[inaudible conversations] .. this is our grand opening week and we are thrilled you got to be part of this new site. we want to be a hub for activity, for the best thinking, ideas and consumer consumer information. we hope you come back more in the future. i work primarily on k-12 education and as i think about the foundational issues undergirding policy and decentralization and nonprofit groups and pluralism and so this conversation is to spoken to me and important to you as well.ve

on one level this conversation about campus politics is about campuses and hundreds of bills builts of dollars flowing through them and students and faculty and at the tempment and disposition. but also reflects and influences something much deeper, which is do we actually still believe in the plurbis part of the -- do we believe the democratic pluralism, thing it's great that people have devil cultures and howevers and viewpoints viewpoiy live them out and can come into spaces like universities that are about the free exchange of idea and mix things up and never life to pave about being viewed as a hour -- a heretic. not assigning yourself to a certain orthodoxy. it could be the case or

universities are not just inculcating young people. they could be reflecting something going on. with dough end believe differences of opinions and we that parochialism is always bad. so there could be no better, let's call it, for this fogs doe book. john sim september irman do john zimmerman will present and whath is going on actually on university campus? there's a lot of talk, some signals, some noise, and give us a sense of white they matters. after that he'll talk for 15, 20 minutes. it's a really good book. then i will come back up here with david french and greg, have a conversation about this. we'll bat around a handful of ideas. youly fro david from national review.

he has litigated on these kind of issues for it would some time and greg is the president of, ceo of fire, which is probably is unquestionably the leading organization for, like, in the weeds, working on campuses and free speech issues. and not incidentally, i'm a fan of his because he cowrote what a think was the best article of 2016 in the atlantic,ed,ed the coddling of american mind, and there's ain't increasing emphasis on campuses saying the safe spaces and -- it's good for mental health. there is this alternative argue; agreeing -- greg that could be the exact opposite, and may increase anxiety, depression, and other things.

worth diving diving in. after our discussion, depending on hour forward leaning you are, if can tell you're eager to get interest the conversation i'll move to q & a quickly. just a couple rules. make sure you raise you hand and we get a microphone to you. make sure you introduce yourself, like to know who the conversation is happening t between so name and organization. y and then last but not least, mess please, please, please, actually ask a question during the question and answer phase. we're trying to model good behavior here. this is a conversation about discussion. it's a conversation about difference of opinion. as money armia friends would say it's about being on receive, not just being on transmit. so if you get the microphone and get 15 secondness your statement and i see exclaim make points and no question marks i mayno insert myself.

now, for those friends that we have who are watching live streaming -- is it live streamed -- you can use the hash tag or anyone in the us audienc, campus politics on twitter or facebook or ininstagram, other thinged don't know about that you can use. you can tweet. we'll try to keep on that stuff and we have neat little feature those. those people at home, or from their offices, you can submit a question i have a device to keep up with this. so if you good sli.do and enter the code, aei event, enter your name and question and i'll get e copy and sometime during the discussion i'll try to put thosu into the bloodstream so everyone can be heard. sorry for the long throat-clearing. i'm'll done talking.

order of operations. hush up. dr. zimmerman cams up, talk busy hit book, moderate discussion, q & a and get you on your day by 10:15. sound good? thank you. please join me in welcoming our valued against, dr. john zimmerman. [applause] >> thank you very much. thanks to andy and kelsy and the aei for welcoming me to this gordon new home. this ohio god would hey made the whole world if he has the money. thank you to andy for this lovely comments; he play be be thirst person who is not a bloor telltive to-bash blood relative to read my book. my first book i wrote, somebody gave ms. this 800 number and i

would describe you your book is doing and i actually called it and i put in the 800 up in and i got robo voice that said, good morning, you have sold -- zero -- books today. that one getting me any closer to god so i haven't done it since. but do my brief message here is that, first of all, nobody is being silenced. we have to be careful how we describe the free speech problem. it is real. but we've got to be really careful's the term wes use to describe it. there are 4,000 places to get a ba in the united states. and if most of them trigger warnings, mike row aggression, save spaces, say what?

it's not an issue at all. people have not heard those words. the times ran a story about la a guardia community college in the wake of the leakses and all the trauma and safe space discussions, it was totally absent from la guardia. people were just trying to get through the day, take care of kids, pay tuition, i had toronto freedom. no-has silenced me. okay? as historian especially to call what is happening mccarthy. i find an insult to the suffering that happened under mccarthy. however there was an narrowing of debate and discussion on our campuses, especially our elite ones. and there's very good survey literature that documents this. so, they do studies where they ask students, is it safe to hold

unpopular opinions on this cam us? and at the elite schools, a declining fraction of kids say, yes, through college. that can't be good. so, as you go through college, fewer and fewer students say, yes, it's safe to hole unpopular opinions. and when i was researching this book, frankly, i was surprised at the wide range of opinions that people hold but don't express. from, -- for example, it 40% of full-time faculty in the united states oppose the use of race in college admissions.he u 40%.se o was hugely surprised to hear it was that much. i could tell you that anytime 6 -- i'm in the 60% but i was shamed to learn this because it means the people that disagree with me aren't actually speaking up very much and i don't think that could be for affirmative action or the university.

there is such a problem with political correctness? there is but i think there again we have to be very, very careful in the words that we use, and, especially in the ways they define them. we define them. so, i've argued that there are actually two kind pc. one that i support, and one that i despise. the first kind of pc is the one that creates strong social, although, not legal taboos on the use of highly offensive terms. i do not think it should be illegal for donald trump to call women pigs. i don't. but i think there should be strong social prohibit base and taboos on that. and if that's pc, count me in. i don't want to ban it. but if we as a community want to be a community, we have to have certain community standards and think not calling women pigs should be that of the standard.

i don't think calling women pigs adds anything to the discussion there should be strong social, not legal taboos on them and if that's pc, counsel me in. the problem is the second kind of pc that doesn't taboo words, whichhead nothing to but discusc but taboos ideas. if 40% of the faculty is opposed to race affirmative action we're not hearing from them. that means that there's a serious pc problem. the pc problems that stops you from engaging in a credit account debate be the use of race in admissions. that kind of pc we all have to r oppose. because that inhibits us as educators, learners, as human beings. now, why? how did all this develop? very briefly, because -- i don't want to talk too much -- what i've argued in my book is

that -- this is picking up on work that greg and john and others have done -- the real problem is the rise of psychological language, idioms and metaphors. from discussing politics. to be very clear, i'm an advocate of psychology and i'll be very honest with you, there's mental health problems in my family. some very serious ones. my families has been a huge beneficiary of mental health services. i'm not opposed to psychology.y. but i am opposed to the universe psychological idioms for discussing politics. because one thing i try to argue in my book is that psychology and politics don't play well together. if you say you were hurt orge injured or traumatizessed by something i've said, i frankly think that's a decision stopper. i don't have a -- asa conversation stopper. don't have a lot to say to no in

response and would never say you weren't because i can't look into your soul. i don't know what you're feeling. i would never deny and it don't deny it. w what i do question, though, is the use of feeling as a barometer or playing feel for political discussion becausess think init hicks it and is -- inhibits it and is a function of our time. if you looked, for example, at the history of the term my microaggression." it was coined by an- aggresit african-american psychiatrist at harvard names castro pierce. nobody knew about to n the 2,000s and i had not read his work before i got into this project and it's been hugely influential. he has written these book --

compendiums of microaggressions, and microaggressions take various counts.ge one of them is the kind that highlights your difference in an allegedly offensive way. so, where are you from? if like hsu you grew fun organize and your parents asian-americans you might be feigned. dude, i'm from oregon. yes, i'm asia, but i'm american. so that's one kind of microaaggression, and then saying to somebody i don't see raise when i look at you. that can be a mike row tech microaggression, too, because it denies your difference rather than highlighting it. or the one that's been most controversial, anyone who can make -- anyone who works hard enough in america can make it.

this zoo has said is continue si. i can contexts in which all statementses could be offend sis. given the right or wrong context i might be offended, too.n what i question is the university administrator in a prima fast -- prima fascia way to declare the statements are taboo. that's context and that's evil. for a university administrator to make a statement about social mobility, which is really what wore talking about, nip who works hard enough can make it it's a controversial question in american letters.. a university administrator should not be laying down a rule about that. but that is the other crucial context for underunderstanding

this. the rise ol' psychological idioms is one. the other one is the rise oof the administrationtive university. here's an x. and if wore talking about race and race controversy and race culture that has a meaning, malcolm x, the x on the hat. want to encourage you to think about another x. which is context. the full-time fact thank you, the full-time administration, and starting in the '90s theyti crossed. so when was a kid there war more faculty members than administrators and now that thee more administrators than faculty. that's huge he borne to understand. i'm not against university administrators. was one. we need them. secondly, they're often some very good reasons for the rise of administrators. and going back to mental health,

the whole mental health apparatus, which when i was a kid, is small. it is now huge. i'm not against that. but what i am against is trying to create administrative solutions, and especially administrative directives. surrounding highly connen controverted public questions. that can't be good, can't be good for any of us. so thanks to greg and others,at one of the thing wes have discovered as administration rises, so do speech coaches, even in the face of court decisions rendering them unconstitutional. so do diversity trainings. if you look at demand students

you see that two-thirds of them focus on the thing calledthat t diversity training you. sigh the rise of these thing called called buyans response incident teams. all managerial solutions. and i should tell you, as i they also happen have a week academic base. i'm not opposed to the idea of trying to help people converse across the differences, including the racial differences. don't think any good-hearted person would be opposed to but when you troy to study the managerial efforts to improve's people concluder this guy jim at ucla and new at harvard, he spend a lot of time at,lytant.

studyingy-- -- ucla city studying this and would follow students through college and the found the interventions on the part of the university, he couldn't show that had nye effect. this seems to me a highly -- not that's managerial response but . symbolic one. highary diversity officer. create diversity training. bill the way, it's expensive. as parent of two young adult kid i'm sensitive to that question. it is to improve people's racial attitude and having a roommate of a different race. to my mind, western civilization began to decline when the students were allowed to choose their freshman roommate. the worst thing that has happened in western civilization.

because, du, if you go on to facebook and can across your roommate, you pick somebody who looks exactly like you. du. we one to summer together, friends in don, blah blah blahlo so you're not leveraging the benefit of diversity. believe in diversity and sort forms of race-bearingsed affirmative action and if we allow the kids to choose treasure freshman roommates we're not leveraging those benefits. let me just a couple other things about -- then i'll shut up -- about this question of psychology. which i think is so central here. the genealogy of trigger warnings is fascinating and very different from the genealogy of microaggressions. microaggressions hat a dweeby

academy -- right when the internet hit, should have a sensory -- should have a warning and people will be re retraumatized. it's now come to cover almost anything that might upset you. so question have demand ford trigger warnings anything about pregnancy, about addiction, bullying, suicide, my favorite is a trigger warning if a professor shows a clip of "downton abbey" because they're all that stuff. there was actually a situation where student asked for a trigger warning in a horror films class about blood. and i'm like, dude, this is an elective and it's elective

called "a horror forms clause class. maybe you should not hey elected this course. but to be clear here, just like all of this stuff, there are times and places writ may be totally appropriate. so, one of the courses -- a big undergraduate course i teach is about the cultural wars and i a do segment of pour nothing graph and i shoe a movie it includeses important clips because is a trying to show to our nasty, violent a lot of porn is, so before i show that movie i always say to the students, listen, this what you're going to see in this movie, and if you dent don't want to watch it you don't ha. i don't call that a trigger warn but a is and strike mess as legitimate.

it's just when you start to stretch this to cover any possibly upsetting incident so you -- i won't bore you with the examples but here's the real problem to me. the psychologicalledoms, in addition to -- psychological idioms in decision for not allowing discussion or stopping it, they also teach us, i think, to respond and feel in a certain way. so, sociologists have been talking for 30 years about something called feeling rules. goes back to work of the man who wrote a famous book bat actually stewardesses, and the focus of the book was how social groups and social situations teach us to feel a certain way. we're all subjective beings, and

we all feel differently. bit u but at the same time, the feeling rules that surround us can bias us to feel certain ways. not determine it. never determines it. but bias our feelings in certain ways. and that is when i fear this language of psychology is doing. the more we talk about the trauma we have experienced, from a trump sign, which is what happened at emory know, likely we are to feel that. so, a great episodes i think highlighted this problem and great response it to, you may recall that up at harvard, maybe year and a half ago there was this act of vandalism at the law school where somebody put black tape over the mouths of the portraits of the faculty of color. and this led to a outage -- demonstrating outside whenever to the law school and how

profoundly upsetting this was randall ken who teaches at the law school, an african-american, he wrote a good op-ed. one point was that we don't know this was a racist act. it certainly could have been. but maybe the person who did this was actually doing a speaks of street that's right theater and trying to -- street theater and try to call attention to the way people of color or muzzled of or an awful david duke type person that was a bigot. but then kennedy says, if it was, come on, how traumatized are we really? we're at harvard law school. midst amidst about the racial privilege, let's talk about harvard privilege. could somebody who was, quote,

traumatized by this piece after theater could they with a straight face go to a syrian refugee center or go to a battered women's shelter, and say, you know, i was traumatized, too. i know where you're coming from. i just -- i just don't think they could. on the administrative side -- and then i will shut up -- it's really important historically to emphasize that for most of-under history on campuses, students and administrators were at loggerheads. the history of the american university is actually a profoundly conflict to all and sometimes violent one. back to the 19th under and there were dual -- duels on american cam businesses and food

fights. instituteed a water diet, on bran and only water, that led to massive riots and protests at own obland, and started bay guy would starts the graham cracker, a barbaric and time before more s'mores there were tenth betweens between the students and administrator, and in berkfully in the early '60s you find -- a very mainstream liberal democrat calling mario a university hater. kerr's possession against savio.

today if you look at the most recent round of protests what you fund is the administrators embracing at the protesters. oh, yes, yes, you are right. i know you were traumatized. we failed you, right and that's what alway said at yale, so, yet we'll have diversity trainings and fin the culprit in every sexual assault case and doll out the recommend. so more rules, more offices, more trainings. it's important to ask how people can grow up on those terms. seriously. we're not the angry, like, biblical parents of the inloco parentis day. we're like the helicopter mom or dad. we run the place, okay? the students are constantly

asking for more administration, and we give it to them. and that, i think, what really differentiates this generation of protests from earlier ones. i wrote a column about tom hayden. very complicate figure, if you look at the port huron statement, the which isache early statement of student protest which is hayden drafted, it had a really interesting lange. it says we need to wrest control fromte the administrative bureaucracy, and it seems like it is from on era because it is. now is, can we have more administration, another statement from you? an awful racist incident on my campus, involving terrible e-mails send to i prime minister student -- sent to african-american students and everybody is asking the president to say the right

words. please, say these mystical words, say the right incantation, and in closing, if you really want to see how different things are, go ahead and google the wellesley college graduation of 1969. at that graduation, the first one that a student spoke, which is kind of interesting. and you already know her name. hillary diane rodham, and later hillary rodham clinton, if you look at the speech she says we need fewer curricular requirements we need a fast pass-fail stipulate and students to direct their own education, and hillary writes we're searching former immediate ex-stat trick and penetrating events. we're a more and path world that none ouches one-thirds. it's such a great adventure. i think its, actually, it is

still a great adventure, none of us know where it's going. but at our universities we will narrow that adventure if if we continue to think of it in narrow psychological terms that restrict what we say and think. most of all if the student and faculty invest every more power in people who run the institutions instead of in themselves. thanks a lot. [applause] >> we can all take our seats up here. >> i'm going to walk very carefully. >> i have lots of questions and i wanted to get david and greg to weigh in. if have to ask youy, the administrative question is a thing that stood out to me in your book. it wasn't always this way.

that administrators seem -- there's even fa quote in every single instance, the administrators bend over backwards to say, yes, you were right, we were wrong. how did that happen? a different time of administrator? a difference in fundraising in a change in type, want to hear the other two gentlemen but let my say, one thing you have to think about is you have to think about the expanding role of the federal government in education. and what that does to the universities is it just requires it to hire more administrators. think about the whole title nine revolution. anyone of this is bad. sometimes it's very good. but if the federal government is more deeply involved in the university, be definition you need more administrators to figure out how to comply with the federal government. right? i think though, more broadly,

that's change in the sensibilities of students who see themes as consumers rather than necessarily as learners. so, one of the things i've been struck by in debates i've had with students on my own campus about my book, a lot of them say we're paying the bills. we want trigger warnings, why shouldn't we have them? the bills have gone crazy. and that is a really important thing. i'm not justifying what they say, i'm trying to explain it. given how much you pay for this product, i understand this consumer sincibility. do not like it or approve it but is does make a certain kind of sense. >> very being. >> i enjoyed reading your book, very reasonably written and i couldn't help but think, a i reading is in 2016?

because i haven't read anything reasonable. >> that's ridiculous homage. >> i think that on the question you ask about the rise of the administrative bureaucracy. i what in law school from '91 to '94, thecrest of the first wave of political check presidency and all of pressure was to the administrator saying gimme, gimme, gimme, and students have been doing that ever since. this constant push turned the administrators. what i would say to be very clear about is that when we're talking about in loco parentis or enloco helicopteris, the administration is not there for all students. if you are conservative christian member of a pro life club, christian organization,

you have views that are outside the main stream o. same-sex marriage, pham for example, ourtle me how friend the administration is to you and how much are they going out of they're where i to make sure your psychological well-being is taken care. but they'll go out of the way to make sure the other students' well-being is taken care of because of your actions. there's censorship and if have sued quite a few. >> who reiner to -- out and out censorship is less common whan two tet office reality and one thing if you're talking about free speech on college campuses, here's the question you need to ask yourself. before i speak or say something, how much intestinal fortitudes

do i need to say this. and we have set up universities where speech as a glide path to expression. you'll be encouraged by professors and administration. if you're chosen political candidate loses you're'll get an opportunity to go to a play dough room and have the tint to vent your spleen. if you're on the other side, the administration's going to write a statement how traumatizing you are. the administration is going to talk about how deeply troubling your speech is. we're not talking about just radical fringe communication here. we're talking about extremely mainstream points of view expressed by millions of americans. now, that is not an excuse, and i say this all the time to -- when i speak to conservative constitute students the opposite

of political correction it not, pardon my language, ass-holiery. people think they going to strike a blow to political correctness by being an stream persony you said a benign form of political correctness and one that isn't i say that manners as a son of the south, there's manners and then there's political crequeness. and manners is a -- when you have manners you're seeking to treat another person the way you week like to be treat and the stenyou know the other person has particular sensitivities or particular background, which would lead you to be particular -- sensitive and compassionate in your communing with them, be sensitive and comp compassion not in your

communication; one last thing i would say, that this language of trauma and this language of victimization and the psychology -- this conversation stopper that says that if you continue to speak you're harming me. again is it's just not evenly applied. itself was evenly applied speech would shut down on campus. was at penn last year, and i was speak about free speech on campus and i was addressing this very i-and a student spoke up and they were from the incity, latino student and they were talking about -- i touched on issues of race and affirmative action and i'm in 40% that does not believe in the race-beared affirmative action. and he expand explained with great emotion it's difficult to hear me talk about these things because he's from a historically

disadvantaged area, from a low income part of the country. he knows people who have died on the streets in gang violence. and who am i really to speak about this? how can i have an opinion about this when i didn't -- so i respond and said you have an opinion about the iraq war? and he said, absolutely. and i said well, you know, i'm a veteran of that conflict and i was there during the surge and i -- it was most traumatic experience of my lifetime, hard to imagine anything more traumatic and i've seen more death in that one year than hope to ever see the whole rest hover of my life. do you think someone that be entitle to oppose the iraq war in a conversation with me? or does my experience and the pain of experienced there trump any opinion that anyone has in my presence should they keep

their opinion completely to themselves lest they trigger me or lest they bring up trauma. and you could see this sort of -- well, wait a minute, but i'm really antiwar. i-that's really whan i want to say. -- what i want to say. so these thing not evenly applied. not all trauma is the same. so, we do not have a environment where what is good for the goose is good for the gander, if i may use gender terms like goose and gander. so that's why to a lot of consecutive students this notion that the university is taking care of its students just flatly rings hollow. it's just seen as absurd. >> thank you. greg? >> i don't even know where to begin. so much to cover.

obviously there's a -- cited my work i believe with jonathan on bet situation on campus. i've seen three major phases on campus and the first sort of age of political correctness was before my time. i was in a school that was no peak bid -- towards the tail end any. didn't realize wherein startedded a stanford law school they had lost a court case in which their speech code was defeated even at a private school because the date soft bases a law saying even nonsecond teararran schools -- meaning stanford done can't have speech codes. so most of my career i would want to be talking to conservatives, for example, one the have if the sense of the really emotional student who desperately warranted wash

can'ted censorship. those seemed like tall tales from the latele 0 late 80s and 90s which is before my time. so have been fighting administrator whose sometimes are engaged in political correctness but. some of my kid aren't really political correctings in cases. just abuses of power. one of the worst cases i've even seep, university about at georgia college whod to cake out without due process a student because he was critical of the parking garage project. it's crazy case but then there are horrifying plate al cal -- political correctness casesikely university of delware where if wases a mr.ors taking part of an indock addition program that

went beyond anything i've seen. i had free thrices. one administrators run amok because somebody has to run amok. the next is the federal government run amok. coming up with standards, for example for are harassment that are literally comply with. the standard about harass,ment in 2013 letter is unconstitutional and impossible to comply with and necessarily has to be applied with deep double standards or no would be allowed to say a thing on a college cam put. the first things which is stressing to me but relatively recent is saying what looks like story is heard about, which is this very strong -- usually a strong element of identity politics and also white liberals saying, i don't want this person speaking on my campus, and then people say, well, it's their special day so commencements -- i always point out, there's not

a very persuasive argue. and also includes -- speakers nor going to go to charles murray speech but don't want to have charles murray speaking at the school but a is defends their sensibility he steps foot on campus. so watch these stage want to get back the section and i thought it was great that you started talking about pluralism. i think him in you pass anything like a speech coder making a very narrow statement of culture. and i think you're basically say -- this harvard campus culture is superior and i was a hellion at standard because i said it's weird these views sound like the views white liberal bay area rich people. and i hate me for pointing this out. so i think which is has fallen out of the discussion.

these tend to be signs of sort of class stratification, for the elite colleges it's a14-1 ratio if bogey to an elite school than a board kid and universities have been so pollingized they -- thes a administrators can't distinguish what a person should say from truth. my father is russian. my mother is british. can't have to people of more different cultures but my father would -- the first rule of dealing with other cultures or people who aren't like you is to try figure out what they're coming from, not to impose your norms medley on them and my father wouldly and if you don't-you're acting like hick.

and when i sea going on today is this very -- it does -- i nearly called learning liberty the new victorians because i saw the difference -- conservatives are backwards, evan -- eevan really calls -- e -- that's multiculturism. we know the end of truth and we know the way people should talk and it is getting away from the pluralistic model where it's okay to have political wrong beliefs, where we actually value that, becoming a much more -- this is what all right-thinking people think. >> let in the just say, i read about greg's brown and remind mist he old joke that the british don't now how to say

hello and yiddish don't know how to say goodbye. i think it is important to emergency what we say sometime might hurt somebody's feeling but it can't be the barometer. it's possible 0 acknowledge the feelings instead of willing them away but make an, a forming why they shouldn't rule the day. in at the case of race-based affirmative, a i can well understand if you were a member of aminority group you might be offended. i get it but i don't think your offense should proevent us frock discussing the question. so rather than adon't be offended, you can be offended, i can understand why you might be offended but you can't use that as a measure of when and how we

speak of it. that seems to me just a fundamental dinks and i have been very distressed at my campus when i make pleas for including more people in the discussion, including people that voted for donald trump, i'm met with comments like, it's just too soon. people are too hurt. they need time to heal. that's a purely psychological post. for total sake of transparency i'm awe paid appalled by donald trump. >> did you run for president? >> get as lot of death threats. >> yeah, yeah, but not a majority, but close to majority of the votes did vote for him.

there are a small number of people at penn who voted for him some have appeared at my office and told me that they don't feel like they can say that. and friends, that i cannot tolerate. if somebody wants to disagree with something i've said or written, that's fine. but the things i have to do to get fired i can't even say. that's how bad they are. i got no problems and no complaints. but if hear from a student that she or he feels like they can't say what they're thinking, that is wrong. that's war to me. because that cuts to my fundamental beliefs about what a university is or should be and what i'm doing -- i don't know if this will work but i'veen in to contact with baseball college

dozen create a few seminars involving people from and penn and the bible colleges to talk about the election. i don't think we could have a conversation. what has happened recently not a conversation. it's a mothering session. -- mourning session. and i'm part of that, too i think things went terribly wrong but i'm saying that how few trump voters i have had discussions with and i don't think i can have those discussions internally at my university. >> one thing that -- i haven't said this publicly before but john height and i just signed with penguin press to do a book sort of taking the american mine as a starting point because we thought we had said everything we needed to say and then university went much contracts 'er in the -- crazier in the year after we wrote it and we're serious about thed idea this is base outside an bad

psychological model. not one that isn't in keeping with the actual current research but precisely the opposite. i put it this way to students. if you were to go to a psychologist and take you by the shoulders and you'rer, very fragile and if you hear things that bother you, you're going to be done forever. that psychologist would be fired. die think it's one of the reasons whoa -- it's dome machine volleyball we are seeing upticks of racial anxiety among college kids and students going to seek psychological help for ooperation. also take psychology very seriously bunt don't want to be abuses -- this is a tentative tight ol' the become -- emi with empowering students and making them people feel like they're fragile and la have no

choice but as far as things that fruit me general reality bid the culture is the exquisite technologies and what i mean is used to be back in our day, in college and law school, you just -- the way to dismiss one's opinion was to call them a conservative and if you can figure out a athey were conservative you're off the hook to have to discussion with. the. now we have so many defendant arguments to not have to listen to each other. you look deep into the privilege their, 100% of the entire human race is privileged. they're punning up, punching down, victim blaming, argue. -- man argument of argue. that doesn't get you to the argument. and we've tolerated all these things and that's the emotional, saying that i'm offended. i think this is happening across political lines as well, we're figure ought ways to not talk about the actual issue but i do

think on the elite campuses they're becoming experts to never actually get to the subject of the argue. >> one quick thing. his name came up. i don't know if anyone else -- i don't officer in you have undone this but eye conducted diversity training before. >> oh, goodness. >> yes. >> how did that make you feel? >> i fellow presssive. -- i felt oppressive. so as a jag officer he can when the military repealedded "don't ask, don't tell," there was mandatory standdown across the military and we were going to train our troops about same-sex marriage and l lgbt issues. so being asked to run through a power point that it all the sensety draining and diversity training and i had to do it.

it was orders, and typical training its begins with a general looking at the camera, you willies ton that's and -- you hill listen to that and -- >> they can order people. >> here's what happenings when you deliver diversity training and i trade to be as engaging as i possibly could be and the whole crowd is like this. the whole crowd is -- >> temporary very dramatic. >> they cannot wait for it to be over. they ahead every second of it. and -- >> get me back to the war. >> yes. and this is what happen on college campos. a wheel lot hoff people sit through the trainings -- and the only thing they're getting from it is, this view that you're telling me is the approved view. it's not the view i necessarily have and not necessarily the view i'm going to adopt. and so one thing we have learned in this election is people cannot be hectored out of their beliefs. they will sometimes

send their beliefs underground and then share them in the anonymity of the voting booth. live in a precinct that went 72% for donald trump and it's a great place to raise family. it's a great place to raise a family. it's not -- trump's america is not some sort of hell hole. but it was an awful lot of people who just were really sick and tired of being told what to think and what to do and where actually voting is a sheer act of rebellion. a sheer act, complete act of rebellion. cannot tell you how many times i heard that. so at lot of what is happening on college campus is is no achieving the effect. in your book you showed through actual data that knowledges nor indoctrinating quite as much as people think the are. >> that's the biggest myth. it's aing my that the faculty is full of radical marxists.

we are liberal but not radical. are students do not agree with us and if we are trying to indoctrinate them are we're doing a lousy job. the who model implies a lot more investment in teaching or learning. >> i want to make sure we do this housekeeping thing. if you're the online audience you can send the questions go to sli.do and use the code, ai event. a bunch of you raised issues related to a question i wants to ask, which is the influence of this. whatever we want to call this, this atmosphere, this environmentment on students and on the faculty. so i've read a couple times recently there is -- it's anecdotal but a sense that too

many students no in the term is, can't answer the second question. so un -- accustomed to shooting -- shut duong wait and when you get to theeys of what is inside and outside of pluralism they have not been pressure tested in the discussion. so we have actually inhibited their growing. but the faculty part is even more interesting. red this hillary article in city journaling, called the real war on science. the case that he makes is that actually the orthodoxy on campuses is affecting faculty in such a way that it is very clear that there are certain questions you can and cannot ask. certain conclusions you cannot reach and that is having i nine tons hoe research and faculty willing to go on the campuses to work. so the environment, what is

that's going to do 20 years from now? i wonder what is doing the research and students in the moment. >> john, my co author for the book i'm writing, rehe wrote incredible article, talking about how badly the political skew of social schooling was hurting the feel of social psychology and he gave me the example of a paper that treated conservatism as mental disorder. and it gave different -- and so loaded because it gave -- it showed examples of the questionses. do you thick it's thin could i of enemy disorder this kind. anything -- there is any time when conservatism isn't a minute -- mental dissenators

john is not sawing you need to have pen parity, and not talking be as to think the look of swan to call bs when glory a porlarization spiral. talk to 20 smart people agree with mr. and i must -- with me and i mostbe right. students don't know the second argue. might aggrieve with them on different political issues but shocked how bad they are defending traditional lib'll talking points because never had that channel lengthed. >> that's a remarkabling in. that's nontrivial. critical thinking. >> i agree with what greg is saying, and obviously i wouldn't be here if i wasn't concerned. but we ned to just be a little tempered.

one great thing about teaching in most environments is when you close the door, you can do whatever you want. most jobs aren't like that. there's a problem waist, too. some people aren't doing very much or doing some that's actually quite bad. but you have an extraordinary amount of independence. and when i was a k through 12 teacher would say what the best sound is and just close to the door. and so i found in the recent round debates at penn that frankly the only students and factually members who have been highly critical of me are people who don't know me, aren't in my classes to, two holm aaye just a cartoon, some white guy whose side burns are going gray i rare than an actual human being. i've been able to conduct any own classroom debates. we can do that. that's the freedom we have. now, i would agree that because of these different strictures

and developments that people might be less able and the -- how many liberals in boulder, colorado, who scoff at climb change denial, don't vaccinate their candidates. a lot, a lot. and sew the war on science is real, it is bipartisan, and the prejudice against conservativism is real. i've label a conservative. friends i was in the peace corps. my dad was in peace corps. he knew jfk, i'm the most predictable guy in the world. like ever, that's ever existed.

so it kind of hilarious but depressing, and here's why. one of the most upsetting thing to me as an educator is outburst of antimuslim sentiment and sometimes directed at the president. after the biggerrism thing was exposed for what it was, suddenly it became a closet muslim. and what is really sad about the episodes is what the president was never able to do, which is able to get in front of a microphone and say even though my middle name husband hussein, i'm not a muslin. what if i was? i don't think he's ever said that. and that tells you something really huge and upsetting about at the degree of prejudice is in country. and he can't. i'm sure he has thought it's million times. so, when i started to do is -- turns out i was in peace corps, and my dad new jfk, i'm the

least conservative permanent in the world, what if i wasn't? why would that be such a terrible thing? the very accusation be -- bepeek bepeeks -- the krisaches of the karl, thank you one who wrote "the new york times" immediately -- conservative greg and -- i'm and i'm like, that's cute. butow to that in the circle outside run that's that's same thing as saying you don't have to listen to them. >> you're a pariah. >> one thing that campus conservatism theres degrees of acceptability in campus conservatism. so, what passes for campus conservatism that is acceptable and which is an awful lot of faculty member's self-identify as conservatives are more on the

libertarian issue --ish of the spectrum and will have economic conservativals. if you llano how seasoning a campus is, you're going to have to ask about social conservatism. are people who are trigger warning marriage is a between a man and a. app wok and caitlyn jenner is still a man. what is the acceptance of that point of view only a college campus? can you say thought without triggering the kind of reaction that might even be worse than the received at really. >> we have a real case like that at marquette. a case i there's a professor adams who for years had been writing the blog say saying i'm a conservative. i teach at marquette and i'm

afraid -- is catholic institution done i can't give chock opinions at the school. this rice-diculous. so he -- ridiculous. nobody clothed themselves in glory but a certain audio tape with a discussion of a faculty member in training whether or not the debate class they can debate same-sex marriage and the student is told that he can't because its would be homophobic to discuss that. offensive so he brings a tape to the professor adams and looks at -- and what he does is he writes what he always writes. can't believe you can't even debate, some smoker at a catholic institution. this is ridiculous. so this gets out to fox news, unfortunately, start getting it has mail at mark quit, which -- marquette which is never helpful, but what the university do is is they fire -- trying to -- mcadams is suing the skull but they're trying to fire

tenured professor because he reported back what was said and they're trying to fire him. >> i'm confusions by that. what's they're argue. >> they're always shifting they don't know. this is totally normal to my experience, they're basically settled on dish mean settled on -- they were shifting among a professionalism argue. >> he didn't fulfilling his duties? as a professor? i. >> the blogging, it one -- professional duty, thick to the younger professor issue guest this argue. >> oh, right i remember that. >> let's be clear, was too cute about that. there are terrible indications in which tenured professors have their job security threatened and i field lucky we have people like greg to help us, but the real crisis fend is not weapon i

we ever tenured faculty. it's with as a junct faculty. when aegisesser like my retires they fire three part-times to. they the biggest scandal in higher ed, not like trigger warnings and microaggressions. >> i want to make sure i open this up to the audience. if you have a question, raise your hand. microphones will come here swiftly. yes, please. >> my name is joe freeman, i'm an alame plus of the berkeley free speech movement. and lurking in background of our conflict with the administration was a conflict between the administration and the legislature, in particular the california senate subcommit year on unamerican activities which was trying to get clark kerr fired for let's doing many subversiveses be into the university. we didn't know that, we just saw the administration as the enemy.

i it makes me wonder if there's not something similar going on behind the political correctness of today's universities? our said the administration to punts were on the same side but what is the state legislateyear doing in legislature doing? the politic us hedged behind the politics. >> the role of government is the secret engine why these get crazy but it's the federal department of education that is setting standards at that time are impossible to comply with and even the universities like tufts university that actual -- scoured everything that was supposed to do carved doing department of education, basically a textbook version but another good got investigated anyway. started to sash i can't make you guys happy. no amount of reform to make this happy but that lasted a weak before the professor was scared back -- however, state legislatures do play a reel role

and sometimes they're -- sometimes they are the more embassy rag are grand standing cases where steins at the university of maryland who wanted sew show a porno, and the state legislature thought is it was good idea tote to get involved in that. an interesting case in oklahoma where richmond dawkins spoke tet university of oklahoma. they trade too pass a pleasure that says revolution was an intested and unpopular theory. >> unpopular. >> and university of north carolina -- the university of tennessee, trade get rid of funding after a university of tennessee has sex week. on campus. so they're generally social over social conservative culture war issues but nowhere near the federal got. >> i'm delights that jo freeman is here. i've read your work. something that i actually take a

little bit of -- not pride but happiness is the fact that when david horwitz went to state legislatures to pass laws to say we have to head ideology balance but we don't whatnot the state legislatures mandating. that. the didn't get anywhere which is a good thing. >> one of we have a bunch of questions. i'm sorry cannot get the ones that came jacques-online. but their in several consecutives the number of conservative faculty members or students worried about coming out on the campus? so they're looking for advice, what do, what not to do, and several questions are nab flabber garsed that faculties ands a mondayor are allowing

studentses to act as consumers. >> let me deal with the first um in my experience, and i've lit gated an awful lot of places and be interested to hear greg's perspective on this. you're safer out of the closet. you're absolutely safer. i have dealt with faculty members concerned about -- so concern about tenure and people knowing that they're conservative that they would call me and whisper on the phone. and here's the fact. if you are conservative and you have an outstanding record of scholarship, an outstanding regard of service to your -- record of service to your university and you're an excellent teacher and you're denies tenure and know your conservative. that's like raising red flags but if nobody know tearsovertive and you're just another faculty member and you don't get tenure,

number one, where is your discmination claim? and number two, it's incredibly rick to make a discrimination claim. just that you're just another academic who got frustratessed and didn't do what they want and they can go to another university. and similarly wasn't constituteds. students are safer expressing their point of view. however, however, you got to have some intestinal fortitude. when i say safer i mean safer from official sangs north, safer from peer sank and that's where it gets rough and students don't go to college thinking i cannot wait to get to harvard and be hated. and so that is the -- much worse on this issue of being out of the closet. i'm priming it as protect protecting you from official sanction. peer group sanction is a whole -- and peer shaming and

peer attacks a whole other thing. you have to be able to withstand that. and that's, i think, a greater free speech threat ruling now, self-censoring. >> steve, an inmate at uc berkeley. a lot of the ratcheting up of title 9 came from guidance of the federal government soft sauce for to good. if pret donald trump selected you to be assistant secretary of education, what friendly guidancing why now direct to universities to begin reversing the administrative corruption thawover described. >> i think it's safe to say none woofers be expected but david -- i like any day job. but i have plenty of suggestions. one is put your money where your

mouth is on the guidance idea. these letters that -- this is rule making we are enjamessed in. it was amazing the katherine was -- someone at the department of ode 0 indication was -- was testifying and manage told say, we're not u just engaging in guide yawns, not rulemaking, what helicopter at the universities don't nothing? i lose their federal funding. that rulemaking. one say this is rulemaking, we need to have guidans and comment and that will prevent wackier stuff should hap. they should leave it top the universities, and i think they should adopt the davis standard for harassment. you can read -- it's in the atlantic articles. but the definition of harassment that is more like a process solve discriminatory, a as

opposed to single wrong thing you would say. so those three things. >> i would say get red over the 2011 letter. that's just due process 101. initiate rulemaking, however i would also say that the rulemaking should remove universities from adjudicating sexual assault entirely. i think that is a criminal matter. i don't think universities are quad. they do neat have the staff, the means. let's let the criminal justice system. and if you don't want to bring a criminal complaint, you can bring a civil complaint. you can do a civil action and then let the university get involved when they're an adjudication that occurs. >> if could take a respectful dissent here and just keep in mind i'm not a lawyer, these two gentlemen are. except for marrying my wife and joining the peace corps, not

becoming a lawyer was the best decision i ever made. let me say a small point in book. it would be great if universities could wash their hands of adjudication in at the way that david is saying i. don't think they can and here's why. a lot of victims don't want to enlist the criminal justice system in what happened to them. that's just a fact. and that doesn't mean they're not victims. that's opinion number one. and point number two, for good reason, the wheels of criminal justice just spin way too slowsly. so, at much as i would like into toe say the universities can't be in the business of judging these things, it's a criminal matter, i do sympathize with the university administrators. an episodes on campus and two kids setting next to each other, you can't say to both of. the this is a criminal matter,

okay, four years from now some court will decide your case and until then, you have to have the two of you in class next to each other. i don't know what they should do. i'll be hospital. but they can't do that. >> separation orders and things like that which is very common, for example in the military. why while actual criminal due process unfolds, you can separate people. and you can initiate judges can craft orders that provide actual sanction if you violate those orders that are far worse than anything that an administrator could do. so, there are work-arounds to that. very real concern, i agree completely. if someone claimed -- i claim that greg has attacked me don't want be an panel with him. that are there, worker-arounds. >> i did a bad john managing time so we're at the end. i want to give each panelist a last sentence either answer one

think folks in the audience should be looking for, like a development 0, what is one big thing you think out to -- ought to be down on a campus to make a difference. >> i have been saying this my whole career. change expectationings. there's a lot of standpointsing at students and saying, who is telling you to be so sanction and ken oreship happy and think you have a right to be comfort seven i think parents are and administrators are until change orientation process to say, actually it's a sign that things might be going well if your made to feelenare uncomfortable. we shouldn't speak presides they expect not to be offended. >> thank you. >> i would say that when universities embrace rash diversity, has they have and they to take pains to embrace idea idealogical diversity the worst thing that has happened in

our landscape now is the idea that a concern for racial diversity runs person rickly to concerns for -- person rick perpendicular for spree free speech. agreed war youror now if they didn't have that they got nothing. no in the same breath as we do some should attend to racial egg nick diversity and the different problems with it, we have to attend ideologiality diversity in at the same breath. >> my message wise do to conservative students, conservative professors, conservatives-at madders i know you live ha of the hey serious intestinal fortitude. have that. you can with stand spear shaming. you can -- in fact the more of you who demonstrate intestinal fortitude this less peer shaming they'll be. you'll see seen as less strange and more part of the campus

discourse and in fact there's precedent you should take a little joy in it. i believe the bible says, consider it pure joy, my brothers, when you suffer trial offered many kinds. including the trial of being a harvard student. >> some of students come out to me in their parents, as conservatives and i'm like, just be yourself, get its bet iter don't live a live, really. we recall all be smarter if you just come out. >> join me in thanking our panelists. [inaudible conversations]

now we're supposed to have a chat. that was good talk you gave, bob. let me start out -- i'm almost convinced hillaryaway. >> let me start at the en. i have toward -- heard this before. yes, things are left out of gdp that has always been true. we are now leaving out the value of wick teed ya -- wikipedia, and wonderful things that smartphones do. we do pay for smartphones, we pay quite a bit. my cell phone bills $121 a month. so it's not exactly free. but it does give us lots of -- remember how excited you were when you got your first smartphone. and i value it perhaps most of all for giving me something to do in a dark taxi. but think of all the things that

were left out of gdp100 years ago the transition from horses to motor cars. the removal of manure from the streets. what a boon. elimination of infectious diseases. and in 22% of the american children died before the age of one. by 1950 that was down to one percent or less. joe mentioned leisure that is left oft of gdp. yes, it's left out when kit did be get biggest change in leisure. working hour at the turn of the last century were 60 hours a week in manufacturing, 72 hours a week was we standard shift in steel industry. only wanted to run the steel shifts twice a day and wanted to keep the steel mills going 24 hours a day so 24 divided by two was.

they made they ever workers work 12 hours a day, six days a week. the big decline in average hour's work occurred between 1900 and 14940, a reduction from 60 to 40 hours a week. we still do not duplicate western europe in our vacations we still have only two weeks of vacation. they have five. maybe that's an area where we'll get unmeasured growth in gdp in the future. think about life expectancy. joel's teacher, who is my office meat in graduate school, had done a number of stunning papers in his life, and one of the most important was called "the health of nations" in which he measured the value in terms of consumer goods of increases in life expectancy and health. and according to his data, the affect of rising life expect tan

say was to more than double the value of gains and coming sums gained in the 20th century but at the rate of improvement was wayed a bass in the first half as in the last have ball getting rid of infectious diveses was more important than extending people's lives and the wonderful things that have happened since then. so, yes, gdp leaves out a lot, but it left out a lot back then. and i think that's something that you probably agree with. >> of course i agree with that. there is something, however, missing in your -- i would like to point out. and that is you showed us these bars for total productivity and it is well understood. basically what we do is we look at the growth of output and some wage index of the growth o of input. now, what an important to understand is if you you're

leave ought -- don't appear in the calculation, then you your statistics are obviously overstated. now, i think this is something which we haven't paid enough attention to and there may she unfortunate ph.d student who will revise our national income condition. basically take into condition the fact that a lot of things that are important in bridging about growth aren't fully accounted for, and bob mentioned that as what i call biteback and the first industrial revolution he talked about, is -- was to a large extent based on the use of fossil fuel. so we started off with coal, and then we later moved into oil and then natural gas. and basically the calculated the

cost of the images are total amount of labor, capital, bang, and you calculate that. voila, total fact of product different. not real at the time so they can't do this. other inputs worrying used up in this -- it's impact on air quality and eventually, of course, on the very careful ecological balance of the earth. maybe total factor of productivity don't luke nearly as -- in his bar. so that would be true for almost anything so antibiotics, great invention, people live longer, fantastic. what wasn't realized, at least

adequately at the time, was antibiotics ten to become ineffective and we have to run fast and faster to stay in place. so these product different calculations look a bit dicey to me and a lot of growth in the next 50 years will be to pay the cost that previous generations didn't pay, in part because hoe market failed and in part because there were no good property rights and just warn aware of it. that's one thing that make me worry about this productivity comparisons. the other thing -- that takes me back to bob's point of about leisure. yes, we can measure number of hours people work. 1900, 10191010 the average worker worked 2900 hours per

year and today we're about 1750, and then europe, some places below 1500. people work less, not only they work fewer hourses a year but they also start later, they end earlier, have many golden years after they retire, unless you're am taken academic and you keep going on forever. but what we haven't fully accounted for is the change in quality of leisure. the choices that people have. no just looking at 250 cable channels but they hundreds of too things they people can do today. in the past, leisure as it was vein was fairly dull. people played cards and i countdown to go to a show in the united states, you could go to an eye-gouging contest, today the choices that people have in terms another of what they want to wash, i push any button on

this cell phone that bob thinks is -- such as mundane invention, not only that it can make phone calls and communicate, i can play any mozart quartet i want to. now mozart couldn't do that or do this 2 years using. lease shire isn't what it used to be. this is something that an intellectual feels very happy about. one interesting paper that came out is work by other people in chicago who point out some over labor force participation is happening because people who should be in labor force are staying home and playing video games. so, you see, is this the good news or bad news? >> wait a minute. >> that's -- i can tell you -- >> no, no, i -- i know their

paper the questions is which way is the caution causation. >> you can watch dismiss other programs online at booktv.org. ... [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> hello. it is 9:00 p.m. the book festival has been going on for nine hours. the next event -- if you have not seen the book already, you must have been out of the country because she is