Skip to main content

tv   2018 Printers Row Lit Fest - Authors Discuss Free Speech  CSPAN  July 28, 2018 4:00pm-4:50pm EDT

4:00 pm
>> you are watching book tv on c-span2. .. the role emotions play in "driving our politics." allen dershowitz outlines the constitution's criteria for impeachment of a pratt. a talk about the paths that three friends can do after they immigranted in the nuss the late 1980s and a psychotherapist discusses how political defenses are hurting personal relationships.
4:01 pm
and offers remedies to the problem. that's just a few of the programs on booktv this weekend. for a complete schedule visit booktv.org. [inaudible conversations] >> welcome to the 34th annual "chicago tribune" prison are's row litfest. our program will be broadcast live on c-span's booktv. if there's time for the q & a session, we ask you to use the microphone at the center of the room so the home viewing audience can hear you question. ask you to silence your phone and turn off your camera flashes. welcome today's moderator, jeffrey stone, a professor at
4:02 pm
the university of chicago. [applause] >> thank you. i'm delighted to be here. particularly with these two truly remarkable scholars and authors. laura kipnis' work folk kuss on politics and popular culture am professor of media study at northwestern university and her bikes "unwanted advances. ment sexual prayer -- paranoia comes to campus." nadine strossen was the first woman in the youngest person ever to lead the aclu. she is a professor at new york law school and her most recent book is it couldled "hate. why we should resist it with
4:03 pm
free speech, not censorship. these are two powerful and original thinker sory i'll stay out of their way. let me begin by asking you, why you decided to write this particular book at this particular moment in time. laura? >> i have to say that it didn't start out to become a first amendment champion or free speech advocate. was thrust into it just briefly the back story of my situation was i had written an essay bows sexual politics and paranoia on campuses in the ken kole of higher occasion, there's a student protest to me, student marching to the president's office demanding i was censured but i took an ironic tone and i think that's not allowed at the current moment. i got brought up on title
4:04 pm
ix complained for the essay. so that led me to write this book, and then i was brought up on title 9 complaints for the second time for writing the book so it's been very interesting and a middle of a lot of different debates about free speech, about title ix, sexual politics and paranoia on campus and the sort of conditions of the left at the moment. i think of myself as someone on the left who was then attacked by students who think over themselves as on the left or feminist students. so briefly, that was the impetus. >> laura, it would be helpful to explain what title ix is. >> it's so much my crime -- thank you. it's the news because betsy devos and the department of education but briefly in 2011,
4:05 pm
the department of education expand title ix which had been designed to insure protection, equal protection for -- in regards to gender for students on campus which would mean funding for women's sports, so there should be gender equality in all issues related to education. in 2011 it was expanded to clue sexual misconduct. the thinking was was that women students or all students are not going to have gender equality if they're subject to sexual misconduct. so this is created just a vast bureaucracy, sex bureaucracy or sex police it's been called on campus, adjudicating mostly situations about drunken sex between students and faculty caught up in the situations, both because relationships between faculty, romantic
4:06 pm
relations between faculty to students are prohibited and had sort of mocked regulations about professor-student dating. it spurred me to take a mocking tone about the new regulation. what happened is that my argument in the book is that the level of sexual paranoia is increased so much you have this climate of increasing accusation on campuses with particularly students and particularly female students more and more charging or alleging various types of misconduct against them, both peer -- in peer situations like hookups gone bad or drunken hookups where people don't remember what happened and faculty who are seen to be, say, sexually suspicious. i've seen -- what happen every are after i brought about -- i was barraged with e-mails from
4:07 pm
professors and students all over the country who have been brought up on what they thought were false charges or false allegations, and i started hearing the things people were being charged with which included such things as improper eye contact or suspicious contact or telling jokes somebody didn't like in an offcampus bar. so it was both speech situations which we'll be talking about, but also microbodily conduct, like putting your arm around someone, or kissing someone on the -- a professor kissing somebody on the forehead at a christmas party. so the -- there hey have been initially real reasons to expand title ix and address the various kinds of sexual the crimes alleged are more and more minor in what i've been hearing.
4:08 pm
>> so the reason that i wrote my book for which i had the world's best editor, namely jeffrey stone, was because i am so deeply committed to eradicating hatred and discrimination and stereotyping, and promoting equality and dignity and inclusivity and diversity, and i have come to believe through enormous experience of my own, observing and studying experiences in other countries and throughout history, i profoundly believe that censoring so-called hate speech, much as is may be well-intended, actually in practical impact does more harm than good for those essential causes. the immediate impetus was seeing
4:09 pm
this wonderful, to me, as a human rights activist seeing this wonderful upsurge of college activism and activism in our larger community over the recent test, the silver lining to the cloud of ferguson, where it started, and the widespread public attention to the ongoing problems of police abuse and miscourage justice and now thanks to social media and youtube it's all in our faces much more than it was before. having been a campus activist for social justice causes myself in the '$60 and '7s so and the observing college students being mostly passive in the intervening years, it's been 2011 see this resurgence of activism in support of racial justice against violence, against women in favor of immigrants rights and other good
4:10 pm
causes, but it's been very disspiritting to me to see so many incidents and anecdotal incidents and then survey data, indicating that too many stunts and in fact too many faculty members and members of the general community see free speech as the enemy rather than what i am absolutely convinced it actually is, and that is the time-tested ally. and more important than any own belief, i quote throughout the book leaders of the civil rights movement, the struggle for racial justice throughout our history, going back to the abolition movement, advocates of women's rights, as jeff's wonderful book has documented, and gay rights. anybody who has been advocating for social exchange justice throughout our history, not surprisingly, their views are seen as being dangerous and hated and even hateful. so, i think it does more harm
4:11 pm
than good to give the government, including universities, power to pick and choose which ideas are going to be suppressed under that inherently subjective standard. >> so, both of you are reacting in part to changes in certain generation of our society who at some level, you agree with, but have gone too far in their passion for protection of women's rights or protection of minorities against hateful expression. what do you think caused this to happen? what do you think caused the movement and this generation to good another only in an active visit way, but to take out a point where you both find it appalling. >> one thing that i think we also want to talk about is the due process issue, and i mean
4:12 pm
it's sort of a -- this is a round-about way of answering the what happen question. one thing i discovered in investigating title ix and going through the price twice myself and talking to so many other people who have gone through it is there's -- i think less and less appreciation of the necessity for due process and this sort of sense, i think particularly among students -- and i see this on my own campus -- if a greater good become see serve, like itself racial or sexual justice can be achieved or equality can be achieved that due process doesn't matter because there's -- phrases like being on the right side of history, or the sort of belief that institutions behind closed doors are doing the right thing, and thus due process protection don't matter. so, say next title ix appropriation you have people found guilty and their lives kind of wrecked in the process
4:13 pm
based on no standards of evidence, and based -- even anonymous accusations can be adjudicated now. so all of the -- you guys as lawyers, know more about this than i do but -- i can't exactly answer the question why there is not appreciation for due process, including the fact that in these situations where rights are spend, it's always going to be minorities, which includes students of color, queer students, queer professors, people who are getting reamed behind closest doors and nobody knows about it including the people who are favor of this full speed forward with the process. and right don't really matter. >> i think part of what laura is saying there's an attitude that the end justifies the means, that there is such a consuming commitment to be in favor of
4:14 pm
women's safety and against any kind of sexual misconduct and for universities to be seen as being so strongly on those positions, that they will bend over backwards to -- some subordinate all other concerns, including academic freedom inch terms of targeting free speech, which has happened the context that laura talked about, i think so people can be found cull panel of -- culpable of title '9violations according to the federal government and campuses merely for saying something that is subjectively perceived by a particular member of the campus community as being unwelcome or making them uncomfortable. so -- >> creating a hostile environment is the term.
4:15 pm
>> that segways over to -- that's a form of hate speech, bill the way i put it in quotation marks because it's not a recognizes legal term of art because the supreme court never has defined a category of speech in terms of its hateful or hate message and said it's categorically excluded from of the third happened protection. contrary the court said the bedrock principle of our free speech juris prudence is that government may never punish speech because of its viewpoint or its idea, message-content. no matter how hated or hateful that is no matter how controversial it is, how uncomfortable it makes anybody feel, that's not a justification for suppressing it, and as a point of personal privilege, i told ore moderator i'd like to mention the enact that one of the most important supreme court
4:16 pm
decisions came from the very venue where we now are. jones, which is now called jones college prep, was in the 1960s and '70s called jones commercial high school, and a gentleman named early mostly, an african-american postal worker complained but the fact this school was then 99% white and took it -- today i was delighted read that it's 90% minority. so his protest, which i'll tell you about, obviously bore fruit. he would picket every day with signs saying, jones commercial school discriminates against black students. it's get a black quota. and that was legal until a new law was adopted in chicago that made it illegal and basically
4:17 pm
said that you could picket near a school but only with a message that -- labor disputes but not his message protesting racial discrimination, and in a wonderful opinion that not coincidentally was written by their thurgood marshal, the first african-american justice on the supreme court, well-known for having been a lawyer with the naacp who was one of the lawyers who argued brown versus board of education, strike down racial segregation in public schools emthe court said in fact the court based the decision on equal protection principles, explicitly and then said the first amendment is also involved because the first amendment above all else protects equality in the field of ideas. now, i haven't answered you question, jeff, so -- should i
4:18 pm
good ahead? okay. i think that with respect to speech that is hated or controversial or that conveys hateful ideas there has never been strong support for the constitutional protection. here we are, very close to skokie, illinois, which most people know, especially in this part of the country, in 1977, a group of neokneesies wanted to demonstration in skokie, which had a large jewish population, many of whom are holocaust survivors and the organization i was proud to head, the aclu, despite dish should say because of our commitment to human rights and complete rejection of the nazi's message, represented them -- i should say represented their free speech rights. it was resounding victory in the courts of law but in the court of public opinion, it was such an unpopular position that the
4:19 pm
aclu, this organization of die hard free speech absolutists, we lost 15% of our membership and that was back in 1977. so i think it's been a chronic problem. people see a hateful message and say -- it's common sense, let's get rid of it. a way to prevent the hate. >> laura, how common is sexual assault on campus? what role does alcohol do you think play in all of is? and what circumstances do you think colleges and universities should punish sexual assault? >> wow. one of the problems with answering that question and with investigating title ix? general is that none of this information is really made public in terms of what types of cases are being adjudicated on campuses. so there are all sort-of-alarming statistics. i myself am kind of aing aist at
4:20 pm
best but -- agnostic about statistics and one in five or one in four being sexually assaulted because they're flood alarm gist incendiary ways and i you've start three-quarter methodologies of these surveys, none of them are nationally representative, et cetera, et cetera. so, rather than debating the statistics, what i try to do any book was talk to students about their actual experiences and make public some of what i think is -- we don't have enough information because owl of the this stu happens behind closed doors. one thing i wanted to tragic on to bough what nadine was saying, with the skokie decision, you're arguing these things in public and people are taking public positions. what happened on campus is all of this happens behind closed doors and very much not
4:21 pm
accessible to public scrutiny. so we don't know on what basis campus officials are deciding what is or isn't sexual assault. so, there's what we do know issue think, is there's an incredible amount of gender bias, for example, so that if there's an accusation of sexual assault among two drunken students and that's statistically -- if you believe the statistics, it's 80% or 90% of the cases involve drunken sex -- that lead to accusations, it's always the guy that is accused or is found guilty if two students are drunk. so, behind closed doors the gender stereotypes are being reproduced. and also, just to go back to the speech thing for a moment, i think that the cases involving speech are also being adjudicated behind closest doors and nobody knows because there are gag orders on respondents,
4:22 pm
people accused of these things. gag order about talking but it. so whenever i'm asked these questions, they're very difficult to answer because the information i have is largely anecdotal. there aren't nationally -- not any kind of data pools about these adjudications iches will say i just yesterday had coffee with a woman whose daughter had been brought up on title ix complaint and found guilty of title 9 condition complaints for a piece of writing that was an essay written in class that another student had issues with. this went through a process at a liberal arts college and the student who was accused, woman student, was found guilty of sexual harassment. so, this is the stuff that needs to be discussed publicly. how these categories are getting vastly expanded and nobody knows
4:23 pm
about it because the people being accused are threatened with more charges, like retaliation, et cetera, if they speak about it publicly. >> the question, though in what -- how would you define the circumstances in which you think the college or university should punish an allegation of sexual assault? >> it's really tough because the investigator does not have anything resembling fact-finding capability. they have no ability to decide or even assess whether somebody is telling at the truth or not telling the true. often time inside very murky alcohol-fueled experience. had access to the records of two title ix investigations against a professor on campus, and the results of these ajude indications, and i kind of parsed the findings so the
4:24 pm
standard of evidence in title 9 or the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence which mines 50-50 plus a feather. so how that -- how those decisions are being made is what i was able to scrutinize closely because i had access to two setoffs records that normally would not be made public. in my believe -- i'm not a lawyer but preponderance was not reach -- was reached in the assumption was that just an accusation itself sufficed to season preponderance to bring the bar above 50% so once again i think there needs to be daylight public scrutiny how these decisions are being made, and whether they -- there's the capability to make enemy any kind -- make them in any kind of fair way on campus i. can't answer the question but part of the issue is who is making the decisions, who goes into the
4:25 pm
title ix field and what agendas some of these people are wishing to play out in these findings, and i think they're just needs to be more scrutiny of thisoo. >> in addition to the horrendous violations of academics freedom, due process rights, free speech rights, it's also counterproductive to the goal of advancing women's equality and dignity, and that definitely ties in with a big theme in my book, because a lot of social psychologists, not just say activist, including feminist racial justice active cysts, say we are disempowering our young people and overwhelmingly women by constantly preaching to them they should be seeing themselves as victims. so i take very seriously the power of speech. that's why i recognize its power, including power to do a
4:26 pm
lot of harm as well as a lot of good but it's power that we can control as individuals. so that is why we have that old saying, sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt us. when did they tell us that? when we were crying because somebody said something that hurt us. so it wasn't a factual statement. it was a statement of exhortation. don't let the words hurt you. you can learn to rise above it. and social psychologists say that even the most vial, hate speech, will not necessarily have a negative impact on people. it all depends on what your perception is. in fact, we can all cite many examples of people who say, hateful things and we look down on them. we don't look down on the despaged people or feel it's hurting us ourselves. i want to emphasizes that for
4:27 pm
me, the only verb in the title of my book is "resist." i'm looking for a way to effectively resist hate, and i think that censorshipes demonstrably counterproductive. the session before us had authors who are writing about strategies that use free speech, among other nonsensorral tools to make a constructive difference. i had read christian's book before hand, and so moved about his own odyssey away from being not only a hater but the leader of a hate mongering organization to now become the head of a national and now an international organization. he and i had a chance to talk above this panel and we agreed if you're going accuse a hater of being -- committing a crime, which is what hate speech is in canada and many european donees,
4:28 pm
that is not a constructive way to recruit them away from their hateful ideas and actions. >> just remind you in five minutes we'll open the floor for questions so think but the questions you road like to. and nadine you mentioned in passing and spend time on it in the book, the fact that although our supreme court has clearly held that laws prohibiting what are generally called hate speech, the speech that degrades individuals based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation so on, is fully protected by the first amendment and cannot be punished in the united states. many of the countries have laws against hate speech. so how do those laws work in practice? >> in practice, they have been completely ineffective at best in countering the same problems we still have is in country and i'm the last person to say we
4:29 pm
can rest on our laurels but at the proking we have made in reducing discrimination and discriminatory violence, is despite the absence of hate speech laws, i don't know how much people follow what is hag been going nonburt a frightening rise of racist violence and discrimination as well as speech, against various minority groups, then rise of antisemitism is really frightening. the rise of violence against immigrants, against refugees, against muslims, against various minority groups groups groups at surprise me was in lying of that experience, how many european human rights activists and how many international agencies are urging those countries to move more in the direction of the united states and to rely on civil society, through counter-speech, antidiscrimination gnaw laws, laws against discriminatory
4:30 pm
violence. >> laura, you mentioned earlier about a recent incident you became aware of, which is quite revealing. do you want to talk about that? >> yeah. some -- a friend of mine posted something on facebook that he thought was humorous, having to do with resigning from the white race because of being embarrassed by the actions of white parents and children in a restaurant in harlem, and he wrote what he thought was a sort of funny post about this on facebook. so, what was interesting, this got picked up by white supremacist and spread around the white supremacist web site, and this is something that the professor at a research university in the east, and the white supremacist and the neo-nazi groups start not just sending him endless e-mail width death threats and telling him they're going to make sure he loses his job, but calling the
4:31 pm
university with death threats to the point that now the university is launching an administrative hearing to investigate a professor's facebook post. so i just -- what was interesting to me about this, i said this to ever, is that a lot of the discussion that we all have is about social justice, warrior students, threatening the speech of professors profesd maybe professors being afraid of getting complains from the left wing students but also the right. we're getting it from all of these different sides that -- and one thing i want to say about this last discussion is that this increasing regulation and the increase in allowing colleges and universities to adjudicate the speech and the behavior of students and employees, meaning faculty and staff, it increases the power of the institutions over people's lives and over employees' lives.
4:32 pm
so the fact that a professor is getting investigated for a facebook post or somebody gets investigate for a joke in an off campus bar or i'm investigated for writing an essay, what the people demanding these adjudications -- mostly students and progressive students demanding that institutions step in and oversee the speech and behavior of other students and faculty members -- is that there's this vast increase in the level of bureaucracy, the layers of administration in colleges and universities. so, hiring of professors has stayed flat and the bureaucracy and administration has increased something like 70% in the last couple of decades. a great book called "the fall of the faculty" but the increasing administration, and it's these administrators and bureaucrats who are running the place and their tendency otherwise written on vary i think antiintellectual
4:33 pm
grounds but the decisions and processes are happening behind closed doors. professors themselves are not involved, even professors whose field its to know the history of, say, these arguments or debateness relation to race or gender or speech in the country. these people are not being consult expelled it's the administer -- consulted and that's athat mr.ors running this player, prodded by an activist cadre so the direction in general is a very antiintellectual -- it is less freedom to debate, contested sorts of controversial ideas, less space for those discussions because you have often times students complaining about feeling uncomfortable, about discussions about such things as race and sex or sexuality in
4:34 pm
classrooms. so, somebody has been teaching for a very long time, the direction of the american campus is really shocking and dishearteneddenning to me how much antiintellectual jim is swaying the way these book discussions and adjudications are happening. >> i have to salute laura for her back and these statements because when you reads about the kangaroo court hearings it and takes an enormous amount of courage because even tenured professors, who have -- who are highly respected in their fields as scholars, who have gotten great teaching ratings, can still lose not only their jobs but also their entire life savings, and i'm not going to put you on the spot about you did make comment in your book that you might have thought even
4:35 pm
more than you did about writing what you did if you had known what some of the adverse consequences could be. i think sadly people reading your book might be even more chilled than they already are now. >> i will just say, there's also a civil lawsuit in federal court over the book. so you do find out when you step in say various of these hornet visits there are repercussions available to silence people i ever thought. i thought of myselfs as an ironist and taking positions that might be controversial but is was an and am still a tenured professor and also did grow up thinking there was this thing the first amendment. i just by the way never knew the -- until recently you don't have first amendment protection at a private university you have it at public universities. so i've learn many things about such things as the first
4:36 pm
amendment along the way. >> so please exercise your trying free speech and ask these extraordinary authors authors ad scholars a question and if you don't as a law professor, i can promise i will call on you. >> and here's very tough. >> the microphone. >> it's c-span2 so you have to go to the microphone. >> are you going to the microphone or leaving? >> why are you so timid. you're like students. >> i think it's because we're on tv.
4:37 pm
>> this is your big chance. >> exactly. do any of you have any thoughts on how this stuff with title ix could have taken place under president obama who had been a lecturer on i believe on constitutional law at the university of chicago? >> i think jeff may have hired him. right? >> when i was dean the law school i did hire obama. >> a real paradox because obama, women discovered through the index book, i quote more often than anybody else, he personally was fantastic on precisely issues of free speech at least, but toward the end of his presidency, when there was more and pore more publicity about crack downs on academic freedom and free speech on campus, obama regularly addressed the issue and strongly defended freedom expressly to engage in racist
4:38 pm
speech, expressly to engage in sexist or misogynist speech. so who knows why it was the department of education office of civil rights and the department of justice that acted in way that itself violated the rule of law in effect enacting new legal standards but not through the usual regulatory process that would have allowed all of to us comment on the proposed changes. they did it through informal so-called "dear colleague" letters and i asked about the disconnect but i never got an answer. duo no anything about that? >> i don't exactly. i do think that the -- the distinction between the pure speech issue where obama has been -- both of all president
4:39 pm
and distance being president, extremely forthcoming for a pro free speech police on issue -- position on issues like hate speech but on the other hand thed a energies the department of aid indication on the issue of sexual assault and harassment took a strong position in favor of trying to address what they perceived to be growing and serious issues of sexual assault on university campuses. and i think they saw those issues very different issues. >> except that the definition in the "dear colleague" alert of sexual harassment including what they called verbal conduct, which is another way of describing speech, that anybody found to be subjectively unwelcome. so in edition to all the other problems, it did punish speech that should be protect. >> i was at one point invited to a meeting from people of the department of education and vice president's office, to talk about these issues, after they'd
4:40 pm
become in controversial and it was clear to us at the end of the two-hour meeting that they weren't really interested in hearing anything that we had to say. that they wanted to check that, yes, we did this. and much of the discussion was about the burden of proof issue that laura talked about, that the consensuses was that the burden of proof should not be preponderance of the evidence; that colleges and universities are not very well placed to make fact-finding on issues explosive as these all of the pressures are in favor of finding the accused guilty. and that a low standard of proof like that is just a recipe for disaster was clear they didn't want to hear this. >> repeat what i said before. every wrote about going through the title ix process myself agot a huge number of e-mails who said i've gone through similar
4:41 pm
things it about talk about and i heave ann letters from hr to professors that say if you speak about this, you can lose your job. so they really are under gag orders and the information is just not out there. people don't know what is going on, on campuses behind closed doors. >> remembered an incident that brings together all of these themselves. i was supposed to participating at a panel at american university in the fall of 2017, and the title of it was just something like "title ix" and based on at the tact they were being going to be discussing it and i think the fact that i've been a critic was known, there were protests by students and fact advertise saying that whole panel is hate speech, and should not be allowed to take place on our campus, and guess what it was cancelled. >> i've been called a misogynist for criticizing the title ix process the momentum is on
4:42 pm
that side, these other activist groups. >> professor, i'll forgive you microaggression against former law students. you did cause my anxiety when you mentioned -- i'm seeing this as a situation of threat and response to secure and a response of retreat to security. we're live fog a society where threats can be amplified so easily through the media, through facebook, whatever, and so the threats make this world seem so much more threatening than it probably really is. so, this response is equally out of hand, i would suggest. just want to hear your comments on that. >> that's ha really go point and goes back to something that laura discusses in her book and i do in mine as well, that for
4:43 pm
precisely the reason that you're identifying, it really bebehooves those who want to protect people's sense of safety, right, and security, as well as their freedom, because how can you be free if your constantly afraid to -- it behooves us not to exaggerate their vulnerability, to instead instill in them self-confidence and their -- trust in their own ability to make decisions, to handle stressful situations, but not in a way that is infantallizing or depending on a paternalistic university or government to somehow protect them. >> i talk about this sort of security state ethos of this, and once again, that's a -- sounds like a conspiracy theorist but this does work well
4:44 pm
for the institutions because it increases their power, powers of surveillance, powers of control over employees and students. so there is this just like vast transfer of power upward from the people like, say, employees, faculty, to administrators. so it's not exactly against their interests. >> that's really good point. just the way it beloves expansion of government power to constantly be talking about the danger of terrorism and people willing to give up their rights. >> think about how much surveillance hans increased -- surveillance has increased since 9/11, it's so normalizes we take it for grant. >> and that faculty members' e-mails are being collected and insuspected by the university. >> yes. >> yes? >> thank you very mump -- very much for this interesting talk.
4:45 pm
i read in an article in the "los angeles times" that the favor of send censorship as increased from 22% to 30%. i was wondering if you have any explanation. what happened the last two years? >> those in favor of censorship? >> according to he gallup survey in the "los angeles times." >> every read so many similar surveys throughout my entire adult lifetime and they've been similarly depressing i. don't think it really has changed. i think it just goes against our nature to defend speech for ideas we dislike. this was summarized best by the title of a book by my friend, nat, who died several years ago, called "freedom of speech for me but not for thee: how the left and right rerentlessly censor each other."
4:46 pm
i. 1991 was he 200 knowledge in anniversary of the biffle of rights including the first amendments the american bar association, the lawyers organization, based here in chicago, did a survey of adults americans, and a large substantial majority didn't even know what the bill of rights is, when they were told what it is, including the first amendments, majority said, let's get rid of that and there were a majority who wanted to censor whatever they considered dangerous speech at the time. so after 9/11 it would have been anything that threatens national security. after school shootings, anything that might trigger no pun intended -- school violence and now we have panic about -- concern but racism and hatred and it's always like a politically cheap, quick fix. let's just get rid of the superficial manifestation and forget bought the hard work of
4:47 pm
dealing with the underlying root causes of these problems. >> can i just say something in one thing after i realized every came up against the title ix practices, don't like being told what to do and what i can and can't say and realized i had been raised as an american child, reading books and seeing movies that emphasized individuals standing up against mobs. if they don't want us to stand up against mobs, why did they mick us all read "to kill a mockingbird" as children. my education in terms of american tradition, books about heroic individuals, kind of led me to the point where i ended up standing up against -- to an institution or federal whatever it is code. so i do think like to draw more on that american individualist tradition is a way to stand up
4:48 pm
against ideas about censorship because who does the censoring? what committee decided what articles we can write or say in classes and that sort of thing. >> that's such a great point. the next book that is flashing through my mind was huck finn and that's the message of the book and how to being censored because of a particular word in it. >> on that happy note, i want to ask you to join me in thanking may dean and laura, who are just, as i said two brilliant scholars. these books are emnatalie -- emnatalie accessible and readable and rem them to you. join me in thanking these two people. [applause] >> thank you very much for attending today's program. books can we purchased and
4:49 pm
signed outside the auditorium. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> interested in watching more of the become fairs and festival we have covered over the years? this is booktv.org doering, and click on the book fairs and festivals tab on the page. all of our festival coverage can be viewed by selecting from the

46 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on