son's life and of his death and of the activism that has been birthed because of it? there so many things written in the response of the failure of the conviction of george zimmerman. when you think about that, what you think about, what comes to mind. >> first and foremost, we definitely think of our son is a young man who galvanizes country >> i think the name tremont martin martin represents not just to he was, but all young black and brown boys and some girls as well that have been killed and nobody has been held accountable. >> sunday night at nine eastern on "after words".

>> discussion about academic freedom and diversity on college campuses panelists include a documentary filmmaker plus authors and filmmakers from yale university and the universities of michigan in chicago. university of chicago school of social service administration hosted the discussion. it is about 90 minutes. >> okay, good evening everyone. i am the dean of the school of social service administration here at the university of chicago. i want to thank you for joining us for this evening's event. american universities have long been unique institutions that have unique and controversial's ideas that bring to bear deeper analyses in evidence. such ideas can fuel advances or even breakthroughs on many questions and problems of our

day. one of the most indispensable pillars in education which makes as possible is the cardinal principle and practice of academic freedom. the pursuit of ideas, concepts, concepts, evidence and knowledge and the passing on of such in the education of our students. the principle of academic freedom is essential piece of our education, the university of chicago has a distinctive and deeply held approach to academic freedom in which i am sure you will be hearing more about from some of our panelist. the school of social service administration has a professional school of social work and particularly benefits from and contributes to academic freedom in the pursuit of ideas. ideas that address the concerns of those that are most

vulnerable and marginalized. they dive into an address the most complicated multilayered and sometimes contentious social problems like poverty or violence. we do so in search for real solutions and to educate for education and justice. the ideas we discussed at fsa don't just a amongst scholars and students here at the university, but they develop and deliver to have real tangible benefit to people in their lives. scholarship and education are intimately connected to real people and problem solving. [inaudible]

they have polarized, oversimplified and not well tested ideas. the second pillar found broadly in american education is a cardinal value on diversity that is our value on bringing to the university community individuals from different backgrounds like experiences and statuses, especially from those from under underrepresented or marginalized backgrounds. it stems from a value on social equity and society inclusion as universities are arguably the most important institutions in our society which foster entering into integration in mainstream. and indispensable component is that by bringing together diverse members to the community, all of its members are enriched by the mutual exposure, experiences,

background and viewpoint. in this this way our cardinal value on diversity is intertwined and the complementary branch of academic freedom is bringing different experiences and viewpoints and it brings with it the questioning of assumptions and the challenging of conventional or prevailing ideas. in particular, this is distinctive given that we are, as a professional school of social work, accor, concerned with questions like inclusion, access and reaching grounded understandings of effective service to those were most marginalized. because of our core values on ideas that serve, ssa is very

much at a point on conversations of diversity. it is for these reasons i'm delighted that they are hosting this evening's panel of four distinguished thought leaders on the topic. i want to especially thank ssa professors gina samuels and marcy barbara for their vision and working with my office in pulling together the panel. i also want to thank the committee for cosponsoring the event. prof. samuel will be joining us up the microphone from few moments to introduce the panelists and to moderate the event. before she does that i want to thank the university of chicago president, bob zimmer who provided his vision and leadership here at the university of chicago and for that, i would like to invite him up to offer some welcomed comments for this evening's event.

[applause] >> thank you very much neil. let me say how much i appreciate the idea that they are hosting this panel in hosting this discussion on this topic. the joint topic of academic freedom, which i like thinking about a bit more generally are two core issues for any university, particularly for the university of chicago. neil described very beautifully why these are so important. i might just offer my own take on this which is to start,

universities are not just a random collection of people who are here doing what they are doing. universities are institutions with very clear ambition. that mission of education, mission of of research and mission of finding vehicles for the impact of that education and research. if we are going to do our students justice, do them well by the education that we provide him, if we are going to have an environment in which our faculty can in fact explore their ideas to the fullest and prepare themselves to have the greatest impact, an environment of academic freedom and freedom of expression is critical. it is simply core to the functioning of the university in fulfilling its core mission.

in a similar way, the the issue of diversity and inclusion become central to the university for two reasons that neil alluded too. first of all, if one is going to be involved in rigorous analysis and inquiry having people from different backgrounds and similar perspective sitting around, fundamentally agreeing with each other but arguing at the margins is not the way to actually make an advance or create an environment of intellectual challenge. it becomes crucial to creating the environment for rigorous analysis that underlies the success of the university. there is another reason that it's so important. that goes beyond the university itself which is that the university does not exist in

isolation. it exists in societal context and history. it's no surprise to anyone that the history of old country has an enormous amount of behavior built into its history. we have, therefore a dual obligation of fulfilling our own mission in bringing those diverse perspectives to bear, but we also have an obligation as an important member of society to deal with the particular history of this country and the exclusionary aspects that are involved in it. i think they articulated the meaning of ssa very nicely.

in terms of doing that from the point of view of ssa's concrete mission. some people have argued that academic freedom and free expression and diversity and inclusion on the other hand are in conflict. saying there is no tension between them would be disingenuous. saying there is an underlying conflict between them is something i actually do not believe. i believe they're mutually reinforcing but one needs to recognize there are things that need to be worked out. anything less than an aspiration to fully embrace both of these values is failing ourselves as

an institution. the discussion tonight i am sure will look at these issues in considerably more details that both neil and i have given them. i think the reason we are able to have such discussion goes back to what neil was saying, the power and importance of open discourse and rigorous analysis and free expression. i just want to again thank neil, think the faculty here at ssa for organizing this and i am sure you are going to have a fascinating evening. thank you very much.

>> my name is gina samuels and i will be the moderator this evening. i will take several roles that i will explain in just a moment. i like to welcome all of you here this evening and extend a special thanks to my faculty and staff and colleagues for the support and work. i have to say i'm quite humbled to see we are at standing room only. thank you for coming. special thanks for being so supportive and organizing this and the cosponsorship and my colleague marcy. i can of done it without you. i extend a special gratification to the ssa community and those of you here tonight. the practice of free expression tonight deeply breast with all of you. i will explain that a little bit more in a moment. we will proceed by my giving a brief introduction to the panel

and then i will introduce each of the panelists. they will each talk for about ten minutes. i will pose a question to them. i have given them for questions but i think that is a bit ambitious and will probably get through one or two. then i will transition to the evening informal event which will involve an informal dialogue amongst all of us. >> in 1915, the american association of university professors advance the declaration of principles that laid the foundation for much of today's legal understanding of academic freedom and tenure within institutions of higher education. however the university of chicago as president zimmer and the dean mentioned represent a brand of academic freedom. we were deeply and publicly shaping and advancing these long before the 1915 statement statement. most recently, in 2014,

president zimmer and provost isaac find formed a committee on freedom of expression. it was shared by one of our pack panelists, jeff stone who restates the university's enduring commitment to the free exchange of ideas and the resolute core principle and value here at this institution. president zimmer has already referenced this in his opening remarks and i'm sure they will likely discuss this in their individual remarks. for the contemporary university, however, debates to persist around the very meaning and limits of academic freedom in the context of growing diversity on campus and attunement to a campus that is not only inclusive to a diverse set of ideas, but also of a demographically demographically diverse student, staff and faculty body. this year the university of chicago dean of students issued

a welcome statement to first-year students reaffirming our long-standing commitment to diversity. this was. with the idea that faculty are not required to create safe spaces, nor issue trigger warnings. the statement was met with vigorous national and local response both affirming and contesting these views and positioning the university itself as a defender of the practice of academic freedom. this afternoon is a time for us to engage with each other and fully practice this freedom. it is my hope that we all deepen our understanding of our ability to critically evaluate how this value is interpreted and

practiced. now i would like to just briefly introduce our expert panel. we are deeply honored and excited to have each one of you here. each of our panelists is a distinguished scholar in their own right in time does not permit me to go over all of their many accomplishments. i apologize in advance. we will stick to names and affiliations so we have time to share their thoughts. my far left is prof. john boyer, dean university of chicago college. next is professor jeff stone, edward h levi distinguished prof. at the university of chicago law school. next is professor gray wall, associate prof., department of american studies in religious studies in a program in ethnicity and race at yale university. last but not least, professor of social work, university of

michigan school of social work, professor of psychology, literature and arts. with that, i would love for us to begin, professor boyer, with you. >> thank you very much. i thought i would talk a little bit about two subjects that are of some interest to me. i became interested in academic freedom about 14 or 15 years ago i publish a small history of the idea of academic freedom and i came to write that book because of the number of current abroad. [inaudible] involving the backlash or reaction to some significant changes in our core curriculum.

there was some lobbying groups and petitions being formed coming from rather different directions attempting to influence and pressure the faculty into the reverse changes or to modify the changes and also to change the content of new courses that had been developed in the context. it became very concerned about this as an episode in the long history of academic freedom as it occurred on universities. i thought i should take a look at the broader history. i wrote this book which is now available online. subsequently there have been other episodes, actually all too many in regard to faculty being criticized for the things they write and say. this is certainly a live issue. i want to say two things about it.

first, from the point of view, i published the family size history of the university of chicago but i do want to draw from that that i think is unique to chicago and that's the impact of the european context in higher education. i think this is very important because the idea of academic freedom is representative of a concept that were practiced vigorously and defended.

many of the founding faculty at this university were trained, if only for a short time to draw from inspiration and ideas of academic freedom. these were ideas that were rather strange for americans to comprehend because these were state universities but the states decided the building they were to do had to do with the advancement of original research as a national cultural project. in some ways there was a tendency to create a homogeneous cultural thought for the good of

the state but in order to create these cultures of new knowledge one had to have the freedom to do it. it was built into the whole assumption, a paradox that in order to be perfectly conformist in supporting the cultural renewal one had to be free. this model that these young americans observed or took up and wanted to copy and bring him to the united states, they did this in a very powerful way. they wanted to model themselves as german professors not only in the search of knowledge but also in the way, the rights and responsibilities, the pride that

their work would carry with them one was not simply a private to listen confirm to being for you but also to speak one's opinion broadly. within chicago's history, the idea of academic freedom became a bundle of concepts that the founding faculty use to reimagine what the university was. used to be a training institution and a preparatory school. it became a site for the advancement of scholarship and not only did they embrace this in their own round but they began to understand their mission as teachers, using the same concept.

if they were scholars, it's really to train future scholars. these ideas did not emerge uncontested and there was a bemus case in which faculty, by their actions within the university or within the broader select realm tested the university willingness of the university to actually tolerate the claims to economic freedom that was taken upon themselves. one similar controversy in germany, i have written extensively about probably the most famous one in which a

classic case of everyone publicly agreeing on the virtues of academic freedom but disagreeing on the limits then how much political capital the parties were willing to put in play to defend the professors that were claiming that freedom. i also want to mention within the history of higher education in europe, during this time one finds powerful voices emerging, articulating what this meant, what the ideas meant that he has essays and letters and commentaries that emerged where these areas are struggling both with the wealth that they had assembled and the cultural power in the mission they had assembled and then given to them by the state and the desire by

the faculty to pull back and say we are not the state agents, we are are different, we are not the church's agents. we are agents of political party. we are all of our own person and yet we are being paid for by the state. how does one assess those boundaries? the second part, the argument i want to make is that probably more than any of the other great american universities, chicago was very much, the faculty culture was a culture that emerged and became mature and independent and was almost a bearer of these great german ideas in the absence of a kind of philanthropy, our founder didn't metal with the faculty's

rights. it was very easy for the faculty to come and be theoretically free and practically free. these values and identities over time within 20 or 30 years headset and gelled in this culture that robert hutchins who is our most eloquent defender of academic freedom, he was able to do what he did and defend the values of academic freedom because he had a faculty culture that could back him up. it makes no sense at all to me in the context except for the context of the faculty culture that was already shaped and fully dedicated and assimilated these ideas in a very powerful way. i want to make a second set of comments on the impact of the

community. i've argued that the practice of academic freedom has become, we find signs of it throughout the university but it gels and becomes intense by 1900 or 1920. this has a profound affect on the student culture we've had as well. that is to say that, if one sees students, even young students, young students, 17, 18 -year-olds and undergraduate students, as proto- scholars, as people who are joining a dialogue and not only joining a dialogue, but joining a process by which they are expected to acquire the skills of the scholar just as the faculty will practice the skills of the scholar, then over time, especially, especially over the generations, one begins to nurture a student culture in a

way in which students relates he and faculty relate to students and students relate to each other. leaving aside the issue of formal legal rights were rules, one finds emerging in chicago a culture of interactive pedagogy dominated, a core practice of our classroom and elsewhere in the graduate schools, and this is not to be taken for granted. it is not typical because our student culture was not typical. further, i think it's important to remember this culture was also not only, you know, in a sense infused by these ideas of academic freedom but also infused by parallel ideas of merit, and a lack of scripted privilege or inherited wealth because for a variety of reasons i don't want to go into here and are discussed in my book, the early to the body is different from many universities. it was male and female, both genders were represented in very strong numbers, but also there was a broad socioeconomic

structure of students from all walks of life taking classes in the merger of this highly pluralistic student body, for the time, including a very large number of students from chicago and the east, gave the faculty an even greater reason an opportunity to practice this diversity of opinion and ideas of academic freedom. such talented students, the faculty faculty created an extraordinary learning community stressing the importance and also the need to serve a broad flat of students from all walks of life. they saw this teaching of the students as being integral to their missions at the university. i thing it's very important to remember that undergraduate education, which is in some ways always the hardest test of the

values of the importance of teaching or the reality principle, teaching undergraduate at chicago has always seemed to be one that goes to the heart of scholarly practice and values that form the identity of the faculty. so one has a faculty culture that is very early set and can gels around these ideas of academic freedom and then brings the student culture into that culture of academic freedom and the student culture becomes into it and is relatively, for the times diverse, in terms in terms of socioeconomic and gender perspectives. the result is we have much of the broader more fundamental idea of university of chicago creating practices in a culture of intellectual resilience among

the faculty and students. it was there already by 1920 in 1930 and it's quite remarkable how it's been able to sustain itself over the generations to create and re-create itself. thank you. [applause] >> so i want to talk a bit about the free expression part of academic freedom. it's important to know these are not necessarily completely overlapping. there are aspects of academic freedom that are different from free expression in university. i want to start by emphasizing that the assurance of free expression in university communities is not something to be taken for granted. it is in fact vulnerable. it is tenuous and it has always been so. any threat to the commitment of free expression poses a serious

risk for the core functioning of universities as we now have come to understand them. so to appreciate that, i think it's important to go back in time to understand how colleges and universities have evolved in this respect. if you go back to the early years of the 19th century, there was no such thing as an assumption of freedom of expression in the united states. the assumption of how they operated basically meant that ideas could be put forth by faculty or students only insofar as they were consistent with the judgments of the leaders of the institution about what ideas were moral and appropriate. anyone who departed from those clear assumptions could be

expelled, fired, whatever without anybody looking twice. what that what that means is that in many colleges in the united states, one could not challenge the proposition that applicants were inherently inferior. the women's place was in the home and their function was to reproduce children. homosexuality was immoral and sought a mystic and simple and a host of other values and judgment that we have taken largely for granted, as a given. it's true, anyone who challenged those ideas would not just be argued with, they would be thrown out. as united states move toward civil war, one of the most contentious issues with slavery slavery. in that time period, winds were drawn very clearly at universities and colleges in the north, anyone who defended slavery could find themselves again thrown out of the institution and in the south, at

major colleges, anyone who challenged the moral legitimacy of slavery would find themselves out of the institutions, and nobody questioned it. this was the authority of the college to make judgments about what was right and wrong, and if you did not speak in accord you were out. :

>> bill. >> be with the adn being if the institution of higher learning that people challenge the excepted wisdom beware that may not be right or true that applicants are inferior - - inherently inferior or creation is true. with the idea that diversity exist for the purpose to allow bin intellectuals to be much more accepted from

the university of chicago that could proclaim before a university to be a university task to be the idea of free expression that was the beginning of the notion that the reality is the tested and contingent so as universities began to be supported for those who would earn their money they basically said those to criticize the way we make our money that that is not acceptable if you want the money then show up in the universities found themselves in this dilemma but to be rid of the expression by the faculty

but world war i there was a dilemma that nobody could criticize the wisdom of the united states to make it more difficult to strengthen the will of the enemy universities again found themselves collapsing from the social and legal demands. and with mccarthyism universities found themselves debating in silence to take a position that was sympathetic and that pushed back was about academic freedom and university of chicago said tuesday and up against that and at one point students

invited william foster to speak on campus have produced an outrage and alumni and state legislators to stand up to say no. that our students can hear what ever ideas they want to hear we will not silence them in that epitomized the notion but the dizzily is under assault because people say idol like those ideas they are wrong and offensive and they may be right sometimes they are right sometimes they're wrong. but they do not succeed to those demands to talk about

it and learn about it and think about it but that creates the students and citizens who were capable to have those fights in the future that they find offensive and to win that battle. about freedom of expression and it is imperative we resisted the temptation that they think differently than we do that is not the way to achieve knowledge comment democracy or intellectual or academic institutions. [applause]

>> i have some slight sped to one of was is a letter from the incoming students from the the dean that had this sentence. that means that we do not have a trigger warning and we do not condone the creation where individuals can retreat from ideas.

what i am about to say is not a trigger warning it is a spoiler alert. we will talk about the difference so the title of my remarks is a manufactured crisis that this is the of manufactured crisis that much of the anxiety of the campus culture in the free-speech is a manufactured crisis i am happy that we are doing that today that there is things happening in the political culture when there was media

hysteria and cultural is some evil twin. and diversity and what that was doing. so i want to read first coming from the organization devoted to free speech for all diversity and inclusions with a number of cases of the campus controversy one of my students is the cover girl and reading from the summary is that says while free speech is alive and well but is not free from threats if and the continued

strength in. we could probably all agree. one while meriting attention to not represent for free-speech on campus. the dialogs debates take place that impedes the participation in these con conversation have the potential with new and important voices to expand free-speech in the forms of expression when they are manifestations of free-speech and finally to be recognized as the principal to not exclude the minorities.

i just want to say that the edges of learning whenever put the trigger warnings on any of my a class's because we have a real misconception of what they trigger warning is. that he will be traumatized. that whoever in is reading it i don't presume they'll suffer from p. tsb that this content could trouble you in ways like of book on lynching below campus syllabus but we had a

suicide on our campus a kid on the track team and i was going to show a film it is about evangelical christians with the morality plays. in to make a controversial statement. with the act of suicide and then he is taunted by the devil. just to say we will watch the film this afternoon and now also said i hope we can talk about suicide and mental-health is that the

trigger warning? and is the empirical question. to go through any syllabi with the trigger warning i could not find one. so going out to the university of chicago now many have a trigger warning that this is a problem so who is this imagined student body?

so what i want to think about it is too large these students? with the wonderful essay to pay attention to those students to seem oversensitive. i agree wholeheartedly to be sensitive to that that are usually students of color building on activism to make them more inclusive that it is a problem because batf that they have become a problem is a writer public discourse has a restriction for our freedom. into position the others and

then to occupy their space. but if we think of the right to befriend - - offender crowd had don't know if you caught this in the news but the poster boy for the movement to london to $50,000 book deal. but the point is and super fragile averse sensitive to handle ideas. politically correct that

they basically just need to grow what. luckily we will have a chance and what happened with the controversy at yale is with this debate that have been on campus there are two sides. which believes in free speech. that they could hurt their feelings. that is not representative of those debates of that by

roll image into is like the cold professor that there is of pre-existing stereotypes together. and everybody knows what is happening at yale in all classrooms in what is on the syllabi. what we need to think about the injustice there were patterns with a respectful to practices. did and then also the right to offend their other questions to say that with

capitalism right now we are more effective than we have ever been before without compromise that if professors feel the jobs are in jeopardy. with students of color now what do we do? and how do we frame this whole debate? and i am fully committed to academic freedom and what to move the conversation in that direction so why do we think of these together but

not other things together? [applause] >> to proceed me with that presentation that we were able to lay out a lot of the issues and with my own standpoint with the focus of my a remarks around the world and how that complicates with the academic freedom. and my perspective is you need.

with the baby boomer in somebody to work at the highly selective universities. i ma dignitary for the affirmative-action program university as chicago in the university of michigan and. in addition to that teaching that i do with of liberal arts as well as with a professional school. and as i returned to school to get the ph.d. at that

practice at that time regarding our need with limited communities of color. aikens said there was very little attention 1976 through 1978 during the break in attended seminars here. but we could all be doing more for what motivated me with social worker education because the one to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. so i seek studying the meanings of academic freedom

we need to choose the questions that we want to ask so when i was asked earlier at the university yes michigan a psychologist at that time she was the provost at the university of michigan in a remarkable address with an array of neighborhoods and described how students busy this environment sometimes complex. and they could pursue the experience.

with the policies m procedures that they could not fully recognize and with uh useful framework with that university environment. and lithos courses that we teach and free them with the formal education. and what they do for credit.

in looking at the curriculum outside of courses as was educational scholars look university theory those things that we experience with higher education that are not part of normal curriculum but the experience with their time in the university. in the university which would is going on in the academy currently it is a huge part of the head in the informal curriculum. looking back and might undergraduate years in the '70s the students that i

interacted with were white and upper-class and very comfortable in the environment with the european american and type of culture. third-generation mexican-american student and if i did not conform to figure out how to deal with us struggle. whether a student tours staff and a named professor as i am. because most still expect conformity as part of the

hidden curriculum they are growing in many different types of diversity do with is working with that novel we're developing. and they can grow and change as well. to live and a very different reality. so we need to be how we support including the voices to the academy.

those said teach in the liberal arts or professional school added that the -- looking at that diversity with different forms professional schools within colleges and universities so with those ballets and ethics to benefit for society. the with bad other faculty members so we also have a role in this is the case of all professional schools in their for faculty and

professional schools in to be prepared in the increasingly diverse world. obviously that is the one i am the most familiar and with respect to diversity in must me woven in to the informal curriculum. so that association of social workers describe the work in the following ways. social justice and social change with groups and organizations and in order to do this work paid day

must be sensitive to diversity and with other forms of social injustice. also the code of ethics mocking and social injustice and those that could eliminate the domination and exploitation and discrimination of any person using race or ethnicity or sexual orientation gender identity age marital status religion, immigration status or physical disability. so those who are engaged in this profession become a social worker to work as a

faculty member we need to have awareness and how we are preparing students to engage but those offer those professional degrees before the equivalents where did the standards come from? and have the privilege of being on the committee and faculty members so that standard reflects the social work values and ethics the accreditation policy

parallel those that exist in social work and other schools are much more explicit in need to work for social change i will say some of the backlash as we have not been without controversy including the research i have done for the most part with the focus of the educational program. but the target of the attacks outside of the profession with the national association of scholars from citizens united with academic freedoms and excellence of higher education the ascetic use

social work programs to brainwash students who did not share the political belief want in anyways marginalize those people who were not working for social justice and also at that time almost 10 years ago filed a complaint with hhs asking that they are no longer accredited to our standards. anything not successful hhs found no basis for their complaints that they were violating first amendment rights and they responded by

providing a context so a conservative institution of higher learning like baylor and brigham young in which that is interpreted to mean those accreditation standards. and other professional programs will become more common in the future. i want to say one more thing regarding what those programs can offer with this content that could be seen as a conflict with diversity

and academic freedom we have been doing this type of work for decades. we struggle with it we may never arrive. this is the ongoing activity but we have skills and of programs and evidence based practices to create these brave spaces to call people in who could be expressing the views rather than calling about to recognize the hidden group in the of class and with the dynamic of challenging discussions and those that can exist within the faculty to be helpful in terms of meeting

diversity and academic freedom. thank you. [applause] >> in the interest of time we will ask questions. this is the abbreviated version academic freedom to as many u.s. articulated last summer for radical transformation specifically called for instructors of critical discussions of topics of white privilege

with the concepts and ideas bringing them into the classroom. the very hallmark the diversity in chicago exchange of ideas to open the authentic dialogue to foster their own ability to engage with the world to be agents of change and it is said to them professors to model this engagement. osh's diversity's balance that desire and the demand against the right of the faculty? and then of course, have to answer the question what should they do to ensure the

members the committee have that capacity to meaningful leading gauge in deeply% all dialogue with the quality and privilege with that the radical areas of expertise. >> and you can have bad that. >> i have heard versions of this but i find it puzzling to think there are faculties and schools of social workers have not thought about these things but they don't know how to articulate them harvey they're not

effective in facilitators. there are a lot of reasons why they're not in keeping in these discussions but i would suspect that if you think of the bell curve of the of faculty if they would have considered these things with research and the opportunity all that the real needs to this so how can faculty develop the skills and it is often and

less a question and those growth experiences environments and to address those concerns. >> so there is a range of people needing these discussions. >> with a high degree of academic freedom i think there are limits to that there is a good reason for that and there are boundaries for the courses

that you teach but an that faculty freedom and that is the responsibility of those institutions to teach effectively but to insist on this is very difficult so it a meaningful and objective way but to be through courage meant and persuasion however these things happen to be. >> with those foundational values one of the things

that have come up for us is the liberal arts education that was permeate so one of the things that you said when you think critically low wages soloed get your

biography that is like a politically correct joke. others had degrees in anthropology and history. but it is the notion of what we do isn't rigorous talk about racial inequality or homophobia this goes back to my remarks but in 1991 there was a conservative thinker that makes the argument that

lynn cheney had equally as important job as dick cheney to keep it less dangerous for what she must deal with minnesota then it goes on to talk about the radicals and the other people of politics with issues on campuses. so now it is an issue. in some ways it has not addressed to these other larger issues like go wider set of concerns how was that an opposition? we should not be so

constrained by that. >> it is easier to move a graveyard is but wilson said . never do that again. i have always thought i am not familiar with the specific to occupy the community but it seems believe with the subject of ethnic discrimination or thou holocaust or those issues spreading across the centuries, a scholar who is

competent should be able to take on the diversity with those powerful diversions to fashion curriculum first of all, students become aware of the diversity of opinions to learn how to manage in don't want to spoon feed people. that want them to have their own viewpoints so how did they use that construction of the syllabus to have a different viewpoint to get

them to take ownership? not my view or his view but every scholar ought to be able to do that. that is part of the job description to be a professor. >> water redoing is a graduate school? how are we mentoring or nurturing? we have a core curriculum like columbia. with day clinical psychologist nobody read

some from lady more. so essentially there is a process but ultimately they are there and their own person. pet is also subject for another debate. >> i am not so old but the notion that this is the idea in the '90s with an essay that was published as that went to do for years of harvard but the idea that

nobody is reading shakespeare. and that was the idea but it is so far from the truth. so the notion how do rebalance for what we were here? that is like moving through time. was so the anxiety to satisfy the student demand. my problem is getting them to buy the course pack because then they'll have the memory retention with debris from this screen. just for them to buy paper.

so put into the curriculum problem of racial diversity is missing the point. with time complaining about is more pervasive. >> i will squeeze said one last question. as the alum of 1967 to emphasize university has a responsibility to create a community of people love which everybody has a sense of belonging. what other responsibilities and opportunities that willing gauge all members for academic freedom?

>> i might that prevailing practice on social issues contribute to a campus climate? >> there are two things to and i would say to this question how light understand it for example, i teach about islam and middle east relations so with those political perspectives i have never had a problem. but what i do say at the beginning of the semester in this space and to say

something of intellectual substance that is sent day's march, and for what we are talking about but you direct that discussion as a professor and that is what i think of as a safe space. and people don't object to that. and with that culture effective is gotcha then the way that we talk about racism or homophobia is an

individual defect we cannot talk about structural racism or homophobia or misogyny so that is part of it for me constantly redirecting the individual features trying to think about these things. >> what are the issues as we go forward of social media on the open discussion? used to be the case you have a conversation in the classroom that you said banks that were provocative

i think abortion is murder i think it is good did did not matter. then it would go away but with social media we all have become vulnerable to those conversations to be out there forever and excessive will by graduate schools and employers. and asset has serious potential to undermine the willingness to speak openly and that worries me a lot that the academic community board generally. but that is something we have to participate. >> so that image i had

always thought of them were most dar where it is hard to be anonymous with the notion to engendered the community that hasn't happened many other places as well. in coming to the foreign study programs with the world's greatest university but we have of very broad and very rich for a steady program. it is then simply that they

make new friends to encounter different cultures but will unknown environment and then put into a different environment to educate the young people but the work is never over because it is like the population of the town. the command they go. but it cannot all be put into the classroom. >> with her remarks the does the one to say that the city is made up of neighborhood and. however that might be defined to be interacting

with them larger cities of the research university that to find their community and the larger spaces or graduation and the interaction in the smaller neighborhoods rather than of the larger. so with the implicit curriculum, these are all fittings pat and components of which they work. >> now why will transition to the informal part to have a dialogue together.

sanofi it will leave us with more questions. we invite you to dialogue with each other and say outloud ideas that are half baked we were struggling to form basket other person what are you left wanting to talk more about? with free expression and listening to what somebody says before you for your response. to allow your response or your ideas to be shaped by what another person has said to you. as a critical component of issues and topics for each of us personally i look forward