Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • it is my pleasure to welcome you all to this a conversation tonight with Stanley

  • fish this is part of an ongoing series of conversations that we have been

  • having here at Amherst College for the last couple of years or so maybe it's a

  • little longer than that ever since a dramatic presidential

  • election woke us up to divided country and to a divide self and to the fact

  • that many of us we're deaf in regards to what was happening if not in other parts

  • of the country certainly in other parts of the world there was an invitation by

  • a series of alums to engage in conversations within the college and the

  • college communities that is the five colleges in other a undergraduate and

  • graduate students the faculty in the administration and essentially with the

  • community at large with a larger population on the various and opposing

  • sides of the divide inviting us to be able to listen to those that don't have

  • or share our ideas and instead of reducing them to stereotypes or ignoring

  • them because they they speak in ways that we do not do the opposite and bring

  • them in to that kind of dialogue we have had a number of very distinguished

  • guests throughout this two three years from Martha Nussbaum to Bill Kristol to

  • to Bret Stevens to a variety of thinkers activists a scholars that

  • continue to this day I want to thank or my behalf and on

  • behalf of the college the 36 members of the 50th reunion of the class of 1970

  • I think I got that right for their support particularly to two of

  • them that initiated this idea of listening to

  • the other half I want to tell you that the format of today's event is a

  • free-flowing conversation based on recent book that Stanley Fish has

  • literally just published I will say just a few things about him and about the

  • book in a second but before I do that I want to thank the

  • folks at Amherst Books that they graciously agreed to bring copies of the

  • book for you to hopefully buy and have a Professor Fish sign and to the folks of

  • Communication and to publicity and marketing Davis in particular for all

  • the good work that they put in order for this to be known by the various

  • constituencies of our community even before the event starts Stanley Fish is

  • controversial a figure who wears many hats he is a legal scholar he is a

  • literary critic a scholar of Milton who within the university has played a

  • variety of roles he was for a number of years at the University of California at

  • Berkeley he was also a at Johns Hopkins he is distinguished professor at

  • Florida International University right now a named chair a distinguished

  • professor and he is named chaired visiting scholar at Yeshiva University

  • in New York this semester he has also been a columnist for The New York Times

  • for more than a decade

  • 18 years is sometimes writing on a weekly basis in

  • others in a less pressured way it is important to remember that

  • he within the university has played a variety of roles because I think that's

  • going to come up he has not only been a student because in order to get work to

  • where he is you have to have gone through being a student a teacher that

  • is a professor but he has also been an administrator a at the University of

  • Illinois, Chicago a Dean of Arts and Sciences which will probably

  • come up in several a moment during the our conversation in his critique of the

  • role not only professors and members of campus communities

  • do but also in responses that we get from the administration I generally

  • believe that a the back of a book the blurbs as we call it in publishing is

  • really publishing mashmallow you get friends of yours to say nice things

  • about you but in this book The First: How to Think About Hate Speech, Campus Speech,

  • Religious Speech, Fake News, Post Truth and Donald Trump The most recent by

  • Professor Fish one of more than a dozen there is a blurb that comes from

  • the New Republic that I thought it would be a good idea to start with it says the

  • following a scholar thrillingly authoritative authoritative wholly

  • convinced giddy with aptitude Fish isn't only one fish Fish is in fact a whole

  • school of fish Fish the lawyer and Dean Fish the columnist and cultural critic

  • Fish of the right and Fish of the left Fish the philosopher and polemicist and

  • funded Fish has written on virtually every vital cultural issue you are not

  • obliged to agree with him and you are not obliged to like him but if you care

  • about the enlarging necessity of contest in cultural discourse then you are

  • obliged to read him if I want to start Stanley... Let me

  • just rest in that for a moment. You don't get that every day. That school of fish sounded like dr. Seuss

  • talking about it talking about professor that they did the public intellectual I

  • want to start way being you being this public intellectual but also a

  • positioned in the Academy as you are with a recent op-ed piece that you

  • published in The Wall Street Journal maybe not month ago two weeks ago in

  • which you talk about being invited and then disinvited from Seton Hall and you

  • say that you were that you were not censored in the gist of it him we have

  • invited you and not yet this invited you here so I'd like to start with this

  • sense of a what does it mean to be disinvited and why isn't that censorship

  • well I was disinvited I was called by a faculty member also an administrator who

  • told me that the Seton Hall University was about to inaugurate a new president

  • and that it's part of the ceremonies they wanted a series of lectures mocking

  • the occasion and I was being invited to give the first one and I said fine but

  • it depends on the date and whether or not my schedule can accommodate it this

  • gentleman told me that he would get back to me in two weeks or three weeks with a

  • couple of dates but and he did but not to give me dates but to tell me that the

  • invitation had been withdrawn mm-hmm I asked why and he said that a

  • committee which did not meet in person but communicated its members

  • communicated with one another via email had decided that mine were not ideas

  • that the Seton Hall community should be subjected to and

  • so we had a brief conversation he was extremely embarrassed interestingly

  • enough he insisted that the invitation that he had issued to me over the

  • telephone had been authorized by the Provost and that she had in this case

  • decided that this particular battle was not one she wanted to take on which as

  • an administrator as an administrator I fully understand a decision like that

  • one you know I'm going to save my energy for whatever it is that I believe is

  • crucial to Seton Hall University either having Stanley fish here or not having

  • Stanley fish here it's not crucial to Seton Hall University and I think that's

  • absolutely right she subsequently apologized and I met with it last week

  • and I was given an entirely different version of the story and I don't want to

  • make a judgment between the two versions I'll leave them with you she told me

  • that it was an instance of signals being crossed that the person who called me

  • was not supposed to have made the invitation but was supposed to have done

  • something else I don't know what that something else might have been because

  • in the Academy someone doesn't call you up to say we're thinking of inviting you

  • if we did in fact invite you would you accept doesn't work that way and and I

  • didn't ask her at this lunch because it wasn't the appropriate context in which

  • to posed the question well if there were signals crossed

  • what preventing what prevented you from issuing the invitation anyway so that's

  • the entire story an apology that wasn't an apology but an apology that passed

  • the buck to someone whose signals had been crossed there there it is now the

  • ideas that Seton Hall didn't want to hear at least according to what I was

  • told when the shamefaced gentleman called me

  • to disinvite me the ideas were the ideas that I've been retailing for many years

  • which could be summed up as the idea for example that while social justice is

  • surely a good thing it's not an academic good thing and that no academic activity

  • should be in any way concerned with or associated with issues of social justice

  • now that's an that's a position that a lot of people would disagree with and

  • presumably someone on that committee disagreed with that position strongly at

  • least that's the only reading I have now why wasn't I censored I wasn't censored

  • because first of all I had no right to be invited to Seton Hall that is I

  • didn't have the right to be invited and I had no right not to be invited it was

  • just the administrative decision made on both ends as far as I can tell

  • rather clumsily by the administrators which is no surprise to me at all

  • since academic administrators are in general a a clumsy lot and I say that of

  • course very much aware that I was one my one myself so that's the context in

  • which I don't think I was censored or anything like that now everything

  • depends on the reason for which the invitation was withdrawn

  • was it withdrawn because I had it had been discovered that I had a criminal

  • past let me assure you that I don't have a criminal past No so it was read it was

  • withdrawn I said in the op-ed for reasons that were non intellectual and

  • therefore non education and that's the and and that's the objection that I have

  • to the entire experience it turns out that in the same week that this happened

  • to me and you may have read about this some students at Williams College I'm

  • not sure how many of them sent a letter to the William College

  • community in which they pledged to boycott all courses in the English

  • department that were not centered on race and I took that to be an action

  • parallel in many ways to the action that Seton Hall had taken with respect to me

  • why because the decision as to what course or courses to take or to support

  • was again being made on non-educational non-academic and frankly political

  • grounds it turns out so happens that the last course I taught in the liberal arts

  • arena was of course called major poets of the 17th century and the poets I

  • taught were John Milton John Donne Ben Jonson George Herbert and Andrew Marvell

  • not I think a list that could be quarrel with an association with the term major

  • and of course there are issues of race that turn up in the works of those poets

  • as some of you will no doubt know Ben Jonson wrote a mask that is a quart

  • production called the mask of blackness in which Queen Anne and 11 of her

  • handmaidens appeared in blackface Milton in one of his prose tracks just said

  • that Asian and Semitic peoples were particularly prone to being slaves and

  • in a poem called anagram John Donne writing a parody of the usual

  • celebration of the lady's virtues and beauties described his mistress as

  • having a complexion that made Moore's look white so there's that stuff but

  • that's about it you know if I were going to teach a course

  • on those poets I might name those things but if I were to focus on those things

  • and tease them out into the content of the course I would be abdicating my

  • pedagogical responsibilities because that's not what most of the poems

  • written by these poets are about what you should do I said in this op-ed is

  • teach the material and not in fact tale of the material according to some

  • political or social pressure that is now being exerted so I wanna I want to

  • continue on or pursue the idea of the the current generation of students that

  • is activists and has a vision of what should and shouldn't be taught and in

  • there's a there and ask you to summarize some of the views that you have and you

  • expressed in the book about microaggressions about the trigger

  • warnings and so on I myself a joint you in some of these

  • views there is no way one can teach the Bible or Shakespeare without including

  • all the aggression the violence the blood that goes in it you believe

  • however that a alerting students to what is about to come is a color linked to

  • them and it's not what we should do on campuses though I don't think it cuddles

  • them that's the argument of Jonathan hate and Greg lukianov in in their book

  • they don't think students should be coddled and therefore they're against

  • trigger warnings and such things I have no interest in students being coddled or

  • not being coddled in fact in a very strong sense I have no interest in

  • students that is what I mean by that is I want to give students the experience

  • of a course that introduces them to materials they were previously

  • unfamiliar with or not as familiar with it's perhaps they might be at the end of

  • the course it's maximum maximum form I want to

  • teach you a course such that the students who take it could if they

  • decided to turn around next week and teach it that's my goal now what the

  • sensibilities of my students are what they are feeling what their inner lives

  • are like how many grandmothers have died during the semester there's the three

  • grandmother rule that you know that you you tell your students only three

  • grandmother's deaths per semester as an excuse I couldn't care less about that

  • I'm only interested in putting these materials on the table whether I'm

  • teaching poetry or more often these more often these days teaching

  • cases and of course on let's say the two I teach most often are jurisprudence and

  • religion and the law so I'm interested in in in putting these materials before

  • the students and joining with them in an attempt to analyze what's going on

  • and atomize the structure the history the tradition do some comparative work

  • how is this done in other precincts and other countries and stuff like that

  • that's what I do in class that's what I assume everyone does in class that's the

  • only thing you should do in class now occasionally it might be the case as it

  • was this semester that something occurs to you and you say it I was teaching a

  • course called law at the movies this semester and one of the movies I showed

  • and then we discussed was the movie the People vs Larry Flynt which is about

  • pornography and about a famous Supreme Court case a hustler versus Falwell

  • which I happen to believe was incorrectly decided but that's a whole

  • other set of questions but I told the students before they saw the movie that

  • this is not only a movie about pornography

  • it's a pornographic movie and I thought you know they should know that but

  • that's about it so that would be the limit I suppose

  • of my activity in the way of issuing trigger warnings behind all of this is a

  • more basic point do students have rights the answer to that question is a flat no

  • students don't have any rights they certainly don't have a right to

  • participate in their own education they certainly don't have a right to choose

  • or monitor the materials being offered and of course now of course there are

  • some instructors who in fact do give students that right I am NOT one of them

  • and I look with I look askance at those instructors who do but that's the

  • instructors prerogative students have one right that I will be willing to

  • stand by and that's the right to competent instruction and by competent

  • instruction I mean first instruction given to you by

  • someone who is aware of the present status of the field or discipline

  • whatever it is who comes to class prepared who creates a syllabus and a

  • series of readings that in sequence illustrate and lead to the exploration

  • of the large issues that of the content of this subject matter whatever it is if

  • you're not getting that as a student and in fact if you're getting rather some in

  • structure some instructor who comes in and tells you what his or her political

  • views are or anything in that direction and you're not getting competent

  • instruction because you're no longer being instructed by professional

  • academic you are instructed by a political agent which you never want to

  • experience do you include political views in your classes of course

  • political views any view can be brought into the classroom so long as it is

  • interrogated in an academic way including yours and well I don't bring

  • my views into the classroom in in a direct way except I did in fact

  • tell my students that I thought that the hustle of case was wrongly decided but I

  • invited a good friend of mine from NYU who is who in fact had a role in the

  • movie and it's a noted First Amendment scholar and who has views directly

  • opposed to mine and so we had a good time and then can I ask you I'm going to

  • pursue that that the topic of rights on campus and outside a but before I go

  • there could you offer us a diagnosis or an explanation sadly of why the current

  • generation of students has they the values that it does in it presents and

  • fights for those values in its own way how has in in how many years have you

  • been teaching 56 have has 57 one of those incredible numbers this students

  • body changed in that incredible number of years well what's happened is that

  • the student body at least some of them not all of them some students have

  • stepped into the role that was always there but was usually occupied in past

  • generations by the church by donors to the University by parents by legislators

  • and that rose the role of attempting to take over the university or the

  • university space and make it reflect their values and concerns the Academy

  • has been fighting back against such attempts at hostile takeovers for a very

  • long time it is the reason for example that the American Association of

  • University Professors was formed in the first two decades of the 20th century

  • but now the subversive what I would think of as subversive forces the forces

  • that would turn the Academy away from its

  • it's its special assignment and instead make it the vehicle of what I would say

  • is something alien what's that special assignment the special assignments very

  • simple abstract it's to advance knowledge in the social sciences

  • humanities physical sciences mathematical sciences Computer Sciences

  • that and therefore to attempt to sift through the alternative and competing

  • views of what is correct and true in those disciplines and discuss and

  • analyze the arguments pro and con that are being put forward that's what we do

  • in the Academy what we don't do in the Academy at least what we don't do in my

  • Academy well we don't do in my Academy is move toward the kind of conclusion

  • that then leads to action in the real world

  • for me the Academy is that place where you turn things over in a deliberative

  • manner and stop short of the waters of action that doesn't mean that what you

  • give students are introduced students do might not lead them later on once the

  • door is closed the last class has concluded to take very specific actions

  • but you can't design that the only thing you can as a constructed design can

  • design is of course that delivers the pedagogical goods and the pedagogical

  • goods are as I describe them you introduce the students to the life of a

  • deliberative turning over of a number of issues you equip them with analytical

  • skills and you invite them to exercise those skills in daily conversations in

  • class and in projects that hand it in at the end of the course what do you do

  • with a student's daily as a as of today in a class that shows that Polly

  • Cobin in the need to push the professor in a much more ideologically engaged way

  • which is often the case what do you be surprised if I tell you

  • that no student in my class ever does any such thing because you're not

  • surprised all right there are many you know everyone teaches differently and

  • there are many there are many ways of teaching can that can be differently if

  • effective and to some extent they are functions of temperament and personality

  • my method is very simple I scare students to death as soon as possible

  • while letting them know that while doing it I am a figure of fun myself now the

  • wonderful thing about this is even when I let them know that I am aware of how

  • ridiculous my posture is when i bark orders at them it works anyway that's

  • the whole wonderful thing about rhetoric as you those of you who remember choices

  • partners tale may recall rhetoric can work even and in fact often when those

  • upon whom it is being worked are aware of it so that's the way I teach so very

  • early on my students know what not what kinds of questions are not going to be

  • posed here and what kinds of questions will be considered you will have the

  • benefit of old age he might but if I might put it that way but somebody who

  • is a 40 or 45 teaching today may be either not yet tenured or on the road to

  • tenure ship yeah it might not have the benefit of the white hair saying

  • whatever he wants in not fearing the risk of the reaction well I started

  • teaching I got my PhD early at the age of 23 and I was the same exact teacher

  • then as I am now and since I was teaching graduate

  • students from the beginning I was fortunate enough to have that experience

  • many of the students that I would teaching were older than I didn't make

  • any difference didn't make any difference at all but I don't recommend

  • this method to others so let's take the hypothetical of us of a teacher who is

  • not me which we may perhaps thank God on many let's take someone who is more

  • shall we say amiable in his in his self presentation and less insistent in in in

  • in the in the pedagogical method and then someone asks a question which is in

  • fact not a question that is either to the point or in fact it's to any

  • academic point at all at this moment perhaps and only at this

  • moment the phrase teachable moment which I utterly despise come comes to mind you

  • can take advantage of that I mean if you can do it artfully and you can say well

  • you know that's an interesting question and it's an urging question that is the

  • questions that students ask that don't belong in the classroom nevertheless can

  • be and often are urgent questions so you say look that's an urgent question in

  • some ways our society needs to take it up and attempt to answer it but let me

  • try to explain to you why that's not going to happen here and why it

  • shouldn't happen here and then have that discussion at which point a student will

  • say as a student did say today when I spoke in professor Daniel Gordon's class

  • Daniel was a professor of history at UMass Amherst as many of you will know

  • and a student raised the question actually the question that you raised

  • well aren't aren't there many politically charged topics that come up

  • in classes and are you going to be in the mall to which my answer of course

  • is I'm not going to be in any of them I'm just going to insist that you

  • interrogate them in an academic way so that conversation can occur and the

  • point can be made perhaps in a more useful way than the

  • brutal way that I usually employ can you tell me about teacher not a professor

  • tell me a teacher that you had in your early years that is utterly unlike you

  • but had a deep influence in the way you think ah that's a hard one because to my

  • knowledge I'm sure this is finally not true but I don't know the truth is I've

  • not been a disciple of anyone on the other hand I do remember two teachers

  • very well one was my high school teacher in the in English by the name of a woman

  • by the name of Sarah Flanagan who was rigorous and no-nonsense and was the

  • first person who said to me when I handed in something she said to me

  • something like well you you were pretty good at this and I'd never heard that

  • from anyone before and when you're 15 or 16 or 17 years old and everyone who

  • comes to your house that is friends of your parents are saying and what are you

  • going to be and what are you going to do and you haven't thought of anything to

  • be and the possibility suddenly occurs to me that you might in the end be

  • nothing at all so that when this when Sarah Flanagan told me you do this and

  • you can do it fairly well I latched on to it and never let go the other teacher

  • that I'll mention briefly was professor at the University of Pennsylvania and by

  • the name of more recent Johnson a an 18th century scholar whose bearing and

  • urbanity and wit and satorious style I was so taken by that I wanted to imitate

  • him I have never succeeded you said that students have no rights

  • right on campus do faculty have any rights I want to talk about the section

  • in your book where you reflect on a number of important recent cases of

  • faculty members having made statements that reached out which within the campus

  • but outside of the campus walls and reverberating in society in a variety of

  • ways resulting sometimes in the dismissal of a particular professor a or

  • in and I want to get you'd also to that the rights of administrators or in

  • administrators who would say I defend the right of this or that a faculty

  • member who said something that I the administrator find disgusting and in

  • Europe view the fact that that administrator added that second line is

  • in itself disgusting absolutely that is absolutely to put it simply you don't

  • first defend the right of your faculty member to say something and then turn

  • around and condemn what he said by what I call the administrative two-step that

  • is first yes he has or she has the right to say it

  • but believe me I'm on the right side I'm a virtuous person I'm going to condemn

  • it just as the world must condemn it that is really weaselly behavior and

  • many administrators unfortunately engage in that behavior and partly they engage

  • in that behavior because administrators by and large don't know what business

  • they're in for example a lot of administrators believe that they're in

  • the free-speech business and as I say in the title of my campus chapter in this

  • book free speech is not an academic value but since many administrators

  • don't understand it when a free speech challenge comes that way they get

  • paralyzed and after being paralyzed they go to their office of legal counsel

  • which is populated by persons who have only one thing in mind

  • avoid lawsuits so they get very bad advice from the office of legal counsel

  • huh but if they only understood what their job is which is to ensure the

  • health and growth of the academic enterprise they wouldn't take what I

  • call the free speech bait and they wouldn't say things like well we must

  • allow him to say what he said as a private citizen but I want you to know

  • that we condemn it because when you say when you're a a Dean or a Provost or a

  • Chancellor and you condemn someone's point of view even as you acknowledge

  • that you have no capacity to dismiss him or her you are positioning yourself

  • politically and because you keep I an recognisable office you are positioning

  • the university politically the university should never be positioned

  • politically because once it is a it's not any longer doing its job and be it

  • makes itself vulnerable to all of those constituencies that always want to

  • assault the university so you said that day you couldn't care less about the

  • politics of students a could you care more about the politics of professors

  • should professors within the institutions have political views that

  • are expressed outside of the classroom and even as you do I see a two-phase

  • here on your site if I might use that aspect you don't get into the political

  • side but you write op-ed pieces constantly in The New York Times and

  • they in The Wall Street Journal that might put a shiva university or a

  • florida international into uncomfortable position because of something professor

  • fish said should a professor have be encouraged to become a much more public

  • figure in to what extent that position compromises his or her freedom as an

  • individual are we professors a private citizens on campus or are we members of

  • that academic community exclusively concerned with the production

  • manufacturing packaging of knowledge well a book I wrote in 2008 the title of

  • it kind of answers of that question and the title of that book was save the

  • world on your own time save the world on your own time by which I meant it's

  • perfectly all right for you as an academic to write op-ed so letters to

  • the editor or chair committee which is pursuing some controversial policy so

  • long as you don't do it on the university's dime so long as while

  • you're acting in the university you are performing activities that you are both

  • trained and paid to perform both those words are very important trained and

  • paid so to answer your question directly I don't think there should be any

  • consequences visited by a university on a professor who on his or her own time

  • as a private citizen gets to say something in print that gathers or

  • provokes a great deal of attention some of which may be reflected back in a

  • negative way on the university again that's why the what I call the

  • administrative two-step a moment ago is performed because universities are aware

  • of the extent to which they are shall we say vulnerable to shifts in public

  • opinion and they wish quite understandably to push that

  • vulnerability or to minimize that vulnerability rather as much as possible

  • so that while I understand administrators who quickly condemned the

  • speech whose protection they have just announced I I believe that it's a very

  • bad thing for them to do but of course I've already said that there's a case

  • that came up some of you may have seen it last week the University of Indiana a

  • faculty member by the name of Eric Matt Rasmussen who's I think in the business

  • school and perhaps also in the department of political economy

  • has a private server in which he says things like african-american students

  • shouldn't even apply to first tier institutions because they don't have the

  • capacity to do the work required there he says he asks a question rhetorically

  • in an essay he wrote are women ruining the academy and he gives the answer in

  • the title probably he has another another a piece in which he explains

  • that all males all geniuses are males or almost all geniuses are males and he

  • says all these kinds of things and of course what happens it gets publicized

  • by someone perhaps by him as far as I don't really know the backstory and

  • there's a demand that he be fired and there's a demand that he be fired now

  • the Provost at Bloomington Indiana Bloomington performed a perfect version

  • of the administrative two-step she said again we spoke as a private citizen and

  • therefore we as the university cannot prohibit or sense of his his his words ,

  • vile and stupid as they are listen to that vile and stupid as they are she

  • should have been fired at least he would have if I had the power to do so in in

  • the next moment now as long as the Rasmussen is not structuring his

  • teaching according to his strong political ideological views there's no

  • reason at all academically to move against him and how and who who decides

  • that who can monitor that should somebody come in and legislate on how

  • that syllabus is built on what is what the content is while most universities

  • have as you know colleges and universities have processes through

  • which teaching is assessed for example student evaluations but I should add

  • that I have been bitterly opposed to student evaluations since they first

  • appeared to me in 1965 at the University of

  • California at Berkeley and something then called the slate supplement I think

  • that student evaluations are a terrible thing because they're terrible thing

  • because there's so many reasons most of most of the people who fill them out do

  • so out of for negative reasons reasons of

  • bitterness disappointment and hostility the the idea that someone who has taken

  • a course in one semester is therefore competent to judge the

  • performance of a teacher that is in many cases the performance of the teacher

  • that is the course that you have taken will only be realized in your

  • imagination years later there's nothing good to be said about teaching

  • evaluations nothing good to be said but they're they're there and I you know my

  • my ranting against them one stuff isn't going to remove them so they're there

  • and in all the cases I write about in the book the amy wax case at the

  • University of Pennsylvania the Steven salaita case at the University of

  • Illinois at Urbana the James Tracy case at Florida Atlantic University

  • all of these people said things and took positions which made most of their

  • colleagues and a good percentage of the student body furious but on the other

  • hand all of the teaching evaluations for these three people were support we're

  • superb and showed that they you know that courses they their courses were not

  • soap boxes made into soap boxes for their political views that they they

  • studied the material that they fairly graded assignments that were reasonable

  • and so forth and so on so on the other hand if it's if it can be demonstrated

  • that a teacher is using his or her classroom for the purpose of furthering

  • personal ideological partisan or even moral views then there's a reason to

  • move against that person I want to in the interest of time

  • I want to move out of campus and into social media a where I assume we're

  • going to get into even more intense a ideas from you

  • and you write about them in your book there is this the Mark Zuckerberg has

  • they testified before Congress many times many times and he has suggested

  • that there will be there will come a time when artificial intelligence will

  • be sophisticated enough to stop hate speech in on Facebook but until then he

  • in no one in his company will legislate what should or shouldn't be posted on

  • the other hand you have Twitter which has moved forward in deciding what

  • should or should not be posted particularly on this election I can do

  • this on this election given the record that

  • we have of the 2016 meddling of foreign governments and the nasty voices that

  • some candidates a who eventually became presidents have a been a have been

  • expressing so I I'm not on nostalgia I think of a time when social media wasn't

  • there when I arrived to Amherst in 1993 email was barely starting there wasn't

  • anything like what we have today and there were lines outside their office

  • for students to be able to see you and talk et cetera

  • instead of sending your text yet 12 o'clock right right so I I'm interested

  • in particular about your vision of how social media is excessive offers maybe

  • too much information do we have and you mentioned something in the book instead

  • of having censorship by the absence of material you have censorship by the

  • overabundance of material I remember if I can just stop you there I remember I'm

  • an immigrant from Mexico and I remember arriving to the United States in the

  • late in the mid-80s in thinking how incredible it was the amount of cereal

  • boxes that I could find on a supermarket it was an embarrassment of riches and I

  • chose one a which one Raisin Bran and I have gone with France instead they've

  • gone with Grape Nuts the oldest to say that I love the possibility of the

  • possibilities that that supermarket offered to me but eventually I went back

  • to the very simple so I I want to I want you to delve into the time in which we

  • leave where censorship is actually a reversal an abundance that can paralyze

  • you and even nullify us well I must say that I am a nostalgia I long for the

  • days when there were three television networks and other other other what

  • antediluvian features of life but the question you poses is a serious one and

  • all of the questions that you impose of course are serious ones the answer

  • requires me to identify a what shall we call it a a repeated mantra or

  • affirmation that often accompanies celebrations of freedom of speech and

  • that is that the more speech the better the more speech the better in First

  • Amendment lore as some of you will know this view the more speech the better is

  • famously represented by two statements made by Justice Brandeis the first

  • statement is that sunshine is the best of disinfectants by which he means that

  • if bad ideas or pernicious ideas dangerous ideas are let out into the

  • world and into the light of day day light will show us what they are and

  • they wither away and die and as I said I say

  • in my book the only counter-argument to that is all

  • of recorded history because exactly the reverse happens all the time

  • which isn't necessarily an argument for censorship but it certainly is an

  • argument against what I think of as the totally unfounded optimism of a

  • statement like sunshine is the best of these defectors the other statement is

  • very much the same of brand Isis he says the remedy for bad speech is more speech

  • not enforced silence which is I suppose an optimistic version of Gresham's law

  • but that doesn't work either the internet has in effect given us a

  • technological realization of the marketplace of ideas the marketplace of

  • ideas which is one of the phrases that always have companies celebrations of

  • the first amendment was introduced in the 1920s in a dissenting opinion by

  • Oliver Wendell Holmes and it imagines and I think this is this is relevant it

  • imagines the life of decision making as taking place in a setting like a New

  • England town meeting where there are a bunch of people all of whom you have

  • known for most of your life who is sitting around trying to decide whether

  • or not the municipality can afford a new sewer system that's the model that's the

  • model underlying most celebrate most ACLU type celebrations of of the First

  • Amendment but when the marketplace of ideas becomes populated by billions and

  • trillions of ideas without any mechanism at all for assessing them or judging

  • them then we don't have that kind of town hall Town Meeting rather the

  • scenario we have something much more insidious

  • the the villain hero that may be too strong a word which is why I was

  • searching for another but I didn't find it the villain here is the idea of

  • transparency one of the worst ideas in the history of the world

  • transparency anyone who's ever been married knows that the last thing you

  • want to be is trans you won't last two weeks okay so transparency is a bad idea

  • what transparency what transparency advocates and Zuckerberg is one and Jack

  • Dorsey used to be one and several of the other CEOs used to be the transparency

  • is the people are beginning to see that transparency isn't all that it was

  • cracked up to be but one of the polemics that comes along

  • with transparency is that if in fact we can remove from our interactions with

  • data gatekeepers and filtering mechanisms that are provided by experts

  • and or long-established institutions we will come closer to knowing the truth

  • because the data then will come to us unencumbered by any process of

  • selectivity performed by so-called experts okay

  • I sometimes call this the romance of the data and us you know kind of moving out

  • into the sunset just us in the debt but here's what really happens if in fact

  • you remove gatekeeping mechanisms if you no longer are interested in regulating

  • the flow of data or the flow of speeches it might be which are two concepts that

  • often but belong together and you remove all of the gatekeepers what you will

  • have especially in the Internet era is millions indeed billions of pieces of

  • data unrelated each of which is unrelated to anything and each of which

  • is making its claim to be absolutely true and relevant because

  • once you get rid of all the regulating and selecting and the gatekeeping and

  • the filtering you have a world in which information just lies around billions of

  • pieces of it like pieces of Lego waiting for some troll or predator to arrange

  • some of it in a narrative that can do some form of insidious work and we know

  • that that's exactly what's happening so we don't want transparency because this

  • is what it leads to and you don't want the mantra of the more speech the better

  • now pursuing us into the Internet era it simply isn't true the more speech the

  • better it's as we say false I want to pursue that thought but I want I want to

  • bring an image here that might be useful I teach course on on on selfies in the

  • white selfies you know you do I do they like they and they let you they let you

  • good indeed and I I ask the students you know there's a you know a proliferation

  • of selfies if the connection between the selfie and the self-portrait have you

  • taken a selfie I've taken many selfies never took on alright so yes absolutely

  • I ask the students if if this if their generation given the amount of selfies

  • that they take is more narcissistic than the generations that have come before

  • and one student answered it's not that we are more narcissistic but we have the

  • means to express that narcissism thanks to technology in ways that the previous

  • generations did not have the question that I have for you has to do with the

  • termometer of hate so to speak is there more hate in the world because of the

  • channels we're talking about hate speech a one of the topics of

  • book is there more hate in the world because of the channels to express it it

  • be that social media I know it's varieties or a it is always it has

  • always been a constant one of the things that you always say in your book is that

  • fake news and we'll get there in a second fake news there's nothing new

  • about it it has been fake news have been fake news for a long time so the amount

  • of hate speech has been constant a throughout history but we're now capable

  • of a registering edge to monitoring it may be without the sensors or the

  • authorities that you're talking about is that the case it's no longer localized I

  • would agree that you know hate speech and hate the version that we all feel in

  • a variety of ways toward the other that's always been a feature of human

  • life in the general battle between that we've seen social philosophy these days

  • between tribalism on the one hand and cosmopolitanism on the other hand

  • whatever that whatever wherever you stand on that question and I am an

  • myself a strong tribalist but wherever you stand on that question you have to

  • say that tribalism always survives and comes back and with tribalism you always

  • have something that you might call hate and it can take any number of forms and

  • has in our own history you know Irish no Irish need not apply

  • no Jews allowed I walked daily when I was a kid in Rhode Island passed the

  • Country Club not a country club a beach club rather this is on the beach that

  • had a policy that no no Jews were allowed and one day I was about 13 years

  • old I decided I would go into this Beach Club which didn't have on gods or

  • anything so I went into the beach club and wandered around and very shortly

  • someone came over to me said are you a member and I said yes and

  • then he said and what's your name I said Harvey Goldman but but now you know you

  • know but that was contained this was one beach house along that along the

  • Narragansett Rhode Island sure no one thought very much about it you know

  • there it was everybody knew that there were these that there were these forms

  • of discrimination but now as your question suggests not only do they have

  • more than a local habitation they have a universal habitation but it's apparently

  • very easy to set up websites that present to the waiting world or to the

  • innocent world your forms your forms of wait before I go to the next point why

  • didn't you use your name I might think you use a French name I mean Stanley

  • fish also sounds Jewish yeah does it I don't know why I just don't I

  • just thought well I shouldn't tell them Who I am so I'll think of some other

  • name and that was the thing that popped into my head

  • let's call it a failure of the imagination

  • is Trump a failure of the imagination - or a triumph oh well Trump is a triumph

  • of a certain kind no I mean this I write in in one of my chapters

  • well actually Trump is a recurring figure in almost every chapter and

  • there's some of Aegeus things are said in there and I don't say anyhow Regis

  • things about Trump because it's not an anti-trump book in any way but what I do

  • say tried to do in one of the chapters is analyze Trump's success as a as a

  • political figure especially with respect to the kind of speech he engages in

  • this is a book about speech and what I I came up with the term to describe and

  • perhaps account for the success Trump has in certain ways and with

  • certain populations and what I just - what I say he is perfected and when I

  • say perfected I'm not necessarily saying that he has done this through

  • deliberative thought it may be instinct it may be a combination of the two

  • something that I call principled irresponsibility now what is principled

  • irresponsibility most politicians that is almost all politicians except for

  • President Trump I have at least a minimal concern about reconciling what

  • they say today with what they said yesterday and perhaps with what they

  • said last week or last month but he has no interest and they are called to

  • account on that matter Trump is interested in only one thing

  • and that is the moment the rhetorical moment the moment in which he's putting

  • someone down or giving them a nickname or retailing a conspiracy theory that

  • he's picked up from some source and then he just uses that and gets out of that

  • moment and then goes into the next moment and which he might perform in

  • ways that entirely contradict the performance of a moment ago but has the

  • same effect so in a way Trump is kind of like a super Cartesian he invents the

  • you know like the French he invents the world not every morning but every minute

  • the trunk world is invented every minute now the heart that the UH the

  • unfortunate thing for those who wish to oppose him is that when he does this

  • they respond by making arguments or they respond by saying well you said X a

  • moment ago but two days ago you said why they haven't yet figured out that that's

  • not the game he's playing he's and they're still playing the old game when

  • you're accountable for what you said and you supposedly have to have an argument

  • or a reason for having said it this has nothing to do so so long as his

  • opponents still are still operating on the basis of old rules and protocols

  • that he has left behind they will always be behind him and by the way I see no

  • sign that any member of the Democratic Party or any group of Democrats has in

  • fact fashioned a way to either conquer to counter this because by and large

  • they haven't recognized it they're gonna lose again do you believe that Trump is

  • not an exception in that after him whenever that happens we go back to the

  • prior a status quo or do you think instead that Trump as you said it

  • presents new rules of speech new rules in politics that inaugurate a new way

  • that from here forward will be the status quo

  • well track as many before me have said participates and participate strongly in

  • something that has been happening for at least the last 50 years and that is the

  • expansion of executive power a colleague of mine at Cardozo law school by the

  • name of David Rubenstein has written a very good book called deference massive

  • detailing of the ways in which the judicial deference especially and also

  • legislative deference to the executive has in effect created what george w bush

  • actually it wasn't george w bush but his his advisers were calling the unitary

  • presidency and we now have the unitary presidency being put forward in the

  • current context of the impeachment hearings also the unit

  • Presidency was a part of Richard Nixon's rhetoric when he was in the course of

  • being impeached so chunks one of trumps lasting the

  • effects of one of the lasting effects of his tenure may be the pushing forward

  • again the furthering of the the expansion of the executive to the point

  • where what Nixon once famously said quote if the president doesn't it can't

  • be a crime unquote may be in fact realized the problem is that every

  • person who occupies that office believes in the unitary executive even when

  • perhaps his or her outward demeanour doesn't suggest it Obama believes in it

  • he really did and and acted in accordance oh the only thing that's

  • going to stop the emergence further emergence of of the executive with

  • almost unbridled power will be a reassertion by the Congress and perhaps

  • by the judiciary of its part in the separation of powers bargain and if I

  • could predict whether or not that that was going to happen I would be making a

  • lot more money than I am we're coming here to an end at least

  • this part family and we'll invite the audience to ask questions there's a

  • microphone here to my left and to the audience's right I have a couple of

  • questions before that one of them has to do when I mentioned that there's and a

  • few elements that to me sound or feel outrageous if they are less really to do

  • with Trump in your book than with the way you present a certain arguments a

  • and that is the statement of your a you have been accused and you have always

  • insisted probably inefficiently because you keep on being accused that you are a

  • relativist a in that all that is connected with post-modernism in one way

  • or another there's a moment in which you talk about how Trump said

  • that he's was the largest crowd ever in the history of the America and there was

  • reporter who described this a reporter that said well but the photographs show

  • that that is not the case and then he said well but this this this was

  • information eventually went down to what this was information given to me right

  • but then you stopped that paragraph in and you say well let's let's analyze

  • this and probably it could be seen as being a truth what if there were no

  • other events or the weather was taking a place in such a way that given this

  • particular moment compared to others it was the biggest crowd that seems to me

  • totally illogical illogical logical why a logic it seems to me that the

  • photographs in empirical evidence show that compared to the the Obama

  • inauguration in previous inaugurations not only Democrats put rip Republicans

  • there was there were a lot of them were more people and in fact in the Obama the

  • weather was much colder than during the the second inauguration was much colder

  • than during the first and hopefully only inauguration of Trump so I don't maybe

  • you can explain that oh sure but I'll just repeat what I said in the book

  • which is obviously wasn't persuasive to you what I'm saying is that if you just

  • if you declare that something is bigger than something else my crowd is bigger

  • than yours there are always a set of presuppositions about how the question

  • of size is being assessed and what the reporter you referred to and what the

  • press in general did was just point you know a finger point there they are there

  • they all are well I was saying that's possibly a relatively crude method of

  • determining size you might want to determine size by first factoring in

  • what the weather was like in the various at the moment of the various on in

  • inaugurations oh there it might be I forget which ones I come up with I come

  • up with a bunch of possible alternative measures which are kind of like

  • Kellyanne Conway's alternative facts there are alternative measures within

  • which one might then make a statement about crowd size you can do that you can

  • do that that is you can change the frame of reference and make your declaration

  • which from the point of view of one frame of reference seemed obviously

  • false instead seem at least possibly true now you'll recall in that paragraph

  • and then just after I finish in the middle it'll exercise I say now don't

  • get mad at me I'm not because I'm not making these arguments I was like a

  • rhetorical approach well of course I'm not making these arguments I'm just

  • imagining how they possibly could be made now this gets back to the questions

  • to the question finally no fake news if alternative facts can be manufactured or

  • can be thought up would be better because manufacture is a pejorative word

  • if alternative facts could be thought of alternative ways of looking at something

  • seeing something assessing something even counting something what is it that

  • enables us to choose between if we can between these alternative accounts the

  • answer that I give in the book is we must look to those sources of

  • information that have throughout the decades and perhaps centuries earned our

  • trust one of the things that has happened as you know in the last 20 30

  • years has been and this is the title of a book the death of expertise that is

  • the debunking of university expertise professional expertise medical expertise

  • Simon Trump has scientific expertise now as a

  • that is what produces fake news not summed intention to deceive which of

  • course may be a part of it but the D authorization of traditional sites that

  • is si tes traditional sites of authority some of you are old enough as I am

  • although you're none of you I think is as old as I am to remember Walter

  • Cronkite the CBS commentator who signed off each night by saying and that's the

  • way it is and people believed him and they believed him even in those cases

  • when it turned out that some of the things that he reported were in fact not

  • accurate why did they believe him because they believed that he and also

  • in general the press had the aspiration to get things right

  • even if at times it didn't get things right the difference between I think

  • news that is fake and news that you might rely on is the difference between

  • sources that don't care whether or not the facts are in are as they are

  • reported and other sources which have the aspiration to to in fact report on

  • what is actually the case you are you advocating or you believe is the only

  • that we can go back to a time when there is one anchor in one channel that

  • delivers the news given the fractures compartmentalized multi-layered

  • polyphonic society in which we live very well put I don't know whether it could

  • happen and it didn't wouldn't have to be one you could just be the industry if

  • the industry in general were regarded as the kind of engage in the kind of

  • activity that you could trust again not that you could trust it's every product

  • but you could trust the spirit in which the product was produced that I think we

  • need to regain because as many philosophers

  • have pointed out without a without a general trust underlying operations

  • every one of us is at sea when it comes to what we believe of what we take to be

  • true and false so to my view whether or not this is

  • possible and you suggest that it may not be the universities must regain and to

  • some extent retain their reputation for being places where the truth about

  • matters and the physical sciences humanities and physical sciences are are

  • in fact sought and sometimes found and of course universities that have allowed

  • themselves to be politicized this goes back to an earlier point we'll never

  • have that trust whatsoever but I think the trust can be regained and I think

  • that at a certain point although this is a prediction without information that is

  • I couldn't support it if you ask me to the experts will strike back this is

  • time to a have members of the audience a ask questions if anybody's interested

  • again their microphone is to my left if you Richard if you want to come here I

  • want to ask you as the Richard is making his way in front of everybody

  • him if there is if you if you could say that that was my last question to you

  • Stanley that a free speech is more at peril and that maybe has already been

  • undermined by the way your argument is built in this book in an age of fake

  • news and alternative facts where that a teenager in an Ohio a basement can make

  • a statement that takes as much bola de T a scholar coming out from any university

  • because it is presented in that marketplace of ideas a that is the

  • Internet are we to be worried about the state of free of the freedom of speech

  • today when compared to the civil rights era the the the civil war period and so

  • on well I might call with the Assumption behind your question my argument in this

  • book it's that free speech is the source of our problems or at least of some of

  • our problems and it's not this thing that we should protect first of all as I

  • argue here free speech is not a distinct philosophical thing it's a doctrine made

  • up of a bunch of rhetorics that figure and operate differently in different

  • contexts as I said many many years ago and another title of another book

  • there's no such thing as free speech there are free speech platitudes free

  • speech slogans which do rhetorical and political work the over evaluation of

  • free speech given to us by the American Civil Liberties Union and others is I

  • think responsible for the inability of many to deal with the world in which

  • they're supposed eaten has arise has arrived and there is more and more

  • speech and then it turns out that more and more speech more the the mantra the

  • more speech the better is in fact not true I would hope that that would lead

  • to a revaluation of the kind that we see often in European countries and in

  • Canada but not here where the value of regulated and curtailed speech of speech

  • that has been vetted is asserted above the value of the non the nonentity

  • called free speech please yes thank you I I wanted to address the question of

  • the classroom and the question of politics in the class

  • I'm not sure the ideal of a sort of non-political teacher is really possible

  • or desirable so far I am one so I'm possible I may not be desired I

  • mean I mean in the sense of universally the case I mean for example I can

  • understand someone teaching a course on general relativity and having strong

  • political views that have nothing to do with the what's being taught in the

  • class but suppose I'm gonna stage me of course on the French and Russian

  • Revolution then one might want it might be desirable for the teacher to express

  • the political position and for the students when I read books on those

  • subject I want to know what political position they're coming from and even in

  • the case of the Natural Sciences I mean one of the examples I can cite is the

  • question of the Big Bang Theory I mean one of the people were founded it was a

  • Jesuit priest and a lot of the discussion which was eventually settled

  • on empirical grounds was also formulated by the sense that it possibly suggested

  • a theistic creation narrative right so my question is why wouldn't you

  • necessarily want a teacher who said I'm going to teach the subject particularly

  • in say history or philosophy or maybe even economics and this is my point of

  • view on it and you can reject it or not but that's my point of view I really

  • dislike that position that is it's the position in which you think you have

  • insulated the class from politics of a certain kind by being upfront and honest

  • about your politics and what you've really done when you do this is in fact

  • legitimate the introduction of political perspectives in the classroom but isn't

  • now it is not inevitable it's inevitable that political issues will be attached

  • to the material that you study but those political issues can be discussed in

  • academic ways and in my earlier book saved the world on your own time I

  • invented a very ugly word for how to do this and what you do with any topic that

  • comes into your classroom political or not is academic and why

  • academic side that I mean detach the topic from the real from its real-world

  • urgency where there's a policy to be decided upon and an action to be taken

  • and instead reinsert the topic into what we might think of as academic urgency

  • well what you want to do is describe analyze compare historicize and all of

  • those things that we customarily do in in in our classrooms so again no topic

  • should not should be introductive there's no topic that cannot be brought

  • into the classroom so long as it is regarded as the object of analysis and

  • not as the object of either possible embrace or rejection that's the

  • distinction that's the distinction and it's easy it's absolutely easy I teach

  • political texts all the time in in courses on a political theory and of

  • course political issues turn up and in Supreme Court case in every Supreme

  • Court case that you that you can imagine but when I teach these materials and

  • also in poetry political issues are always turning up in in in in in in the

  • work of poets both major and minor but you can study them as opposed to in as

  • opposed to using them as an occasion for making a decision about what to do in

  • the world as an administrator how would you deal with a professor who was

  • otherwise competent but did introduce his or her political views fire him

  • were you fired at any point ah no

  • because you didn't mix the text in there because I also scared administrators to

  • death yes I I've recently been badly injured so it's hard for me sometimes to

  • turn around but Here I am I'm especially interested in your thoughts on trigger

  • warnings I kind of a application of how an institution like universities

  • involved with questions of free speech and and the instance you mentioned of

  • showing a movie about pornography which in fact was a pornographic film I'm

  • wondering what your thought was behind offering a trigger warning so to speak

  • then and if you could give an example of a situation when you would not provide a

  • trigger warning in what differentially that's the only situation in which I

  • provided something that might be called a trigger warning and I didn't do it

  • with the sense that I was providing a trigger warning in in in my class law

  • and the movies I handed out I hand out 15 to 25 questions that the students are

  • to use as a guide when they watch the movie and think about it and then each

  • student has to pick one of the questions and write a brief of one page one and a

  • half page paper every week the first question that I put on my on the

  • question sheet for the People vs Larry Flynt is Latin the People vs Larry Flynt

  • is not only a movie about pornography it is it is itself pornographic and then I

  • said is this something for which we cook should criticize the director or can you

  • think of ways of defending the directors choice to to to produce his film in this

  • way so there wasn't effective trigger warning but it was in the course of my

  • pointing out something to the students which I then wanted them to think about

  • and write about the trigger warning insofar as it was one

  • was not issued by me with a sense of the with the sense of the possible

  • vulnerability of some of my students to pornographic images someone reported

  • just this Tuesday when I had my final class apparently she didn't remember the

  • questions because she sat down at Thanksgiving dinner with her family to

  • watch the People vs Larry Flynt that wasn't a good idea and I wasn't you know

  • wasn't a good idea because that's not the kind of thing you do at a

  • Thanksgiving dinner but you want look in general all of these slogans trigger

  • warnings safe spaces no platforming cultural appropriation microaggressions

  • they're all versions of the same demand which is the demand that we not learn

  • anything you know we don't want we don't want to learn anything there's something

  • more complicated like about the cultural appropriation argument cultural

  • appropriation is a form of racism and we could get into that but it would take a

  • little bit so I have no sympathy as you can tell whatsoever for any of these

  • notions microaggressions sure I'm sure that I have my core guests aggressed

  • against a significant number of persons in this audience because of some things

  • that I have said in the manner in which I've said them at which point I'm

  • attempted to you know cite or quote the title of an old Eagle song get over it

  • so that's you know you've governed a class you take your lumps whatever they

  • are I will say there was one point in my teaching career this is long before any

  • of this occurred this would have been in 1984 I was teaching at Columbia and I

  • was teaching of course on Milton and a young lady came up to me before the

  • course started and she said mr. fish could I tell you about my religious

  • convictions briefly which he did and identified herself as a member of a

  • certain Protestant sick and she said is there anything that I might read in the

  • poetry and prose of Milton that would be antithetical to my religious convictions

  • to which I responded just about everything and she decided not to take

  • the course that was a perfectly reasonable thing for her to do but is

  • that really a perfectly reasonable in the end knowledge doesn't take place

  • well it depends on whether it depends on the value you hold that you place on a

  • religious faith there's a chapter nobody and ever I get interviewed about this

  • book no one ever talks about the religion chaplain and you haven't talked

  • about religious faith is not like other things to those whose lives are founded

  • in it they don't want to lose it let me give you a very quick examples my

  • favorite case in law is called Mozart versus Hawkins it was a case I think in

  • the Fifth Circuit in Ohio and it was a suit a cause of action brought by one of

  • my favorite people in all of the legal world

  • a young mother by the name of Vicki Smith and what Vicki was protesting was

  • the fact that her six-year-old child was required or seven-year-old child I

  • forget what no no would have been in the 6-3 how old's the older people in the

  • sixth grade I twelve okay twelve-year-old child was it was

  • required to read in the court in in in in an assigned book called the prentice

  • hall critical reader that's what it was Vicki for us not Vicki Smith the

  • prentice-hall critical reader which contained articles on you know

  • gender differences complain articles on witchcraft and some people who worship

  • wish it you know worship Satan but also contained a lot of other things now she

  • was told by the superintendent of Hawkins County that the course these

  • materials were taught but they weren't taught in a way that advocated any of

  • them rather they were taught in a way that was designed to introduce children

  • to the idea that there were many ways of thinking about important issues in the

  • world and what he said to her is missus force you have not understood the

  • difference between indoctrination and exposure and what she said was immortal

  • she said the distinction between indoctrination and exposure is an

  • artifact of the liberalism that is so pressing me now that's really good

  • that's really good and as she pointed out she didn't object this is what

  • totally flummoxed the other people who in the legals she didn't object to

  • individual essays she projected to the entire project of teaching so that her

  • her daughter could make up her own mind she didn't want her daughter to make up

  • her own mind she wanted her daughter to remain in the faith now before you tried

  • out the usual liberal commonplaces to condemn her think a bit about her she

  • was a very smart woman and she knew what it was that she wanted for her child and

  • she knew also that liberal assumptions about being exposed to ideas and then

  • developing the strength of mind to choose between them these assumptions

  • were her enemy now remember that case it's really it's

  • a really important case religion is not like anything else go ahead okay so I'm

  • gonna preface this question by saying I often when I'm reading you the first

  • time through I either don't understand the argument or I think it's got to be

  • wrong and I reread I reread and eventually have an aha moment pieces

  • fall together oftentimes it's actually students who help me see it I'm hoping

  • that will happen again so you recently I think you were talking

  • about I think you were making an argument that decisions by universities

  • are College with respect to their investments yeah are not moral that

  • they're sort of not moral decisions they don't you shouldn't be morally judging

  • them for them given the limited nature of the goals that a college or

  • university has all they have to worry about is what what would it mean to be

  • good steward of the college yeah Broly and down right and that struck me I

  • didn't understand that argument because so let me just give you an analogy and

  • tell me what's wrong with it I'm a homeowner as a homeowner I want to be a

  • good steward of my house but that doesn't seem to me to let me off the

  • hook when I'm making decisions about who to hire like it doesn't let me off the

  • hook what if I decide to hire someone who treats their employees really badly

  • under pays them even if their works a little bit better than someone who

  • treats their employees really great it seems like that is I can't be morally

  • indiscriminate about the means to my ends it seems like moral judgment still

  • has a place there and why isn't that also the case with colleges and

  • universities even if it is true that they have the goals that you say they do

  • well I think the best answer to this was given the worst answer I've seen was

  • given by drew Faust who at this time was the president of Harvard University and

  • she was responding to the demands by some students no doubt some faculty -

  • now that the university divest itself of fossil fuel stocks on the reasoning and

  • the reasoning is strong and powerful on the reasoning that fossil fuels are

  • endangering the the environment to the extent that they

  • perhaps are ultimately endangering the planet that's a pretty big argument and

  • not one easily dismissed or not one dismissed at all

  • what drew faust said in a statement is that she was going to resist any effort

  • to facilitate to politicize the operations of to politicize the

  • operations of those who oversee the endowment she said

  • that's not their job their job is to grow the endowment so that we that is

  • Harvard which only has about 128 billion dollars or something so that Harvard can

  • better serve its educational mission to me that's absolutely right

  • that's absolutely right that you don't you don't decide that you're going to

  • divest from stocks that are associated with fossil fuels you don't decide that

  • you're going to divest from stocks that have some relationship to the State of

  • Israel you shouldn't have decided to all of

  • those years ago to divest from stocks that in some way we're related to South

  • Africa remember that well that all that that's just wrong and it's wrong because

  • it's mistaking the nature of your enterprise right but so I'm a homeowner

  • so I don't care know that forget the homeowner analogy but that's that then

  • you're not helping me all right okay you said something in your example that the

  • person who treats his or her employees badly still did a better job you hire

  • that person so if someone says look you shouldn't have hired them they're

  • treating their employees really crummy I say none of your business because my job

  • is to be a good steward of my house absolutely cares like wait a minute

  • looks like that's that's the moral argument my argument is the moral

  • argument yours is not next question so when talking about a

  • speech on campus you introduced the idea of the academic two step where some

  • administrator defends the right of a professor or a group to say something

  • and then condemns it so let's give the example of like a student newspaper and

  • a student has submitted an article that claims that the Holocaust never occurred

  • mm-hmm should the newspaper publish that

  • article if to their knowledge the Holocaust absolutely did occur that's a

  • complicated question first of all it's this newspaper how is this newspaper is

  • situated institutionally where does it get its funds and so forth I guess a

  • student newspaper gets his funds from the college finally gets its funds from

  • the college then according to a series of Supreme Court decisions that of

  • course are as all the Supreme Court decisions are often contested but

  • according to a series of Supreme Court decisions the school has every right to

  • monitor the activities of the student reporters who work at a whole labor at

  • the newspaper funded by the institution I'm not sure that's an answer to your

  • question is it I think that there was more to your question than my answer

  • recognized yeah ah good we're on the same page there

  • I guess it's more about what are you worried about why don't we go in it this

  • way what are you worried about what what don't you want to happen are you worried

  • that the person who is denying the Holocaust is being denied that the net

  • denied the capacity to say what they want to say yeah and also if like the

  • editor of the student newspaper thinks that this article should not be

  • expressed do they have the right to deny the author of the article

  • well should not be expressed as opposed to think it's thinks it's false or do

  • you want to not make that distinction should not be expressed as a moral

  • judgement on what is being said we don't want that kind of thing said it might

  • you know it might pollute the atmosphere or something like that as opposed to we

  • don't want to publish things that are demonstrably false the letter well if

  • it's we don't want to publish things that are demonstrably false it seems to

  • me that the newspaper editor is on very good grounds okay I think and so

  • publishing the article would be problematic if the look why would an

  • editor let's let's back up a bit and and expand on your example why would an

  • editor who believes something to be false publish it one answer and we can

  • go to examples like remember the Danish cartoons of some of some years ago

  • Danish cartoons that is all right well have caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed

  • and so forth and so on which appeared in the newspaper and what country was it

  • Denmark where they don't have they don't have anything other other things to

  • worry about so they they obsess on this stuff and then what happened was all

  • over the country all over the world newspapers decided to publish

  • the the cartoons you know with negative caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad did

  • the newspaper editors who did this that is not the original one but the ones who

  • then follow up did they agree with the characterization or caricature of the

  • Prophet Muhammed absolutely not why were they doing it they were doing

  • it to make a point about free speech that's a very bad reason to do anything

  • to make a point about free speech they were standing up they were they were

  • kind of doing the what I call the administrative two-step but in a

  • slightly different form they were showing that they had the First

  • Amendment guts or whatever it is that they had so if your editor of your

  • student newspaper knew that this was false what was going to publish it

  • nevertheless it's because he had some what shall I say glorified notion of the

  • First Amendment and regarded the doctrine of free speech as something

  • like a theology and a lot of people who are free speech polemicists that is

  • proponents of free speech in a strong way in fact that is their theology

  • because most of them don't have any other theology so that's the theology

  • that they have I don't know you're totally perplexed I guess if I were an

  • editor and that thing came to me I wouldn't publish it would you all right

  • so we're in agreement perfect agreement we are coming late and we have time for

  • one more question thank you thank you thank you for your question first fish I

  • read in presser Shaw's class a couple of years ago your your book are not your

  • book part of your book that you mentioned earlier there's no such thing

  • as free speech and it's a good thing to which i think is really catchy title by

  • the way and I was wondering something about your

  • view ever since I read that I'm glad to have the opportunity to ask you are

  • familiar with the now no longer used practice in Roman Catholicism of the

  • excommunication Vitton de say also don't talk to them or read them I know I don't

  • I think I may have but refresh my memory or or inform me or both

  • basically the church like identify someone and says okay this person hasn't

  • met the grounds for communication and we're going to apply this extra sensor

  • to them of also Catholics aren't allowed to read them or like discuss with them

  • forbidden books pretty much and you know one one fairly common position to hold

  • on this is that's bad because it limits free speech it limits the circulation of

  • ideas that sort of thing based on both what I read from that book of yours as

  • well as your example of the religious mother earlier it doesn't seem like

  • that's the position that you take and I'm just wondering what position you do

  • take well well first of all I'm not a Catholic so any position that I take is

  • limited in its I so I suppose relevance and resonance by that fact but I but I

  • would say that what the quote-unquote defenders of the faith we're doing was

  • defending the faith a V that's the business they're in see they're not in

  • the free-speech business which is of course the same thing I say about

  • universities universities are not in the free-speech business sometimes free

  • speech and this is true also of religious institutions sometimes free

  • speech concerns and values intersect with academic concerns but that's

  • accidental it's like the very thin part of a Venn

  • more often they they do not a weighted said I say this in the book when I'm

  • talking about I'm talking about in the book in the in the religion chapter

  • which no one reads apparently but which I hope all of you will read I'm talking

  • about all these cases that have come up recently where bakers and florists and

  • photographers wish to turn away couples gay couples and not participate in the

  • celebration of their marriage and then that leads to the court cases which

  • we've already had and believe me there are more in the pipeline and they're

  • green in words where you have a conflict between two irreconcilable points of

  • view on the other hand the point of view in which fidelity to deity into doctrine

  • is paramount and therefore it would be wrong from the point of view of the

  • deeply religious photographer or Baker to lend his or her services to an

  • activity his or her religion considers sinful and then on the other side you

  • have the idea that anyone who hangs up a shingle or opens a storefront is in fact

  • obligated to service any customers that come that that come seeking goods or

  • services that I said a moment ago this is not something that can be reconciled

  • and this is what I meant before when I said religion is a special thing

  • religion is a special thing because fidelity to what you understand to be

  • the commands of your deity Trump's if you'll pardon the use of the word trumps

  • all other all other possible obligations some of you may have seen the movie a

  • man for all seasons which is the story of st. Thomas More and which

  • I taught earlier in the semester in a brilliant performance by the academy

  • award act morning actor Paul Scofield Thomas More in this movie does his best

  • to avoid the point where he has to choose between fidelity to what he takes

  • to be the will and doctrine of God on the one hand and fidelity to the

  • legitimately legitimately instituted laws that Parliament has

  • passed he wants to avoid it well finally he can't avoid it and as the result of

  • which his head is cut off it's and again it's not that religious persons of the

  • kind that I'm discussing don't value respect for others or value the

  • individual rights of persons no matter what their beliefs it's just that the

  • religious sensibility that I am discussing doesn't worship them that is

  • religious persons worship God they don't worship mutual respect or

  • non-discrimination or any of those things

  • they worship God and you can only understand religion if you in fact

  • recognize that fact in fact recognize that fact but what liberalism wants to

  • do to religion is to turn it into just one more discourse or to use a verb a

  • verb that I intensely dislike they want to pluralize it they want to make

  • religion into just some other kind of discourse which has a claim to our

  • attention but not an ultimate claim to our attention if a religion is a

  • religion the claim it is making on our attention is ultimate all the time I

  • want to go back to that quote from the New Republic it is true one doesn't need

  • to agree with the professor fish but it is certainly worth listening to the

  • provoked they run with one's own version of it

  • Stanley thank you very much for coming

it is my pleasure to welcome you all to this a conversation tonight with Stanley

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it