clairmont colleges. >> heather mcdonald, a scholar, sort of center-right. >> right. and the protest was not physically violent in the way the one at middlebury was but she was prevented from speaking and that's inconsistent with what we need to stand for as institutions. anytime you have an incident like that, understandably, it is reported. when charles murray came to speak at princeton, and there was a respectful protest but he was able to give the speech, no reporting on that. when ow students had a debate with rick santorum at the end, he complimented the students on their respective maifer and there was very little reporting on that debate. so i think there is exaggeration around the set of incidents that's taking place on college campuses. i find our students and our faculty as well as university leadership are strongly dedicated to the importance of free speech on campus but these are fundamental values and obviously we have to be attentive to making sure that people from all viewpoints are able to speak on our campus. >> that's a nuanced message that can get

i don't recall a speaker invited to being shut down in a way that charles murray and heather mcdonald where they destroyed $1 the $100,000 worth of property for the individuals. this is terrible and comes from the encouragement of the obama administration and justice department of violence people in the civil rights movement now celebrating career criminals. there is a debate cut interest and currie on black people so why would anybody go out and -- there is no indication that anybody was involved in his death at all. so i think things are a lot worse than they were then. the new left was committed until the end of the decade to american ideas like democracy and listening to the other side and having respect. now they preach respect that they have no respect for people with different views. >> host: what were you doing in the 60s? >> guest: i started the 60s as a radical at the berkeley. i got up and gave a speech in the center of the campus denouncing kennedy's nuclear testing in the atmosphere and i was hauled into the committee of dean's. i needed it that permission before i got up

incidents like the one at middle or when heather mcdonald was prevented from speaking at the claremonts, is appalling. protest was not physically violent in the way one at middlebury -- the middlebury was. we need to stand for this as institutions. on the other hand, i think it is the case that anytime you have an incident like that, it is reported. came torles murray speak at princeton, he was able to give the speech. that.is no reporting on when our students had a debate with rick santorum, he complimented the students on their respectful behavior. there was very little reporting on that kind of debate. exaggerationere is around the set of incidents taking place on college campuses. i find that our students and faculty as well as university leadership are strongly dedicated to the importance of free speech on campus, but these are fundamental values and we have to be attentive to making sure that people from all viewpoints are able to speak on our campus. david: that is obviously a nuanced message. you are saying that you are a freeg believer in speech and you're bothered by these at

charles murray making arguments that are controversial and whether it is an academic scholar like heather mcdonald speaking about police officers. and protecting the views of those that disagree and the campuses when only one side of the issue is allowed to be expressed publicly. >> first at the core it exists primarily for the purpose of certain very significant and sensitive areas and of religion, speech, press. it is tempting. i get it. everyone understands the temptation to say this view were back is so offensive, so outrageous i'm serving the public interest by shoving it up. they say precisely the opposite direction. if they make the decision about what to believe and what not to believe. there is an amazing consensus at least in the abstract. the problem is the application. should i be able to stop the speaker because i am offended? no. because i am intimidated? i think yes. should i be able to stop someone from speaking no, because i find him menacing? yes. should i be able to stop someone because they make me feel uncomfortable? no someone that i find threatening or menacing, intimidating

whether it is a scholar like heather mcdonald speaking about , what is thers inue of the first amendment protecting the views of those with whom we disagree? what does it do to campuses when only one side of an issue is allowed to be at rest publicly -- expressed publicly? senator cruz, the first amendment is an anti-sensorial amendment. it exists primarily for the purpose of keeping the government away from certain very, very significant and sensitive areas, religion, speech, press, assembly. it basic philosophy behind is that it is important that the broadest range of views be heard and the public be permitted to pass judgment. come to their own judgment. it is tempting. i get it, everyone understands, the temptation to say, this view or that view is so offensive, so outrageous that i am serving the public interest by shutting it up0 the firs. in first amendment puts us the opposite direction, it requires at least enough humility to accept the proposition that i am not the decision-maker. congress is not the decision-maker. the public, individually, and together make the decision about

whether it is an academic scholar like heather mcdonald speaking about police officers. what is the value of the first amendment? in protecting the views of those with whom we disagree, what does it do to campuses when only one side of an issue is allowed to be expressed publicly? >> the first amendment, senator cruz, as its core is an anti-censorial amendment. it exists primarily for the purpose of keeping government away from certain very, very significant and sensitive areas, religion, speech, press, as assembly. and the basic philosophy behind it, is that it is important that the broadest range of views be heard and that the public be permitted to pass judgment. pass their own judgment on it. i mean it's tempting, i get it everyone understands. the temptation to say this view or that view is so offensive, so outrageous that i'm serving the public interest by shutting it up. the first amendment sends us in the precisely the opposite direction it requires at least enough humility to accept the proposition that i'm not the decision maker and that congress isn't the deci

but as my manhattan institute colleague, heather mcdonald talks about this, when you talk to individualsere. they know they're primary victims of this violence. they know the black homicide rates are not what think are because of police shootings. stuart: jason, thanks for being with us. i hope you have a wonderful july 4th. >> thank you. stuart: my fellow american. stuart: thank you. serious stuff here, laura wilkerson, her son killed by an illegal immigrant. she met with attorney general jeff somethings yesterday, the same day "kate's law" passed the house. i will ask her how does it feel to have a voice on capitol hill? she is next. >>> conservative author ann coulter, her take on president trump's tweets. 11:00. more coming up for you. ♪ liz: market guest jeff sica why interest rates are on the move. roll tape. stuart: why are interest rates going up like this? >> the first thing investor have to realize this market is fueled by suppressed interest rates. interest rates are moving up in anticipation that this stimulus policy is going to eventually end. and, when they move up as abrup