secular institutions, although other religious institution, that was a long time ago. those are research one universities meeting that they grant the 80's and research is a primary focus of faculty and graduate students. politically at least by reputation both of these schools are in the conservative spotlight as liberal bastions. so if you listen to conservative radio or you read the "wall street journal" editorial page you might hear complaints about both of these universities amongst others. now, in terms of differences, obviously one is private and one is public. with all the difference is that distinction makes in a student's life. they differ in their admissions activities.

eastern elites takes about one in every 11 applicants. western public takes about one in two. they also differ in size of faculty and student. eastern has 7,000 graduates with a student and faculty ratio of 71, western public has about 25,000 students with a student and faculty ratio of 18 to one. and they differ in both their organizational features that i mentioned earlier, housing, dining, physical signs campus, percent of students in class and organizations like that as well as in cultural features, including what we might call their institutional egos. so eastern is one of the most prestigious institutions of higher education in the world while western is known for its faculty's research. it is also known to be a party school, a place where students know that they can enjoy our recreational atmosphere.

now, to find interviewees' for the study had began with clubs and other groups that posted on the internet for both of these campuses. so in 2008 just before and after the presidential election, this is before the emergence of the tea party, i interviewed leaders and members of the campuses college republicans, pro-life groups, columnist with a conservative newspapers as well as conservative columnist for the mainstream newspapers. anti-gun control groups, libertarians and some one. mostly these were active conservatives on campus. they had a reputation for being conservative, but through methodology was also able to find some students who were more behind the scenes. this is not totally about active students. of this was supplemented by

another 50 interviews for 100 total with national conservative organization leaders, faculty administrators and other folks. now, demographically on both campuses the students or as you might expect from reading a few research polls are looking at the journal social survey, most of these students were predominantly white, more men and women in our sample, and they were generally fairly religious. there ran the gamut from being very religious, either evangelical or catholic to kind of spiritual but not religious. we had a few agnostics and atheists and a group, but generally this is a fairly religious bunch. in the majority of our interviewees on both campuses were middle to upper middle-class, although eastern elite interviewee's tended to come from families that were more highly educated. that said, our interviewees of

those schools is played quite extensive variance. so we add a few students at western and eastern his parents had graduated from college, one are to his parents had only graduate from high school and advanced degrees. so in the final analysis the samples are not as different as one might think in studying the very elite private university in the public university. a cake. so with all of that behind us let me now turn to the book. in this presentation will focus on one of the issues that i raised earlier about the present thomas nagy of conservative college students across the country. and i'll do this in particular by drawing down on students political styles on the steve case to the campuses. and when i talk about style, i'm not talking just about students and alums stated ideological beliefs or the doctrine that they adhere to, but also their expressive practices in the

service of those beliefs, and i do this because in our increasingly polarized and national political environment and even within the republican party itself, we are seeing that the styles of politics are becoming as important as the ideas of politics. insofar as particular cells can move to animosity, gridlock, lack of compromise. i will open my discussion of conservative college students styles with a couple of vignettes from our data. so, it is a 2007, and members of the college republicans at western flagship have just gone to an event called the informative action bake sale. i know this is no stranger to you with berkeley. now, the bake sale is a well-known piece of political theater that conservative students use at many universities across the country selling cookies and higher-priced to allow students than they do to, say,

african-american and latino students. the bake sale is said to highlight the insidious effects of race-based affirmative action. as point of view, but when students at western talk about what effect actually stage the event, it's clear that they revel in the sheer fun and confrontation that there activity stirs up. one interviewee said, so, we're out there and it's like five college republicans. and for about half an hour community members come by and say, oh, i'm a white guy and i have to pay a dollar. people are really getting into it. this bake sale which is not from western, prices are inflated. people are getting into it. of course meanwhile there's a new rally organized by the diversity bunch of which they mean politically correct groups like women or racial -- racial ethnic minorities. they're angry. have no problem with protesters. and what the practices in.

another student said of the affirmative action bake sale and events like it, if you wake of an come to school in the morning and someone calls you a bigot you know you're going have a good day. this kind of event is one of a fairly large number of actions that conservative students stage and college campuses alongside catching illegal alien day where once seen as designated undocumented or illegal and others try to catch him. the beach party where students mocked the theory of climate change with beer and sons and i'll and the conservative coming out day, a twist on algae bt celebration. in such events are promoted by national conservative organizations which spend millions of dollars a year helping conservative students learn to be activists in what were calling the procter style

meanwhile an event like the big sale is considered -- not so much by administrators and faculty who don't like them, but more so by conservative students themselves. at this private university conservative undergraduates to announce confrontational actions just for the sake of pushing the buttons. as one eastern student described it, look, i don't think anything like that is helpful. one person walked up to a table by cupcake and realize that this was an affirmative action bake sale. that was a great illustration of the problems with affirmative action. the only thing i've ever seen coming from putting on events like that is decisiveness and lack of communication. others concur saying such an event would be unsuitable for the sensibility of a campus and even though they're also ideologically anti affirmative action. instead of provoking the prefer to use what we call civilized

discourse where they come to it engage in discussions, argue about ideas, but with the date back to by facts and research, not through the slamming of both sides, or at least that is the stated intent. we found these two styles of conservatism pretty much are mutually exclusive. one interview me at eastern elite said i remember freshman year her posters would be life like starts at conception and and the planned parenthood, and we have blood spatters or death of a fetus developing command a fetus to be saying different things, like a want to be an airline pilot, but those where crazy people hated them. this seems about to say that the pro-life groups started different kinds of campaigns in light of this failure for baby bottles, pregnancy counseling.

and worked across the aisle with what he referred to as the sometimes crazy women center on campus. in other words, his pro-life -- many of his members had used tactics like this growing up and did not like the controversy errors during a. and at eastern students, that is appropriate to the campus. at western students tell us that they shunned this more respectful stop because quite frankly it's not conservative enough and the slain. so these two styles pretty much don't need on these campuses. however, there is more to the story. while each of these is the dominant form of expression on each campus we found that there are two submerged styles used by conservative stevens cahuenga to be completely monolithic. on the campus a smaller set of students say that there were happy to engage hosting candid

it's as speakers, walking precincts and that sort of thing, but this campaign style comes under attacks from other conservatives on both campuses. first, it's not used very much at all at western, and when it is used it catches a lot of flak for being an abomination because it kisses the of the national gop. it's not expressive enough. at eastern meanwhile the campaigning style comes under similar assaults but with more of an elitist flavor. for example when a student says he is baffled him this highly talented classmates want to spend time working man it just seems so plebeian and overly practical. we can see here that even when students are rejecting a style, there is a unique campus meeting system behind it. finally, there are those at eastern and make use of our last category of conservative style

which we call the highbrow. and this starts in the pages of the conservative newspaper at eastern and is a kind of pedigreed national news file consisting of ironic, sometimes philosophical and contemptuous essays about multiculturalism or gender sensitivity. now, the issues that come under attack by highbrow provocateurs are not so different from my western public conservatives dislike, but the expression is very different. highbrow provocation is not an activist were active as a means to going out on the corn and publicly brawling people up. the eyebrow provocation style is a literary art style. thank dynast to souza. so just to summarize, the set of findings have western public the provocative style is dominant, confrontational, six fun, and the campaigning style is subordinate. a few students use it, but it's

not seem to be appropriate for fun-living college students who are conservative. an eastern elite, meanwhile, civilized discourse predominates and both campaigning in this time around provocation style insubordinate. so what to make of this uneven distribution of conservative styles across these two campuses? should be even be surprised? perhaps this is all just a matter of selection. so explanation complete whereby eastern in the students were simply more refined to begin with as they walk on the campus. while at western conservatives with come to campus the ready to rumble. well, it's a good hypothesis that given the light of my presentation today while we do see the impact of selection it

cannot give us a complete understanding of all we're seeing on these campuses. for one thing, demographically while eastern in the students, as i mentioned earlier, do tend to come from families are more fluent and have more education in the background which may be the origin of greater stability, this seems an alumni we interviewed at eastern, hardly call school early on in the gracious cosmopolitan. many that they learned in many aspects of their lives once there are the school. in addition, like their peers of western eastern students have done things like staged abortion protests and watched fox news and had visited the website of national conservative organizations, sponsored the provocative style. yet we did not see eastern students leaning in to this as

the western students did. second, in terms of whether we should be or it can only look dustin's conservative ideology or believe we found the students on the two campuses were really quite similar in several ways. i can go into a more detail about the security, but students agree about the need. they agree about the problems of the nanny state. they are advocating for lower taxes, strong national security. and even on social issues they are more or less in agreement. it would not be unreasonable to expect of similarities in ideology will lead to similarities in style. another way that these differences are surprising is that they don't correspond to student statements of feeling like the erin a political minority. interviewees of both campuses

said being in the numerical minority introduces real hardships for them. isolation from peers, feeling like they're always having to defend their political peers have feeling back their politics are at odds with faculty. yet despite the similarities and saying that there in the minority among the styles that the two groups used a strikingly different. finally, a fourth reason our findings are intriguing is that for the past couple of decades at least, and it's debatable whether it is original and with the tea party or much earlier with gingrich or reagan or for the back, but there has clearly been a narrowing of conservative styles promoted by the national republican party, what we might call slash and burn tactics that were quite similar to what we saw being used to western. the fact that the provocative style is in the cultural there for conservatives at the broadest level of society and politics is typical only of

western, not eastern students. so what is the story? and when did you for your know a bit more data before offering and our cultural and organizational analysis of our universities matter for the development of students conservative style. now, interviewees' at western gave us a variety of reasons for why they chose to be confrontational of them said that confronting the balloon is essential for dealing with the sense of marginal as asian the days till on the campus they referred to faculty transgressions that alienate them such as being singled out as a conservative who should offer the conservative perspective on some topic in class. the talk about their peers behavior, not listening to them or harassing the speaker's man they point to the overall liberal feel in the community. all of this gives the confrontational style legitimacy

they have to fight back. as one student says, angry liberal stand to be conservative activists bread-and-butter. i mean, college republicans will do silly, stupid stuff often very purposefully to get people's emotions to come out. the idea here is that if they pushed liberals buttons, and those liberals then fly off the handle and respond angrily this just proves how fundamentally bias liberal faculty peers are the first place and is extremely gratifying to see everybody's true stripes. now, if c-span weren't from in this i would tell you about gender studies professor at the university of iowa who took exception to college republicans' conservative coming a day and drop to the f pawn in an e-mail back to college republicans. and you can see her as being kind of exhibit eight fur

pushing buttons, have the bulls speak out against them and then point to those faculty has been the problem. now, a campus like theirs, it was necessary to go begging in order to get attention. whether this is from an apathetic classmate who otherwise just one of the party or liberal activist to dismiss the conservative perspective, not only that, but the media love it when you stage these kinds of events, and so did potential political players. one of our interviewers said if you can be perceived as somebody who believes a conservative message to evil western flag ship and all of the socialists up there, you can have any job you want. now, this interviewee is knowingly being hyperbolic when he refers to his evil socialist

campus, but he is also a dead serious about the positive affects such rhetoric and have. students have an eye on their future careers, and that western if you want to get into politics which many of these students to students perceive a confrontational style to be a boon for their career path. now, putting on my analytical at your command as western public university culturally and organizationally incubate the students case for provocation? assuming that they did not just come to campus ready to go after the liberals. the first thing that is important to know is that western is a large state school where only about 25 percent of students live on campus command on the handful have eating plants in dining halls. altogether, about 75 percent of students commute. will we know from the literature about these kinds of living patterns is that college -- in

college's students will cluster with people who are most like them on campus. they're is a strong pull toward similarity. and if there is not universally intervention in the form of political organizations or things of that sort, this multiplies. and what this means for conservatives of western is that there are few opportunities for students of on my mind to get to know one another. this organization future of the campus, the suns in the housing contributes to real and perceived insularity from the other side of the political fence. it also leads to a weak set of community norms for respectful political discussion and in turn there are fewer social constraints on provoking their peers and faculty. after all, if you don't know any black students or any latino students by name, then it's easier to set up a sign selling cookies seven for $0.25 or

suggesting that they are illegal aliens. our first recommendation is a housing and dining features and other social features lead to a thinner opportunities for building social capital across heterogeneous pier lines which contributes to being provocative . second -- or confrontational. students at western also have much less personal contact the faculty and eastern students to. first, as i said before, there is a much larger student and faculty ratio. second, students take there class is in mostly large lecture format and third and not importantly, although you might not think about that of the top of your head, there is a registration system for getting in the courses in the first place. i'm surprised to hear in the interviews i conducted how much this is talked about. but what i figured out was what it means is that students often are not getting into the class is that they do want ended up in

class is that they don't. while this depersonalize system has alienating effects on all students at western, it certainly doesn't ease csc, liberal moderate conservatives, for students on the right who have already been primed by national conservative organizations to regard their professors with mistrust, it increases their level of suspicion about faculty. again, and lowers the barriers for more aggressive confrontation. you don't know your professors, it's easier to caricature them as evil socialists. finally, we find that they institutional egos at western is culture or organizational saga. plays a major role in how students understand themselves, even in the political realm. western is a party school. if you look at u.s. news and world report ec recreation being emphasized. we argue in our book that the provocative style of conservatism actually fits very

well a student understanding of the campus is a fun place to be, where college students are supposed to have fun. we don't want to play safe. they're is a sense among western conservatives that college is the time when they should play pick. so for both organizational and cultural reasons provocation fits well as a style for conservatives of western, even while they share much of the same ideological tenants as their peers at eastern. okay. what is the story at eastern? why is it important to conservative students to present their ideas in an uncivilized way and to appear respectful tapirs and professors? to answer this question i'm going to refer to one more "because it's quite telling. in eastern college republican said at a lot of -- whereas a lot of the republican message on

other campuses is structured along these big guy grabbing attention getting things because 60,000 students on campus who are more interested in a fraternity party, and eastern the way you get to students is much different because people are willing to go to a discussion seminar with an eminent academic. you don't have to be out on the quad protesting in order to get people's attention. and one can see very clearly that eastern students are aware of what other college students are doing on their campuses, and he and his classmates are free not to pursue such basically populous and. out here this to and i'm quoting was at the very moment of our interview a special assistant to one of george to of the bushes chief political strategists. he was taking that semester off to work with the strategist who is no stranger confrontation. you have to take my word on that

because i can say his name in this presentation. while the student was working for the strategist and leaned into more confrontational style for national politics, when he was on campus he argued that provocation would work there. and one overarching rationale eclipsed all others as we asked students about this. what they said was that we engage in discussion and respectful exchange of eastern because this is eastern. we are part of a special, in the community made up of world-class faculty and talented classmates. important now, important later. and we have the luxury and privilege of being responsible people in this context. also interesting is that eastern interviewees said this was also thought to be an obligation. they're compelled to engage in

an appropriate direction. compelled to not put on events that would make people on campus feel uncomfortable, and you can think of the blood spatters on the pro-life posters i mentioned earlier which were immediately jettisoned. discomfort is not good. being a these is good. students discussion of the ease and schools teach the students. most students do not come to campus already perfectly educated and refinement. they learn to be civil once they get to campus. they're taking on something like a collective eminence by being students at least in. i should also add that students at eastern have a fixed high on their future career. but on my extensive western, eastern students are convinced that for the types of futures there will be having, applying

for courtships, heading off to mackenzie, heading up an affirmative action bake sale is going to look so good, and they're very aware this. so clearly there is an institutional eat those manufactured at eastern have being in a special academic community that shapes conservative style. we see this cultural elite is being bolstered by the organizational features of campus as well. first, the housing system keeps students on campus of four years, and the enrollment is in clusters. of with one another for many years. the campus is much smaller than western which means people know each other at least minimally by face. they feel more accountable to one another. and dining halls are for all four years. the lead is to describe this is that live in an eastern elite bubble, very self-contained social scene which we argue

modulates conservative students willingness to go rogue, even while some students admitted would be fun. i could go on about class size, registration procedures that are much more tailored to the individual student, and other academic features like students more personal relationships with faculty, but you probably get the picture that organizationally eastern looks different in western. and that as a consequence of all of these cultural meetings and organizational arrangements eastern conservative students, even while they say they suffer from marginalize nation still feel that they are part of the university's deepen manufactured community. such a sense of community rules out the most conservatives, the activists provocative style. vigorously promoted in gop politics and is used on other campuses. let me wrap up. i want to emphasize that students at western and eastern

were more similar in their style at the time that they entered college than at the time that we interviewed them two, three, for and more years and. many before entering college have written conservative blocks , they certainly read them, attended protests, debated politics with families. it's also important to note again that while east and students were more likely in the aggregate to help upper-middle-class backgrounds which might translate to a case for a more civil discourse style , interviewee's at both schools came from families and of varying cultural capital patterns. we are arguing against the position that we're simply saying campus styles reflect pre college habits and arguing for the idea that campuses create pathways to particular types of conservatism.

this is important in a couple of ways. for one, the project helps us understand more about the lives of the students, how they think about themselves and how they conduct their activities and also about the variety of styles and dispositions among conservative students which we would not know with marginalized media account or from critiques emanating from conservative organizations. ..

>> national and regional politics, and politics universities, all studies part and parcel within each other in an organizational context. timely, we have insights into conservative politics at large where the provocative style has gotten a lot of play and leverage in today's republican party apparatus. sounds like an understatement, really. ideology is -- style has been the research of those studying conservatism. certainly, in the last couple years in the wake of the tea party, more writers and

commentators have cued into this that at the time kate and i were conducting our work, there was a lot more attention to content than form. form shouldn't be overlooked. in today's world, polarizing politics is currency, it's a grave mistake to ignore style and argue that it is a serious mistake to ignore key settings where political styles are fostered on college campuses. with that, i end, and thank you so much for your attention. [applause] >> we'll take questions from the audience, please. >> yes? >> [inaudible]

>> law school, a combination, but there's a minority, and also, it's elitist even though it's public service, stands out from the general crowd, so i'm not sure what -- how the venue is, how to arrange venues here, but they always -- not always, but more often than other groups in law school who organize presentations, and there are quite a few, eight or ten during the week, they always stage it as a debate, and they give -- the invitee is not a super conservative, but one that offers gists or grists for a mill, and they purposely have a liberal, stand-in liberal response, and so it crosses the boundaries. it makes it confrontational potentially, the people are very often on their best behavior,

and it seems a mixture of that. i have a second and last question. are we talking undergraduates and not graduates? >> yes, uh-huh. >> bus it's a research university, so graduates are off someplace else not doing either or what's going on with them >> thank you. >> thank you. to the federalist society first, if i may, i say what they engage is civilized discourse, and as described in the book, there's a lot of interest in engaging others in debate and having, you know, fantastic conversations about one's position. it's just that there's not an add homonym quality to it, and so the federalist society is one of those intellectual organizations that i named early on which has a lot of work

mobilizing, and so i think that fits extremely well as the civilized style, and a very elite university, if that makes sense, that university and law school, if that makes sense that that would take place there, i would say. second question about graduate students. we had in our mix, both undergrads, focus on undergarage thes, because so much of the conservative critique is about undergraduates, so i really, at the point i was collecting data and doing the research design was really only i where it came on later, and when i refer to "i," i don't mean to be narcissistic, just accurate. i really wanted to focus on precisely the group that the conservative critics and that

journalist frequently talked about, and we didn't get a lot of information about graduate students. among alumni, there's several who were in law school at the time, but i wouldn't be able to speak to patterns among graduate students at universities. >> thank you for the discussion. >> thank you. >> i think it more important if you could draw some conclusion about whether the style of the conservative actions on campus extended past campus and graduation, so do conservatives that come out of pow pew lar western universities act differently after graduation in the political arena? >> well, so i have not done that research i've not looked at

tracing who legislators or, you know, various others in public office, where they've come from. that would be a great project. what i know about the future is what they say about the kinds of jobs they want to get later; right? so job operations were a really important component to how students look at politics on campus. if you were thinking you would go into regional politics, which is what a lot of the western students said they were going to go into, this kind of mud slinging and popular style, they thought, would be useful to them, whereas at eastern, what i found out, is most of the students were actually going into financing consulting, like so many other students, liberals, and others otherwise,

and their civilized style is useful. they are in halls of power, working with people with different kinds of perspectives, and so while i don't have data on what they are like, once they're out in the larger society, i can think about what they are like in terms of the futures. in the green. >> enjoyed the presentation. what is the longer term implications for siles for the conservative movement, but wondered if you were able -- i know it's hard to interview everybody, but if you were able to see what the impacts of the context were on liberal groups on the same campus, and did you see sort of similar forms on both of the campuses? >> yeah, and i think that's a really important question. this could be all well and good talking about how conservatives respond to campus, but is this

just the organization on cultural futures that affect everybody on campus? i did not collect data on that, and heard from conservatives what they said about their liberal peers, and my conjecture on this is both campuses, these styles -- with the exception of the higher provocation style at eastern, a literary arch style, that we would see much the same styles from the studentings as well because these organizational teachers and culture is so strong at the two schools; however, liberal students don't -- i guess they night not think about the purpose of their styles as much, so at western public, these students really thought about what it met to be confrontational. i do this because i'm in the

minority. i have to do this so that people recognize i'm here, adopt, i have to do this so that not everybody thinks that only liberals go here, and they don't have that same sense of place on campus equally at eastern, i would say ?a stiewchts there, liberal students there, do not play against that type of the conservative students there, that they also feel more comfortable on campus and schooled in a collective imminence that you talk about. >> thank you for this great conversation. i wish i had access to the book writing my dissertation. it would have been useful. i'm interested in the thoughts about what you were talking about. the victimization that is

portrayed as being a minority on campus, if, in fact, the minority is accurate as put out. i don't know about that, but how does this happen that people perhaps affiliated with some of thee most powerful institutions and families and loafer are lineages are on campus. interested in how that happens. >> i'll do quid pro quo and ask about the dissertation after this question. in terms of what are the numbers of of students on campus just to get the facts out, we use survey data from the higher education research to look at patterns across lines, in combination with our own interviews and field work and found that over time percentage of liberals and

conservatives, you know, hover around 20%. the number of conservatives is at 20%, so relative to liberals, so way outnumbered, 50% of students on elite private universities like this one consider themselves liberal and smaller number consider themselves moderate, whereas at a university like public, it is reverse. there are the same number of liberals and same number of conservatives and vast majority, about 50% of students on campus are moderate. out of this, there's argument they are in the knew may recollect minority.

they are really, at western public, where people -- so they present themselves are about equal liberal, and victimization, i talked with a few critics who are concerned about this victimization stand, but that is what the national conservatives is made up of, and you can see it's really a mobilizing technique. like, you need to come o our conferences, do our stuff, do the projects that are fun to do, get in people's faces, use this, and it's a much more inviting kind of stand. the eastern elite students turn their back on the victimization because the profile of history

to comment. they would rather think about themselves as always being highly honored, republicked, and so forth. >> people who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals, do they identify as moderates conservatives, what? how -- is there that kind of break down? >> right, so i don't know in the national sample -- they can't disag grate them or disentangle what people mean in what issues, but we talked with students who were on social issues of policy, and they pretty neatly fit into

these categories, there was a big difference in terms of adopting a file on campus that their peers had adopted. >> [inaudible] >> in the national surveys, they don't. it's a very, kind of crude measurement. how do you see yourself? very liberal, liberal, middle of the road conservative, or very conservative. they ask conservatives, and nationals about the priorization. saw a hand here. yes. >> i find it interesting that you buoyant out these conservative students who are -- minority on campuses that you

describe, engage in self-victimization, something people always accuse people of color of engaging in, so i thought that was interesting. >> may i say something about that? >> certainly. >> just off the bat, it is, indeed, ironic. it's also true that -- but this is what some of the conservative s, reflective conservatives think about. when you engage in the discourse of the other people's victimization and that we have so much pray, and what the national organizations are doing is using that rhetoric, and, you know, clearly stating that this has been wrong the whole time, that people really in the minority are conservatives.

>> so, in other words, white males got a raw deal in america? >> right. right, well, and on campus, i did not ice the quote, but there was one from western, and western has 85% whites on campus. there aren't a whole lot of minority students on the campus represented. students on this campus, and he sard, you know, you come to campus, and if you're black, you can join the arch club, and you have other people who are there for you, but if you're a christian, white, conservative male, you're in the -- you're on your own, and that, i mean, that is his feeling on campus. so this adoption of the discourse is profound, and he believes it. this is not -- to my

understanding of this interview as i was talking with him, this was not a -- let me sell the interviewer on this political argument. this is -- i feel like this is on campus. g i say it's a real speech mentality in the majority, so another irony. i dealt with this in writing and social political commentary for quite a number of years. when the uc berkley was included in the western model in your analysis, i certainly quoted experience, and when, for example, in 1996, you had opinions that were at the uc brerkly californian newspaper, matt refers to probably black student recruits from l.a. as crack dealers, and, of course, college republicans brought

right winger to camp at least twice. first time on confronted him and sent him running with a question that demolished his whole theory in which i also subsequently had a commentary in the san fransisco chronicle which took on his argument about reparation, so under the main anderson and san fransisco chronicle. >> okay. >> the second time he came, you know, you talked about conserve titch students trying to push buttons. the second time he came, after i felt like i already dealt with him the first time, quite adequately, i told in a public online media, i told progressive students, don't go, just ignore him. make it a nonevent, and he expressed disappointment there were not liberals and conservatives there. otherwise, when it's a situation when i'm not writing formally,

this was, you know bark in the day a little, my tactic was not to take this western style conservatives inteejt chewablely seriously, and, in fact, i would take their side and parody them against my progressives, and that flusters the students. my question for you is, and if i can make, like, three very brief ones, and you can answer equally brief, one, there's an illegal alien day that sounds explicitly racist opposed to the bake sale that people want to indirectly say is racist. i don't know. i wonder, did that particular school have any codes about speech? the other question is where are the statings.

does this ultimately boil down to, like, you know, to borrow and modify public enemy >> does it boil town do fear of the black and brown planet? at least the universities that i've bandage at in various times, at the coast and midwest, it's incredibly brown even if when's asian. so, you know, does this boil down to -- this is not my parents' university anymore. it is, you know, all the people with all their cultures they identify with and celebrate. this is really threatening me as a generic anglo-white male essentially. >> thank you very much. starting with the first one, the last one first, and sounds like what you say is some of what's said about the tea party; right? that there is too much change

happening, we have a black president. we have all of this undeserving people around, and we want to tyke our country back; right? i'm not sure i see that on campuses. neither one is in california. i'll just tell you that. there's not this kind of multicultural experience we get in the university system. it's to the my sense that it's just racial politics or formal. they really hate gender. they are concerned about national security and islamism. it seems to me it's a more

general, choosing issues that can get people excited, but those are not the only issues. affirmative action. working backwards, working in la jolla, california, working in a neighborhood of uc san diego, but i'm not 100% sure of that, and i have not net with him, and the book, in a section where i needed to give a flavor, style i couldn't quote directly from the interviewing from the conservative newspapers because that -- anybody with google could type it in and see what campus i was talking about, so i iced a description provided of his own years, coming of age

style, which he didn't recall that, and it was just a dead ringer for what the students said, adopted that style were doing. catch an illegal alien day and speech codes, it's interesting to talk with conservatives about what happens when they stage these events because this is where the real victimization, just for -- comes up again, and so when they gave an affirm taif action bake sale or catch an illegal alien day, security comes out, to protect protesters. our cash registers are flip over and money flying and people hurl insults at us, but what the administration does is protect the other side. in fact, there are norms around

speech and speech codes, i believe, at the university, and it's a real problem. does that capture that you're getting at? >> why did the university come down on something that seems like pretty explicitly racist speech where i wouldn't even call the bake sale racist per se. you know, unless they had -- cup cakes or something. now that would have been priedier. i guess i wonder where was the university the chancellor, the vice chancellor on that explicit, racist -- >> you know, i'm trying to remember the details of the last big event, and it was at nyu. that was not at a public university. there were, you know, much ink

was spilled, a lot of controversy around it, but i don't believe the university shut it down. i think that it just played out naturally, but i could be wrong on that one. >> yeah? >> question 1 on presentation. how does religion and sexual orientation affect the different -- talk to different so-called diversity programs on campuses and how they affect different political styles of this? >> yeah, and so we, in much the same way we didn't find major differences in adoption of cells among students who were fiscally

or socially conservative, we did see that religious students and nonreligious students on each campus more or less adopted similar styles, fell into the style there was typical of the campus, and we found differences in women. that was because we studied women more carefully than women or sexual orientation. there's a chapter on conservative femme anymorety, and we were doing interviews around the time, if i may, just to alterer it a little bit, interviews around the time that palin was brought on the ticket, so there's a lot of conversation about what it meant to be a conservative woman, and they were interested to come to understand that to be a conservative woman is to be femme anymore and to

dissertation pias liberal feminism because they saw that as narrowing the opportunities for women and directing them more towards careers than they would like to be. they plan to be career women, but closed off opportunities to crews other kinds of womenly endeavors, and they also saw liberal feminism as shutting down the opportunity to embrace a real femme anymorety. we found that interesting. these were, you know, that was the only population that was studied in isolation others. >> how do you feel about sarah palin? >> well, the women love her. this is true at eerch elite and at western. they did not love her entirely,

but realize she was a candidate, and they didn't like that she lost, and they didn't like that she couldn't say more, you know, profound things about russia and of that sort, but they did really find her appealing. they found her outside of the old byes' network. they liked it that she brought this feminism to the floor, and they voted for her. >> two last questions. >> all of the people you interviewed coming into campus or some of them talk about becoming activists as a result of the experience will be the result of being the minority? >> yeah. so we found both. we found there was quite a wide range of students pre-college,

as they referred to them, some had been active in protests, and one of them staged a fake bill o'reilly debate with a friend of his in high school, and so several of them came on to campus with their activism in hand, and so, for example, the pro-life groups when they staged the action, they were trying it on campus and realized that was not the way, pane some had not been active. some of them had not been very active because they had come from conservative communities, and they never had to think about their conservatism, and it was only once they were up to the liberal university that they needed to express themselves as conservatives. >> okay, a brief follow-up. >> as mod oled, why they are not

fitting in the eastern model? >> yeah, you know, i think i asked everything about her. the men did not like her. they saw her as -- they saw her as mccain, contained palin, that was too bad, she was not good with the women, resinated with her being a model for baa it's like to be a conservative woman and having it be all a family career success and so forth, so not all of them agreed with, you know, the way she conducted herself and the way she -- certainly the way she talked about the issues, but they did resinate with the facts of palin. >> okay, one more. >> >> [inaudible]

>> another good question. we found that most students came and thought of themselves as generically republican or conservative. there were a few who moved through greater conservative, but we found that in college, students further refinedded how they referred to themselvessings as conservatives. people who initially identified as these became catholic conservatives, and one of our, refers to herself as a crunchy conservative. they are very pro-life, and she's proenvironment, prosocial yts in some other ways, and so things get messier, i guess, when they get to college.

>> please join me in thanking her for this wonderful presentation. thank you. [applause] >> thank you

>> professor michael, who was lionel trilling? >> leafs the preimminent literary critic of the 1940s, 50s, and 6 os, born to a family of jewish immigrants from poland educated in new york's public schools and spent education and professional life at columbia university, was a literary critic of a kind that one ask hardly imagine today in the sense he had absolutely enormous

leadership at the highest level esteem from his colleagues, and from scholars and writers, but also could engage a large public. he was associated with the word "liberalism" in ways that are quite complicated r which, in part, meant especially by the 19 40s, in affiliation with the party invited to the kennedy white house and vetted there as sympathetic intellectual figure, but the connection ran deeper. he was consistently engaged in the career and tried to determine what liberalism was, trying to argue for it, and trying to make a case for it, not in a political form of argument, but literary and cultural forms. >> what do you mean? what's the difference. >> never wrote about party politics or an election or matter of foreign policy for him. liberalism was a sensibility, an attitude, a cultural posture with roots in the 18th century in the thinking of 19th century,

carried towards to philosophers, very much part of the 20th century, a captive mine, a disposition secular in the basic outlines, highly invested in the line of books and pluralism, and the points of views that does not commit to any single point of view. >> who is whittaker chambers? >> he was, to make it from the beginning, from columbia in the early 20s, and they were -- if not friends, associates at the same university as young men, but he was born into a different world. his family was speaking, and the middle class family was born into it, and he made his way into columbia university where he rather quickly entered into radical political circles and

joined the party without graduating. from there, the story is long and complicated. he was in and out of the party in the 1920s, and by 1932 #, a very interesting choice of fate after publishing four short stories, we joined the party formally, not as an open member, but as a spy to the soviet union. he was until roughly 1937, and with all kinds of disputes about who he knew and when, and what he did, was affiliated with circles in washington, d.c. in the mid-1930s. most significantly was affiliated with the man by the name of hiss, not front page news in the 30s, but a high-ranking government figure, somebody who was socially intimate with roosevelts and had working in the state department from other areas of government. by 1939, chambers has broken with soviet communism and become both a christian and anti-communism conservative.

he proceeds in the 1940ings to write for henry's media empire, a star journalist, editor of international news, and by the mid-1940s, and as things heat up, anti-terrorism, and communism after the second world war in 1946-47, he enters the public domain as somebody who accuses hiss has being a copy note. this becomes one of the major court cases of the early curled war. wonder of chambers against hiss. hiss was more hand sm, better smoken, better connected and was awfully evasive and vague on the issues. chambers was described as rumpled, overweight, allegations of homosexuality in the air at the time of the case, and so he felt, to many viewers and others in the case, to be a man on the martins. chambers, you can say won the case, convicted not for

espionage, but perjury and sent to jail for loss of government position never to regain it, and in the 1950s, chambers gave his version of the case in his autobiography witness which was among the most significant books of the post war cone sievetive movement, bible for william f. bucley, jr., john wayne, and many others who decliered themselves conservative in the post war years, his most significant role, instigator of the movement and participates in the founding of national review in the 50s and dies in 19 # 6 is #. his career is more important. >> did lionel and chambers remain friends and in contact? >> yes. even when chambers was a spy, the two had lunch at a vegetarian restaurant in new york city,