that's really as far as i can take that question. >> about the russians. i know you're aware of the reports of what president putin has said in st. petersburg, and he has this comment about saying he -- he endorses or approves of u.s. proposals to add members of the opposition to the current government, to the active government in damascus. is there any u.s. proposal for opposition members to join the assad government or a government in which assad remains in power? >> no. >> okay. do you have any idea what he's talking about? >> no. >> the secretary has not broached any such possibility in his many conversations with foreign minister lavrov? >> no means no. >> thank you. >> wouldn't the violent toppling of the syrian government directly benefit isis? >> the toppling of the assad government benefit isis?

>> that would be directly to the benefit of isis. >> look, i -- i'm not going to speculate about what would or wouldn't benefit da'esh. to some degree -- the secretary has talked about this -- there is a symbiosis between the assad regime and da'esh. he said that many times. it's through assad's brutality that da'esh has been able to fester and grow into ungoverned spaces. one of the things that we have talked about routinely, although we haven't talked about it recently, is we understand that, while the future of syria cannot include bashar al assad, as we work through the -- as we work through this political process to a transitional governing body we recognize that some institutions of government, for instance, security forces, in some form or fashion, has to stay intact so that there isn't

a complete collapse of an appropriate governs infrastructure inside the country as we work through this difficult transitional process. >> if the syrian government were to immediately fall what would happen to syrian christians and alawites? >> i can't engage in hypotheticals about a situation that we're obviously trying to avoid. it isn't about the fall of the regime. we're trying to get to a transitional process of governance that preserves some of the existing infrastructure going forward but that at the end of the process gets us to a government that is put in place by the syrian people with their voices being heard and it doesn't include bashar al assad. >> are you aware of the statement made by president putin to -- actually warning the united states not to target assad, that was made today? >> i have not seen that public comment. >> how would you react to such a warning. >> there are no u.s. efforts to target bashar al assad.

that's not part of the calculus. i have been standing up here for 15 minutes saying that we're trying to work through a transitional process that is syrian led. that's the goal. that's the policy. that's still what we're pursuing. >> clarify one thing about the dissent channel memo. the foreign affairs manual does, as i understand it, call for disciplinary action against people who share dissent messages with unauthorized personnel. are you saying there would be no attempt made to find out who leaked the memo and discipline? >> we -- i can't speak to and we're not focused on how it made its way into the public domain. it came to us yesterday through the dissent channel process. we are going to protect the sanctity of this process. and our focus is on the moment it came through the dissent channel process, it became a

dissent channel message, and it's from that time on that we're focused in terms of protecting the sanctity of the process and the content of the material of the message. okay? >> turkey. >> turkey? i never thought that i would be glad to get to curbingturkey. oh, no. go ahead. >> john, i don't understand. the secretary calls this an important memo that was sent, but everything you're saying here today is very similar to what has been said for months. is there any chance that this memo will lead to a modification in u.s. policy? as i said, carol, no one is intent with the status quo of what's going on in syria. and even as we continue to pursue what you guys have commonly referred to as plan a, right, political process, cessation of hostilities,

humanitarian -- a political solution. even as we continue to pursue that we are, as we must because it would be irresponsible if we didn't, look at other options. none of those other options are better than the one we're pursuing. that doesn't mean we're not going to look at them and the potential for them. and the secretary is contributing to that process. as a cabinet official and as is his responsibility as a secretary of state. he continues to examine those other options, and he will provide his advice and counsel to the president appropriately. so we're obviously interested in looking at other views and other alternatives. and in that vein, again, without getting to the content of this message, we welcome those views being proffered by employees here at the state department, regardless of their number, regardless of where these individuals are serving.

this is the purpose for the dissent channel. it's a valuable tool, and the secretary greatly respects it. so he wasn't wrong to call it important when you have your own employees using this very special channel to provide their views, all the way to the top. that's a special thing, and he wants to reflect that completely. he looks forward to, when he gets back, to working his way through the message. and where that takes us, if it takes us anywhere, i don't know. and it wouldn't be proper for me to speculate one way or the other. >> can i follow up on carol? >> on carol? >> yes. >> sure. >> you just said -- >> your question on turkey is like so getting lost now. i'm just like -- [ laughter ] >> it's going to be an unsatisfying briefing, my friend. >> you stated that no one is content with the way things are now in syria and that other options are being considered. but is there a reluctance within the part of the administration

to launch a dramatically different policy in syria so late in the obama administration's term? is that one of the hesitancy? you would launch something and it, in essence, could not be carried out until the next president took over? >> if you're asking if the secretary by dint of the calendar is simply not going -- going to remain high-bound and not willing to try new approaches or to propose new approaches to the president to consider, the answer is absolutely not. you know the secretary as well as anybody, pam. you know how engaged and energetic he is on syria, how seriously he takes the situation there. and the amount of time and energy that he has personally invested in diplomatic efforts to try to get to better outcomes in syria. i can assure you that, for every day he remains secretary of state, he will remain focused

and fixed on trying to get that political solution in syria. so that, you know, life can be better for the millions of syrians that are still there and hopefully the ones that will eventually one day want to go home. and he is going to remain open, as he has remained open, to different ideas, different approaches, new alternatives. and frankly, pam, not even new ideas that just come from the united states government or here at the state department. he remains in close touch with all the other foreign ministers of the nations in the issg and at the u.n. and continues to solicit views from them as well. this is a secretary of state who, above all things, remains open-minded. i think you can be secure in the knowledge that that will remain so for as long as he is in office. and i promised this guy we would go to turkey.

see? you shouldn't have told me what it was about. we'll go to turkey first and then i'll get back to you. >> thank you, john. just today the governor of isstan bul declared he has banned lgbt individuals from holding a pride march which has been held over a decade in istanbul peacefully, at the heart of istanbul. this is coming after currently the orlando attack. do you have a comment? >> i don't know that i have -- well, let me put it this way. we have seen the reports that the governor of istanbul will not allow the pride parade. we strongly support, as i think you know, the rights of lgbt individuals to exercise peacefully and exercise their freedom of expression and we'd certainly like to see that

happen in istanbul. >> this is another part of the human rights erosion that happening in turkey. it has been happening for a while. how worried you are about the direction of democracy in turkey? >> we have talked about this before. obviously we're troubled when we see turkish leaders make decisions that are not in keeping with the democratic principles that are enshrined in their own constitution. turkey is a friend and an ally. we want to see turkey succeed. we believe that one of the best ways for turkey and the turkish people to succeed is to live up to those democratic principles. yes, it concerns us when we see decisions like this and trends towards closing down freedom of expression as we've seen in turkey of late. it's deeply concerning. thank you. >> eritrea. >> eritrea.

okay. >> so the government of eritrea is accusing the government of united states of instigating a fight over the weekend along its border with ethiopia. my question for you, is there any truth to this accusation? >> no. it was an easy question. there is no truth to it. look, we -- the united states, including our missions in both capitals and our mission to the u.n. are to continue to engage with both ethiopia and eritrea to urge restraint and prevent escalation. last night the commission of inquiry report on eritrea recommended u.n. member states and international organizations insist on the impletation of the 2002 decision by the eritrea-ethiopia boundary commission on the delimitation of the border. we call on eritrea and ethiopia to respect commitments they made on this border dispute.

>> is there other diplomatic efforts you can tell us about to maintain -- to address the concerns? >> look, we're in touch with officials on both sides, as you would expect that we would be and certainly in consultation with the u.n. on this. >> can you confirm if he's -- >> i'll go to you. it's okay. >> all right. >> is he going to qatar? >> i have nothing new to announce on the secretary's travel today? >> some are saying he is going to go and meet -- >> i have nothing new to announce on the secretary's travel. yes, sir. go ahead. you have been very patient. >> thank you. according to associated press there is heavy fighting between the democratic party of iran kurdistan and the military crop in the kurdish city in iran. i would like to know whether you

have any information on this and if you -- what can you tell us in this regard. >> no and therefore no. i don't have any information on this. sir. okay. >> i have two question on ukraine. the first one is regarding crimea. as we know, you agreed on friday to extend for one year it's sanctions against russia for annexation of crimea. what does it mean for the efforts to restore borders of ukraine and post-war europe? >> we welcome the european union's decision today to roll over sanctions that are enacted in response to russia's attempted annexation of crimea. our own sanctions will remain in place as long as russia's occupation continues. we are heartened to see that our friends and allies in the eu have decided to extend their own sanctions for another year.

our view is well known. crimea is and will always remain a part of ukraine. we cannot allow the borders of europe to be redrawn at the barrel of a gun. immediate end to the russian occupation of crimea. >> the second question, about secretary kerry's plans to visit ukraine. the office of ukrainian president said today that there is a probability that u.s. secretary of state will visit ukraine in the near future. at the nuclear summit. can you confirm these plans? >> no. i have nothing on the secretary's schedule to announce today. if and when we do, we'll certainly let you know. >> are you working on this? >> i have nothing -- i have nothing on the secretary's travel schedule to speak to today. >> okay. >> all right, guys. have a great weekend!

and following up on some of the questions you may have heard about that internal document signed by some state department officials protesting u.s. policy in syria, the hill reports that russia is warning the united states against targeting syrian president bashar al assad after a report that u.s. diplomats are urging the obama administration to do just that. toppling assad, quote, wouldn't help a successful fight against terrorism and could plunge the region into total chaos. kremlin spokesman pes cov said earlier today according to the he associated press. russia is one of assad's few international backers and has been conducting air strikes since september. you can read more at the hill.com. in phoenix, the democratic national committee is holding its platform hearings ahead of its july 25th through the 28th convention in philadelphia. we have live coverage now on c-span, also, tomorrow at noon.

and here is more on the presidential race. a new bloomberg politics national poll out this week shows hillary clinton with a 12-point lead over donald trump. that is a national survey. but what about the battle ground states? steven sheperd. campaign editor for politico, has been looking into that. he is joining us on the phone. thank you for being with us. >> good to be here. >> let's take a snapshot in some key parts of the country. in the south. virginia and florida. what did you find in the race between hillary clinton and donald trump? >> sure thing. we took a good look at the polls in these states, and right now, in both states, we found hillary clinton with a slight lead. in florida, if you take the five most recent polls which go back to about late april -- so they're all pretty contemporary. hillary clinton is up by an average of a little over three points. one of the polls, though, shows

her up by 13. so that's kind of skewing things a little bit. the others, more recent surveys, this clinton up one, up one, up three. trump up one. those are consistent. the slight clinton advantage. in virginia, another state where you will find a lot of -- a lot of attention from the candidates. hillary clinton has a larger lead there in an average of the last five polls, about nine points. the polls all come from two in-state academic pollsters. roanoke college and newport university. the most recent is a roanoke poll from last month which had them tied. that may suggest tightening, though it's also possible -- you mentioned the bloomberg poll at the top of the discussion. since locking down the democratic nomination and becoming the presumptive nominee, hillary clinton may be getting a bump out of the news. the poll may reflect that. we'll have to wait until more

polls. the last to polls had them tied. >> a third southern state that you are focusing on, north carolina. has this become a new battle ground state? >> it most certainly has. it's one of the closest states in 2008 when barack obama won it. in 2012 it was closely contested. it was the only state that mitt romney was able -- that and indiana were the only states mitt romney was able to flip. it was the only real battleground state mitt romney was able to flip. but it only went to him by two points. so it's a state democrats are thinking based on the already large existing african-american population, the growing hispanic population, the fact that a lot of the white voters there are better educated, the -- there are a lot of now jobs for college educated voters in, for example, the raleigh durham area. charlotte is a growing city. it's an area democrats think they can do well. the polls there are tight but show clinton up two or three

points. the most recent polls in may show a margin of error race. hillary clinton is advertising there this week. it's worth 15 electoral votes. a lot at stake in north carolina. >> let's move to two midwestern states. ohio and wisconsin. and also pennsylvania that you are focusing on. >> right. the polls show differences here. and i think they're also reflecting the fundamentals. wisconsin has not voted for a republican candidate for president since 1984. pennsylvania hasn't voted republican since 1988. ohio, on the other hand, is a more traditional swing state. the polls reflect this. ohio, hillary clinton has a three-point lead in the polls. those -- the three most recent polls there all show a tight race. some give hillary clinton the advantage, some give donald trump the advantage. overall on balance, the slight clinton lead in the last five polls.

in pennsylvania, clinton's lead is about four points, a little bit better. pennsylvania is a state where donald trump won the primary. he thinks that he can flip that state. it's worth 20 electoral votes, so it's very valuable. it's a state with a large white population that he thinks he can do well in. wisconsin, on the other hand, is a state that demographically might look a little bit like pennsylvania but it's a state where donald trump did not win and did very poorly in the primary. and the polls show a lot of weakness there. hillary clinton's lead, about 11 or 12 points in wisconsin. despite some demographic differences, a state that seems more resistant to donald trump. so we'll have to see if that closes moving forward. there was a new marquette law school poll out today giving hillary clinton a nine-point advantage. sort of confirms that she is up by a significant margin in wisconsin. interestingly, i mentioned hillary clinton's ad campaign. she is going up in ohio.

she is not going up in pennsylvania and wisconsin. at least not yet. and that may reflect some confidence about those states. >> of course, all of this important to get to the magic number, 270 electoral votes. when the returns come in on election night, november the 8th, new hampshire is often an early bellwether. you have been looking at polling in that state as well. >> it is an early bellwether. it's only worth four electoral votes, so it's not necessarily the most consequential of the swing states given its size. but the polls there early. it's an east coast state. it's a place where donald trump did very well in the primaries and hillary clinton did very poorly in the primary, losing by a wide margin to berniesanders. so that's worth watching. the polls there give hillary clinton about a seven-point lead, but the two most recent polls in may showed the two candidates neck and neck. and so donald trump getting a little bit of a bounce coming out of his primary victory. we saw that nationally too.

and now there are some indications nationally that these numbers are moving. one thing i want to stress with these battleground state polls. while this is not a national election, and a lot of people will say don't look at the national poll, it's not a national election. it's a state election. we have more national polls right now. w my advice right now is to look at both. there will be more frequent national polls. we have data nationally from how the candidates are being perceived. they're just starting to go around to the swing states and campaign there. the swing state information, that's going to become really, really important as we work our way through the summer and into the fall. right now you sort of could use this as a baseline. the candidates campaigned there in the primary. look at their relative strength compared to where they were strong in their primaries around the country. states where donald trump didn't do as well in the republican primaries. states where hillary clinton struggled in the democratic primaries, those are places to watch as we move into the fall. both candidates -- donald trump will need to recruit a lot of

ted cruz voters in wisconsin. kap to recruit a lot of bernie sanders voters in a state like wisconsin but more so in a state like new hampshire where the margin was so overwhelming. that will be an interesting story line to watch moving forward. >> the debut of politico battleground project available online at politico.com. steven sheperd, campaigns editor. thank you for your time. we appreciate it. >> my pleasure. with the political primary season over, c-span's road to the white house takes you to this summer's political conventions. watch the republican national convention starting july 18th, with live coverage from cleveland. >> we'll be going into the convention no matter what happens, and i think we're going to go in so strong. >> and watch the democratic national convention starting july 25th with live coverage from philadelphia. >> let's go forward. let's win the nomination and in july let's return a unified

party! >> and then we take our fight for social, economic, racial and environmental justice to philadelphia, pennsylvania! >> every minute of the republican and democratic party's national conventions, on c-span. c-span radio and c-span.org. attorney howard bashman is the founder and editor of the blog called "how appealing." which is devoted to federal appellate litigation. he spoke about academic freedom on university campuses. emory university law school hosted this event. [ applause ] thank you, curtis. i am nausea volik, professor here. i am here to introduce howard bashman. howard bashman is a nationally known appellate lawyer who is

based in philadelphia and mainly practices before the third circuit. in 2003 american lawyer media named howard bashman one of pennsylvania's top 40 lawyers under age 40 on the strength of his appellate litigation practice. now, senior judge aldeserc of the third circuit has a book called "winning on appeal." there are many judges and a handful of appellate lawyers who give advice about how to write the best possible brief and win your appellate case. howard bashman is one of the view appellate lawyers who was honored to participate in that book. howard bashman went to college at columbia. he is also a 1989 graduate of emory law school. he was managing editor of emory law journal and got the emory university school of law merit

scholarship. after that howard clerked for two years for judge william hutchinson on the third circuit. another thing that's very important about howard bashman is he is the founder of the blog "how appealing," which is all about the business of the appeal of the federal appeals courts around this country. i remember back in 2002 i am one of the bloggers on a blog called the vola conspiracy which started on april 10th, 2002. that was the very beginning of the public policy and legal affairs blogs. it was a popular blog, insta pundit, also had been just up and running for several months. it was started in august of 2001. vola conspiracy, april, 2002. how appealing started on may 6, 2002, with an opening sentence that went something like, hello and welcome to the first day of the nation's first appellate

blog. and how appealing has always been one of the very best places to go to get news on what's going on in the appellate courts and find out what are the most exciting appellate cases that have been coming down and all of these similar things. so ever since 2002, howard has been very useful to me in my blogging career, and we've known each other since then. anyway, now howard bashman will talk to us about free speech on university campuses. [ applause ] >> thank you, sasha, for that generous introduction. and for the record it was among other things, thanks to a think from the vola conspiracy to my blog in its early existence that my blog began to develop a readership that today supposedly includes even some u.s. supreme court justices who are willing

to admit to it themselves on c-span, that they read my blog every day, which is just an awe-inspiring thing to have someone say about it. they also say they read the vola conspiracy, for the record, as well. thanks to the emory university school of law and to the federalist society student chapter for inviting me to be here today to deliver these remarks. i have been fortunate to deliver remarks to a range of federalist society student chapters from the harvard law school's chapter to the thomas m. cooley law school's chapter in lancinsing, michigan, and many in between. it's special to come home to my alma mater. i was hoping for warmer weather, but i am happy to be here anyway. turning to the topic of my remarks today, let me begin with some good news and some bad news for you regardless of where you

stand on the issue of free speech on campus and student speech codes. in 2016, this year, for the first time ever, since the organization "fire," which stands for foundation for individual rights in education, an organization head quartered in philadelphia, p.a., the number of college campuses that have received that organization's most negative anti-free speech rating has dipped below 50% to 49.3%. that marks, to the present time, eight years during which the number of colleges and universities that have been rated has continued to decrease. eight years ago that number stood at 75%. lest you worry, however, emory university remains part of the

49.3% receiving fire's most negative campus free speech rating. now, if you oppose those restrictions on free speech, before you feel too happy about the fact that the trend has been heading in a positive direction, you should keep in mind that there are other statistics that give rise to a reason for great concern. last october an organization at yale reported on the result of a survey of college students which found that 51% of college students favored campus free speech codes, and 72% favored bringing disciplinary action against students or faculty members who use offensive language. similarly, in november of last year, the pugh research center, another highly regarded polling organization, reported that 40% of people in the millennial age group, from 18 to 34, believe

that government should be able to punish offensive speech. that was the largest percentage of any of the generational groups surveyed. now, of course, in recent months campus protests and news coverage have placed these issues very much into the spotlight of public attention. how have we gotten to this point? where instead of clamoring for a robust and open exchange of ideas and unfettered free speech students are instead calling for safe spaces and trigger warnings and demanding that so-called micro-aggressions and cultural appropriati appropriation, be avoided. indeed, some universities, including a number of public institutions, have created so-called free speech zones, which happen to be conveniently

located very far away from where anyone else ever happens to be. so that ordinary students who might be offended or have their feelings hurt by the free expression of their fellow students don't have to hear or see what's going on. now, i appreciate as much as anyone the need to be considerate of one's fellow human beings. and more to the point, fellow students. and it's also very important in an educational institution to have an atmosphere where people can learn. so it -- an atmosphere that's conducive to learning is, of course, very important. at the same time, however, a central part of the liberal arts experience, maybe the central part, is being exposed to new and perhaps even unpleasant ideas and broadening one's understanding of others as a result.

prohibiting the discussion of unpleasant ideas does not cause those unpleasant ideas to cease to exist. instead, they're just pushed beneath the surface where perhaps they will bubble back up in even more unpleasant ways than if they are the subject of discussion. so, again, how did we get to where we are today in the current state of campus free speech and student speech codes? in the view of many, part of it, and perhaps a large measure, is the fault of the fact that children today are indoctrinated to this culture of political correctness, before they even arrive at college. that there is what's known as the bubble-wrap generation. of course, you bubble-wrap something because you don't want it to get hurt. and helicopter parents who fly in to protect their children from any possible offense that could arise. and that insulates children from the otherwise rough and tumble

world of controversial ideas that exists out in real society. moreover, instead of colleges being run by faculty members as they had been many years ago now, we have the atmosphere where in fact most colleges are run by what's called the bureaucratic class, which happens to be administrators with less understanding and appreciation of the value of free speech. and, not surprisingly, lawyers perhaps are partially to blame. and i regret to say that today. there is what's known as the risk management movement, which has arisen and earns money for itself by giving advice to university administrators about how to avoid lawsuits. and the concern is that more lawsuits would be brought by students in the absence of these free speech codes if free speech was freely allowed than are

being brought as a consequence of having these free speech restrictions. now, aside from the troubling news that today's young people do not appreciate the value of their first amendment rights as much as earlier generations have, there has also been a notable political shift in society. on the one side, you have perhaps conservatives and libertarians, and then the very extreme left, if i could call it that, consisting of the american civil liberties union, which continue to speak out for unfettered college free speech rights. many so-called liberals, unfortunately, are more than ready to trade the rights to campus free speech for a smiley-face world where, at the expense of trying to keep everyone happy, unpopular ideas are forced underground instead of being considered and debated.

even the son of seventh circuit judge richard a. posner. i'm speaking of law professor eric posener, has become a proponent of campus free speech restrictions. according to him today's college students are too immature. free speech can still occur off campus if it can't occur on campus. and, in a bit of the posner family's trademark law and economics analysis, students can take into account an institution's free speech availability in deciding where to go to college, if that is important to that student. as the father of a 20-year-old son myself, i think that professor posner overstates the immaturity problem. he also, i believe, does not have a firm grasp on how

competitive today's college admissions process is. in my experience, evaluating a school's free speech rating and free speech policies tends to be very low on the list of things that people consider in deciding where they wish to go to school. and one of professor posner's other suggestions is that you can go to a state university or a public college as opposed to a private college if free speech really matters to you. but that doesn't seem to necessarily be the answer. because if you look at the f.i.r.e. organization's statistics, public institutions are not much better at recognizing free speech rights than are private institutions. it's interesting to note that over 150 years ago british political philosopher john stuart mill in his famous work titled "on liberty" offered four

reasons why one should favor robust free speech rights. those four reasons resonate as much to me today as i hope they resonated to people at the time that essay was written. the first reason is that an opinion compelled to silence could in fact be true, and to deny that fact assumes our own infallibility, which should not be assumed. secondly in mill's point of view, even an erroneous viewpoint could contain a portion of the truth, just as a prevailing opinion is rarely or never entirely true itself. the third and fourth reasons are also very important. the third reason is that, if an opinion is not challenged and does not need to be defended, then people will hold those opinions without appreciating the reasons why their view to be

true. and fourth, he was concerned that unchallenged opinions could ultimately turn into what he described as dogma, meaning that they would be at risk of perhaps being devalued or discarded themselves because people didn't appreciate why they ever existed in the first place. although mill originally published his "on liberty" essay in 1859, it still has much to teach us today. with regard to offensive or unpopular speech, a university of all places can and should provide the atmosphere where the reaction to such speech is not to silence or punish the speaker but, rather, to respond with speech to the opposite effect and to allow the speaker and listeners to hear and understand the competing viewpoints so that they can decide for themselves what is true and what should be believed.

before turning to the future, it is necessary to say just one more thing about how we got to where we are today. the aclu, in some of its online materials, offers a question and answer in which its defense of campus free speech rights is challenged through questions and defended through answers to the aclu supplies. what the aclu thought was worthwhile to point out was that this free speech rights that were enjoyed by the civil rights protesters of the 1950s and the antiwar protesters of the 1960s were earned defending the unpopular free speech rights of organizations in prior decades. my point is that prevailing political sentiments that exist today can and will change over

time, as we know there is a presidential election coming up. that could have great change in the popular view of what free speech rights should be valuable. unless college students can begin to appreciate the value of robust free speech rights, they and society at large are at risk of a day in the not too distant future where government could succeed in taking away the rights without anyone complaining or even noticing. and that is why i hope that, over time, young people can begin again to value their free speech rights and recognize that the cost of being offended from time to time by the expressions of others is a small price to pay for the rights of liberty and freedom that have produced the society in which we live today. thank you. [ applause ]

>> thanks, howard. so i just have -- i just have a couple comments. i am not in fundamental disagreent with anything that you have said. one data point, which you and i are both interested in as alumni or professors at emory law school is, at emory law school -- so i have been here now for seven years, and i am glad to say that, at least in the law school, and the law school at emory, like at many schools, we're fairly insulated and we don't often go across the street. but at least at the law school i have always felt that free speech and open expression rights have been very robust. now, admittedly, i don't have my finger in everything that goes on, but being involved with the federalist society, that's at least one candidate for if someone -- if someone wanted to shut anyone down, the federalist society would have been a good

candidate. and i don't think anyone has ever tried to shut us down. in fact, one -- here is one incident that happened a few years ago. there is an organization that used to be called the alliance defense fund and now is called the alliance defending freedom, a socially conservative organization. they've done a lot of things, one of which is taken a strong position against gay marriage. in addition and totally separate, they also do litigation on religious freedom issues. we had a person -- we had a person come from adf, and he was going to talk about a religious freedom case that he had lit gated. a second circuit case, maybe you have heard of it, called bronx household of faith. basically in new york. they have all these public schools, and then they're empty during the weekends, and there was a policy of making them available for outside organizations to use as their

meeting spaces. but they decided to they didn't want any churches using the schools during non-business hours. and adf sued on free exercise grounds, that you can't discriminate against religious people in that. i think they're absolutely right in that case. i personally very much pro gay marriage, so i don't agree with what they do in their gay marriage side but on the religious freedom side i think they do excellent work. i was very happy to have them come talk about that case. now, a number of students found out that adf was coming, got upset because of their gay marriage work, and what ended up happening was, i think, an ideal resolution of the issue, which is that there were students from the lgbt organization, outlaw, and they had a table where they were handing out leaflets explaining the position of adf. they came to our meeting with

rainbow pins or rainbow shirts or whatever. they were ready to challenge the speaker if he said anything about gay marriage, which he didn't because the talk was not even about that. and a good time was had by all. and now, admittedly this is not a great example because a greater example would be what if he wanted to speak out against gay marriage. then what would have happened, and the answer is i don't know. but i personally subjectively was never in doubt that we would have been allowed to go forward and the dean would have supported us and that we would still have had a -- a heated but civil discussion, which is exactly the way that these things -- the way these things ought to happen. you mentioned the lawyer culture and risk management. and one interesting thing that's happened recently -- i have a number of friends who are on the faculty at harvard law school, and so, just by reading their

facebook posts i have become aware that -- so there was a documentary called "the hunting ground" which was about rape and sexual assault on campus, and there were a number of professors that spoke out and said this -- this documentary, which took a position very strongly in favor of the victims of rape and sexual assault but had a number of misstatements and misleading -- misleading things. and the makers of the documentary had a statement which i think was published in the harvard crimson where they said that the fact that these professors were speaking out against the truth and reliability of the movie created a hostile environment. now, a naive person might think, a hostile environment, that just means people are mad. no. that's like the nuclear option, because those are the magic trigger words related to

harassment law. so, if you can show that in your workplace or wherever there is a hostile environment, that -- and if you can show that in court, then that could lead to damages for the workplace or the university or whatever. so the idea that people could say, well, you know, rape and sexual assault are really bad but still we have to correct misstatements, we have to care about due process for accused parties and so on. the idea that -- you know, of course, people can disagree on where to draw the line between helping victims and protecting due process rights. there can be a debate about where to draw the line. universities are all about that sort of debate. the idea that people would turn to using the law to either ban or in this case severely disincentivize by means of damages judgments -- that i

think is -- that's -- that's antithetical to free speech and open expression values, and that is driven by -- that is driven by legal developments, driven by harassment law which even outside universities is in substantial tension with the first amendment. but it's the sort of thing where it encourages universities, especially private universities that can get away with it more easily, it encourages universities to take a c.y.a. attitude and, fort the sa the s avoiding damages judgments, just to adopt the least offensive to everybody perspective. so i think that the lawyer culture really potentially plays a strong role in cutting down on speech, much like workplace harassment law even outside of universities. if you are the sort of private employer who you don't really

care if your employees around the water cooler tell jokes or, you know, put little memes or whatever, you know, hang it around their workplace, you don't really care about that. but now if somebody in the workplace can say hostile work environment, all of a sudden that encourages employers to adopt policies where they say no jokes, no self-expression in the workplace and so on. that's very much driven by the need to protect yourself from damages judgments. one other thing is, i -- i agree with you in that you -- you identified the modern-day defenders of free speech on campus with, on the one hand, federalist society types, conservatives and libertarians, and on the other hand strong

bastions of the left like aclu. it's absolutely not a left-right issue. this is a liberal and classical liberal issue, liberal issue, so the liberal left and the liberal right and libertarians are very much the heirs of theñi freei] people/op expression i]ideas,!u john stew mill ideas onu and not just on the grounds of oh, wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a bubble and couldn't be offended because it makes us feel bad,i] but on the left, fo example, it's a militant view that critiques, free speech on the ground that itçó contribute institutionalized racism, institutionalized sexism, and

actually sees open expression as an affirmative harm to be com t combatted, the sort of thing you can read about if you hang out on tumblr, for example.ñr that's anq element of the left liberal. we often casually call people on the right conservatives, people on the right liberals.e1çó but for the purposes of what i'i saying here, callint peoplei] o the left liberals is misleading, because the lefte1 has always bn divided. the anti-liberal left,xd for example, has includedfá marxist and other types of revolutionaries, but many people in the social j,kur(q movement, who can be called liberal, and

want to combat i]lpinjustices, there are many people who says it's actually correct to call çó anti-libera even they would agree that they reject fundamental tenetq it is 1%m59ñ the opponents of free speech on campuses are both the authoritarian right and the authoritarian left, and the defenders are the liberal right liberal left. so it's absolutely noá&p left/right issue.xdlpw3çó the last thing i wanted to talk about it this is something thinklp the proper way ofxd thig thinklp the proper way ofxd thig about freelp speechçó is universities, but given that universities, they are state actors, and absolutely need to

be subject to the first amendment with the broadestfá private universiuke+] are just pái private organization should be able to have whatever sort ofxd grou groups, sorts of rules they like. we could all by like byu, for example and there would bexd nothing morally wrong with that. you could choose to have açó university that says weçó affiliate with this particular religion, and we exist as a space for people to talkfáñ2÷ a the religion within the parameters of the religion. if you're going to say the religion is false, you have the right to do it, but not on our propebt?1et so we're not going to accept you, or you'll that, we c)6 kick youlxout. that's fine. evenxd from a i]nonreligiousçó perspective. there is the university that allies itself or with the inoffensiveness movement.

reinforced ore1t( something. there's nothing morally wrong with that. and e1so, you know, that was so but i thivthat you can't have a university that says we believe in freet(e1 speech,xd b always hasfát(e1q/z if you're up front about it, you don't make a claim to be pro-speech, but to the extent youx

on the value of an qexpression. in that case if youi] violate tt by shutting down a group that5a wants to invite somebody who speaks against affirmative action or ñrislam, whatever, if you shut these people do you and thinkbyj♪ñ you violate the made

given where we both start in our outlook that our viewsçó on thi would not beñr that divergeant. i'm not surprised they haven'tñ keep in mindfá there have beenñ universitiesçó where speakers he been disinvited because that iw views were deemed unpopular. george f. will wasok 9disinvite fromok talking to the universit invitation triggered. he's someone who is published in of emery has a door theu organization

include people want to see what the reasons s7re, as you look a to the emery page, and then to talk last about thev,%wyer culture. one of the things that you

appreciate, there is a practices attorney is that while there might be some correct answers as to legal questions. in law school, when you're out there in the real world. justified by existing law. there's no one with a straight face could be arguing again you, but lo and behold, the other side has a lawyer whose job it is to try to convince a judge that the judge should rule in favor of that side. so part of the legal culture is due to the adver sear system, at least, involves represents positions where there might not be necessarily any support in the law, but to that degree would be responsible for suggesting and versus the

implementation of policies that are just risk averse that students on campus aren't allowed to speak their minds with all the negative consequences that flow from it. >> so, um, actually even though emory has a red light from fir, and i think you're right, some of that might relate to sexual harassment stuff, so that's different, but one place where i give them a lot of credit is just the university senate had a respect policy, and it's admarched and sat on that community, but i'm not here to speak as part of that committee. i'm here just as me. you can go write it.

and that policy on its face and takes a very pro-free speech and free expression. emory university is committed to an environment where the open expression of ideas and open vigorous debate and speech are valued, promoted and encouraged. dot dot dot. this policy reaffirms the university's unwavering -- courageous inquiry through -- dot dot dot, the university is fundamentally and the open expression and the vigorous upon which the advancement of the multifaceted mission extends. civility and mutual respect are core values in our community. this is the sort of language where you see that language you say, oh, this is one of the

private -- agree with not offending anybody, who disgrays with civility and mutual respect, but they don't say that it trumps open expression. it says please consider these when exercising your right to open expression. so i think that if properly interpreted -- there of course are ambiguities, but i think when properly interpreted, the emory open expression policy takes a very pro-free expression position. in particular there's language in the policy that in my reading incorporates the free speech clause of the first amendment. so even though, as a private university, emory is not a state actor, and not bound by the

first if we were at uga, for example, and if we had an event, which was disrupted by an individual student, that student would not be a state actor and wouldn't be violating the first amendment. on the other hand this policy applies to all members of the community, which includes students, so -- by disrupting an event. moreover, public universities have to tolerate what goes on, but they don't have any affirmative -- any obligations of affirmative support for protess ooh dissent, but this policy does commit emory to sh and there are other areas where they stress viewpoint. no signs or displays dug

disapproved because of their content and so on. so, of course, a lot depending on how this respect is administered over the coming year, but i'm hopeful with a strong policy like this, we can get our fire numbers and get into green light territory. so i give them huge credit for taking an effort to do that a policy like this rather than just rolling over when some group makes demands so recently as part of the whole student act visit movements, we've had our own activism also.

we had a group of students. i believe from their demands, they just signed themselves black students at emory, so, you know, make that's the name of an organization of theirs. and fab silt staff students, or psychological counseling, but there were a number of p thing that for example, they suggested a line item in teacher evaluations, did this teacher commit any microaggressions in the class, and also called for limiting access to a particular social -- anonymous social app called yik yak, where people posted adopts they found

offensive and so on. and the university has in fact not rolled over, but there's a dialogue going on, and we'll have to see in the coming months or so what happens, but i'm sort of guardedly optimistic that to the extent there's merit in some of these demands and those can be accommodated, but whatever in the demands goes against open expression, sort of freedom of expression values, which would be illegal, and it would be recognized. that they -- that we have von tear accepted. on this policy is paramount to every other policy at the university. so literally there's no other

policy tess university that we can say trumps this unless this policy itself has an exception, f. the the policy says you could violate ferret state or log law, you can't destroy property, there are a number of exceptions, but this policy is paramount to everyone at emory. >> and without being antagonistic to my gracious host, certainly it would be important to see how that plays out in the future, as you said it's still in our consideration those demands and how they will be addressed. certainly the free speech rights of those protester, i would be equally arguing in favor of, so i don't have any problem with that type of expression, either. it's just that where the result of it is to cut back on the free expression rights of others that

i begin to become very seriously concerned. >> we're glad to take questions. >> can you talk specifically about how lawyers culture in your opinion is sort of like i'm trouncing is a strong word, but hindering free speech. in your opinion, is there sort of a shift when college students leave college, where some culture may be more of this pc, and some culture i would almost say anti-pc, very much like the '40s or '50s where it's not even an idea, do you think that our generation we're nots put if

bhublgs, and you have to sometimes deal with things that are unpleasant. do you think there will be a shift in the backlash against free speech and sort of an acceptance back into this idea well maybe it's not so bad if someone agrees with me, like i'm adult, i can walk away. >> i think -- my honest answer is it's too a soon to predict what affects the current viewpoints we'll have. as your question it self-correctly assumes, some people may go right into areas just as a result of thes type of work you do, so those people may never appreciate the rights they should have been enjoying as a result of not having been exposed to them earlier in life or, you know, going through the college experience as a grizzle

veteran, it's easy for me to say as a student in the early to mid 1980s how there was regular student demonstrations, and people locking the doors of buildings, demonstrating in front of classroom buildings to try to advocate in favor of divesting from companies that either had operations or investments in south africa and of course perhaps some of that led to the downfall of the racist government -- i'm not an expert in the history there, but i think what i'm concerned about today the college experience is so much -- all these ideas, now even the professors, have to be worried about defenders based on generation before had been expose exposed to or warning

that, you know, somehow today this class might upset you. i was thinking of saying in my prepared remarks, you on which hear the reason the first amendment comes first is that makes it the most importants of course second amendment defenders like that it's at least it's in the top two, but soon thereafter, the whole paradigm falls apart. >> the original proposed bill of rights was 12 amendments. the first two one was what later became the 27th amendment about compensation of legislators. another one is like the max minute or minimum numbers of legislators. those never went anywhere, so what we know of as the first amendment actually came third. so i wouldn't push that. >> but my most direct answer possible to your question is i'm not confident that having gone

through the bubble experience, and then graduating from it when you enter the real world will by itself suffice to make people appreciate the value. >> you think it might be irreparable damage and this exposure to the idea that conflict is okay, in fact necessary for democracy to survive? >> that's what i'm concerned about, yes. >> that's kind of terrifying. [ laughter ] >> i have a bit of concern, maybe not too much concern, because the idea that the overall ideological it climate on campuses has been very much toward the left. i was in college between '89 and '93, and not when that started but it's certainly been the case for a long time, and has that -- and so there's always the

concern that the kids are learning these bad things in college, and we'll go out into the work force and they'll implement that stuff. has that actually been happening? it's always been so far to the left to the median of the ubs, and it looks like the median of the united states -- has that been trending to the right? in any event. i would describe it as a center right country, very much out of line with mass taught as the majority viewpoint at universities. so it looks like, as much as the social justice people want to think we've got to indoctrinate these kids, and as much as we say they're indoctrinating the kids, actually not much happens. number one, you all have agency. number two, you may have already been indoctrinated by the time you got here. so i'm concerned about this not

so much on because i'm afraid that the first amendment will become -- will become diluted or something. you know, if anything i think the first amendment has become more awesome over the last couple decades. greater protection for campaign speech against campaign finance reform, greater protection for commercial speech, protection for the west borrow baptist church in picketing funerals? how much more offensive can you get? i'm concerned more that these ideas are bad for the college experience itself to have -- to have an opportunity that i'm entitled not to be offended.

elgts think incomps, the first amendment to the 14th, an a state university would, but for universities that do hold themselves out as past dwrons of free speech and yet sort of renege on that when it comes to offensive speech, even though they're private, are there ways of getting at them besides shaming? things like, you know, even fraud, hey, you held yourself out at once are one things, but misrelating it because you don't in fact hold these values, or receiving federal money if i'm not mistaken title ix, would there be an entwinement issue there, where they might be expected to, in the spending of

federal money, or state money not to abridge certain federally guaranteed liberties? >> i know that the fire organization suggests perhaps -- i don't know how realistic this is, but they suggest that, say, more conservative students that favor more robust free speech policies could themselves invoke these speech codes to demonstrate the absurdity of it, perhaps, and say they're being offended by some of the liberate expressions that don't seem to offend the proponents of the policies, and thereby point out the fact that the prohibition of these types of speech in either direction is just wrong to do. and, again, you know -- perhaps this is, to professor pose ner's

credit, you think about 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21-year-olds, people who direct all this attention to themselves as a free speech proponent, you have to have a lot ofself confidence and just a lot of certainly in what you wish to accomplish at very young ages. i remember being in fib in the early to mid 1990s, you may recall this, too, a university of pennsylvania student who was of israeli origin, was studies in hi dorm room one night. there was a lot group of female african-american sorority students walking by, making a lot of noise, so he was upset and yelled out an epithet towards them that brought him up on charges of racial insensitive, and the epithet was

basically calling them water buffalo, and one of the founders of fire was arguing that water buffalo are from asia, so that's not a racial epithet. not that we should always believe that, even wikipedia says that's true, so penn had brought the student up on charges, and he had to hire lawyers, and he refused to consent to having a mark on his report that ultimately would be removed after a period of time. ultimate will i the charges westbound dismissed, and now i believe penn itself has a green light from fire. so they got their house entirely in order thanks to the president and other folks there. when when i was researching, a soriology professor here

condemned speech codes that emory was either considering on are had adopted. so, you know, there are people who are coming from the right place at all of these universities, but it is very difficult to figure out a strategy that can defeat it, where it already exists, and the students that are willing to stand up against it is very much to their credit, but not to be expected. i will let professor talk with the title ix stuff if he knows. >> i don't know about suing the universities. i think probably most private universities don't take such a strong, make like hypothetically if you had a university that advertised itself as like, the a absolute free-speech place and they did the absolute contrary, you could say that's clearly contrary, but i think a lot of universities try to play both sides, so they can never say --

you can never definitively prove that they violated something, because, look, we had these materials where we said we believe in robust discourse while also not offending anybody. but, you know, i don't see that as being the -- i don't see that as being the most promising line of attack. now, as far as suggesting there might be universities that take so much in the way of federal funds that makes them subject to constitutional constraints, i'm inclined to say probably no. the 1982 case that says that even if you -- that case was about, i believe an elementary -- well, a pre -- a primary or secondary school for difficult-to-educate students,

and there were districts in michigan, if they had a difficult to educate student, they would send their kids to that school, and which was a private school and they would pay the tuition. >> so a private school maid like 90% of its money by given students the public education that they were entitled to, except it was private and the government was paying. they're not sill to constitutional constraints, even if a hipically if you made all of your money by government contracts, imagine a subway sandwich store and 100% of their money was by catering legislative events? he sore merely taking fujds might not maybe -- but a lot

depends on what extent -- if a private university was, you know, doved some kind of speech code until the very strong arming of department of education or whatever, if such a thing were happening, which i don't know, maybe there could be leeway within state doctrine that you could get there, but i think probably most of the time that's not the case. >> just one more comment in that regard. i think if the federal government had conditions, the available of funds for universities on robust first amendment policies that then perhaps the federal government could at least not fund universities that did not offer those types of policies, but according to fire, in fact the federal office of civil rights

may be responsible for some of the more restrictive speech codes that the universities have implemented, so that's not happening, but i think it was the solomon amendment involving access to military recruiting on campus where schools were essentially -- private schools that receive lots of federal money, including harvard, yale and the like, had to let those recruiters onto campus, even though they had preferred not to if they had a choice. >> back when i made my point about liberals on the left and right supporting free speech, the federalist society is a very big tent with conservatives and libertarians there are many areas where a wide diversity of opinion, but one thing you could say is we're probably not obama voters, so i think it's probably fair to say, but credit where credit is due, president obama has taken a position on a couple

occasions in favor of robust free speech on campuses. that's not to say is the diplomat of education is in a position position where they're going to start conditioning funds on the college's willingness to support free speech rights, but it's good to know at least one person in the administration is taking a good view on that. >> so from what i understand, free meech is not absolute. i imagine the schools have some things that might be couched under speech. the comment was just made that some of these speech might amount to affirmative acts is it that you don't buy that connection or it can never be used? it's not that hard to

necessarily foresee a situation where things could be couched under the terms of speech, but actually have effects that would lead to discrimination or something along those lines. is it that you don't buy that linkal all, or -- >> i think that question may involved something you said earlier. let me just say -- the problem is that you have certain recognized exceptions to freedom of speech, such as obscenity and the fighting words doctrine. i may have misread this, but i think, you know, the shouting fire in a crowded theater might have been expressed as a dissentic -- irnts and it's only falsely shouting "fire." sho shouting "fire" truthfully is

probably a good thing. >> if we expand it to an exception where something that i say or something that somebody else says makes the listener upsit, that is not what the fighting words exception means. so i'll let you respond to the rest of that. >> i don't think anything we're saying z peach can be a part of that, let me give a couple of examples. what if there were a bunch of speakers on campus that took the position in highly publicized talks that the place of women is in the home and that women ought to be having babies and should not be working in positions of responsibility, and moreover hillary clinton should not be elected president, because it is inappropriate.

. that's one possibility for a speech, and the existence of those sorts of attitudes i would say that that's probably part of fusional sexism, and i think that that kind of talk to the extent that it's made and to the extent that people believe it encouraging institutional sexism. entrench institutional sexism. similarly if you have people who argue that black people are either genetically inferior or that, you know, other sorts of biological differences, or if you argue against affirmative action, or even if you argue in favor of segregation or something to the full exception

that they can do whatever, and so on. i think that nothing we can say involves denies that those things exist. that there can be absolutely no -- that government is completely prohibited from taking action again them, which

adopt first amendment values in their open expression policies i think are arrived to allow those to happen and not to do anything to -- not to do anything to on discourage them because of the need to have open expression, open debate, content and viewpoint, knew trawlity, regardless of the effects on fusional sexism or racism. >> i'm just curious as to redress, when we find the situations where people have been restricted to these free speech zones on campuses, it seems to me and it's been my personal experience that in undergrad university when i was involved with the young americans for liberty, we felt as if we were targeted and told to be restricted to a free speech zone for the advertising for an eye vent that we had

upcoming and other organization had not been restrict to do that area for advertising for their events. that during this ongoing, we were also fined for putting up signs were left up -- the only organization that we knew of had been fined for leaving signs up over the weekend. >> the first thing that everyone seems to want to do, well, that's the chairman of the organization, we have to do what he says, we have to pay this fine for leaving the sign up over the weekend. we have to not advertise our event. we have to figure out another way to advertise our event through social media or something like that. luckily i was there, and was sort of a voice of reason, that

we are being infringed upon here, we need to at least see what we can do, and we ended many contacting fire and worked to have this handled in more of a due process-like manner before we actually had a fine imposed upon us and had been restricted. so basically my question is, how do we turn this tide of constricting of the free speech rights and, you know, to limiting of any kind of due process when those rights are infringed upon? how do we turn it moving forward? >> was that a public or private university? >> a public university. >> my understanding is that fire has had good success in challenging the idea of free speech zones at public university and they have been successful in having that type

of rerestriction struck down. most of these decisions are from individual u.s. district court. i know the u.s. district court for the judds of an arbor, had a university of michigan case, and at the same time the u.s. supreme court -- and correct me if i'm wrong -- has never really taken on the question of campus free people routes, but it's my understanding that most of these district judges have found that restricting free speech to a zone is unconstitutional and again to speak of judge posner, even in one case involves a campus preacher, he went on to google maps and took a look at where the location was compared to everything else, because the attorneys had done a horrible job making a good record of for him to understand, and had you

loves his own internet research, which is another topic for another panel. >> i think this is more or less on point, the rosenberger case, that the publics universities can't discriminate in terms of having newspapers and things like that. i think most of the cases involving specifically speech codes and just in that area have been mostly at the sdrk level, though i'm not 100% sure. as to the broader question of how you tun the tide, lawsuits and shame. lawsuits and shame. that's what i say. >> as a follow-up to that, how do you get out there and, you know really get that shame out, as you say to the community.

but this goes a societal issue, an issue, a fundamental rights issue. >> fortunately we have lawsuits, shame and blog. three things. >> we can get it out this a way that was never previously available. that doesn't mean that anything you post online will be ever seen by anyone, of course, there no guarantee of that, but at the same time when people are maybe too worried about on you not worried enough about is everyone will see what you post, so maybe you shouldn't post anything on line. you by speaking out in ways that are not necessarily limited to the physical campus are possible ways. of course there are cases coming up through the system, including one out of the fifth circuit where a college student --

rather, a high school student had a rap music song where he was critical of the gym teacher for perhaps sexually harassing female students, and the on en banc panel held his was necessarily disciplined. >> no, on the other hand, the secondary school has a lower constitutional standard. >> absolutely. >> ko that case is up on a certs position, and they had filed amicus briefs, and page they don't weigh in too much on supreme court cases. >> bulk when we were in school, we barely had computers. >> right. >> e-mail didn't make it big until the year after i graduated, so it was a lot harder to get shamed for one's university nationwide if it did something.

are think any questions? all right. do you have any concluding comments. >> thank you for coming out and thank you for all the questions. >> thank you, howard bashman. s [ applause ]

glee as they examine topics that confronted our newly -- with abigail cooper, assistant professor of history at brandeis university. reconstruction thin in the north with andrew slap at east tennessee state university, and the post civil war career is. the annual civil war snunt summers conference, live all day saturday, beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern. for the complete american history weekend schedule, go to

sea cspan.org. now a conversation on urbanization around the world and what it means for geopolitics. rahm emanuel, hank paulson and the governor of bangkok. on behalf much "the financial times" i should say we are absolutely delighted to be partnering with the chicago global council on this very, very important event. that's not just because we love chicago, which we do, and it's not just because we love smart

conversation with intelligent people, and looking around at you in the audience, you know there are a lot of people who have a lot of ideas to offer on the future of cities. i look forward to hearing what you have to say, but partners on this event for the second time, because we know that cities really matter. we are in the business of stories, news stories, and cities are at the center of almost every sing the story that the "financial times" writes today. good stories about amazing economics dynamism, but terrible stories as well. about many problems with corporate and political governance many no to mention

that 30% of though -- american is our biggest market. they're very important stories, so important we have a special report coming out tomorrow will being at the future of cities, and accessible freely to all of you here during the next couple days. is we have several leading f.t. journalists who have come in to moderate these conversations. i look forward to hearing what this amazing array of delegates have to say about these very important issues, and finding solutions and ways to turn the bad stories into good stories in the future. most importantly, a very big welcome to a man -- mayor rahm

emanuel is going to be saying a few words of welcome to kick us off. thank you. >> i want to thank all of for you being here, eye specially the guests. as the mayor of the city of chicago, it would make me happy if you go out and spend money. we have a budget we need to meeting, so you would be very helpful. on a serious note, this is our second year of having a forum, because i think one of the most dynamic things around the world is what i would call as the renaissance of our cities. the good news for the city of chicago, in the last three years

there having three distinct studies of 100 cities --ivity bm, economist magazine, a.t. carney. in each of the studies of 100 global cities, chicago is ranked in the top ten cities, either 9th, 8th or 7th as nece economically competitive. as the mayor, i agree with the one that that concluded us as seventh. a fellow middle child right there. 6 it fell in line with something we did in my first year of my first what is your our trends and challenges, and to lay out some of our -- all three of the former studies in the brookings snunt came back with the same conclusion about the city of

chicago. we have an economic plan. and by investing in those three things, continues to keep chicago at a competitive edge, and in the first three studies, what is also we were only city on the top ten ranks that was not either the respective country's financial or political capital. all the of them are either political or financial dern chicago is neither the political or financial capital of the country, but we are the heartland of the united states. i happen to think of the city as the most american of american cities. so the concerns we're having today, and i've had some meetings with my colleagues from around the globe, all of us face the same kind of challenges, how

to find the resources to invest in the future and make sure that our city continues to are a high quality living experience for people of diversion backgrounds who continue to call that hop. we continue to approach this, but looking for answers. the decision we make will determine what chicago will like loot in the next 30 or 40 years. oirchlts i do well welcome all of you, and thank you to those who make this possible. thank you. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage am bass horr ambassador chan, and our panel

moderator, jillian ted. well, good evening, everybody. the power limitation, and in many ways this picks up heart doing an audit of what its strength and weaknesses are, and what it can do to make a more vibrant city in the future. what we're going to be doing in this panel is taking a step further which cities would we hold up, what would we put as

the most effective global city. which ones are the disaster zones? which ones are going to essentially be worthy of praise, which ones are the problems. we have as we heard a fantastic ly ambassador chance represents singapore, arguably one of the most successful cities in the world. we have hank paulson, who 's working with chicago and looking at the issue of urban innovation for many we're. we have dame, who has been working as a british member of parliament, but very involved in the role of london on the global stage. and we have governor of the city

of bangkok in thailand, a former academic political scientist who spend year analyzing problems and has been trying to fix them as governor of thailand recently. so i'd like to start by asking ambassador chance, you've spent many years originally as ambassador to washington, this fact 14 years looking at singapore in a global context. and many americans, europeans would look at singapore today and say not only are you perhaps one of the most potent city states in the world, but in some ways you have an extraordinary success story as a city. what do you think are the key lessen for why singapore works today? >> how much time do sniff. >> three minutes. >> well, jillian, i would say, looking at singapore, it has two advantaging.

it's a global city and a city state. we can be small and nimble, but we can also have the authority, the sovereignty and the financial resources to do things. that has helped us enormously. singapore has taken advantage first of its original role has been, which is as a maritime and trading center. then we piled on other functions, seeking to be relevant. that's very important for global cities. are you relevant? can you remain relevant? from a maritime and trading center, we have become a financial center, a pet roe chemical central, the third larger petro refining center in the world form so i think we

have capitalized on that. the second point about singapore is that we were fortunate to start off with an excellent leadershipsh did leadership when nose we have no resources, absolutely no resources, no oil, not even water, chose to be strategic and to develop the human resource, people, by being strategic, i think the founding father and his ministers really found a role and constantly tried to define a role for singapore, and a to build an honest bureaucracy, a disciplined bureaucracy, and we work as a hole of government. every agency is coordinated. when you are small, city size, city state size, you can be

cohere coherent, you can have rapid policy response, so it comes together. i say all this, but there are times when we are not so well coordinated. >> how many people live in singapore today? >> 5.5 million. >> it is rental sister population is 5.7, but i think that at least 10 to 12 million. >> right. when you as governor the bangkok look at singapore and seeing the extraordinary success, ñixdñiqe1

. . .çó while infá thailand, things are muchq morexd complex and different politicale1 and socia and financial sentence. ñ bangkok has this am![cng sense ofxde1 history. >> i am not sure whether that's a compliment. [ laughter ] y can iqçó justu point, iñr pointed out what's gd of singapore and all the reasons that singapore is qsuccessful.

city states, global city loses its positions, thinkok venice wd connected to the changes, you change technology. so for syllable, ite1çói] has b our tasks and grow and always define the new relevance, that's what we are obsessedñr with to constantly reinvent ourselves. >> right. >> i want to relate the question whereabouts being created and cool and int( bangkok as seen a being great and pretty cool and whether to make it harder to be organized, ñrtoo. whether you have messye1 collisions to be cool or not. i would like to bring in chau and asci you. for those of you2wjo have not read it yet, it isñr super. you should read it. we have a picturexd of venice a

become the new venice? i ame1e1oh"ui love to hear what you think is going to happen or not. how do you viewxde1 london stay our city state? >> well, i don't think that i don't think it would be a good thing for london to become a city state. london is the foremost city in the united kingdome1 contribute to the economy, and the strengths of the economy in the united kingdom. but, it is clearlyu ' i was in a plane flying over herei was in a plaas thinking about ts definition of what is a global city. a global cityok is not a world city.

it is not just a city. it is sortfá of describes a special kind of personality of self confidence which certainly has connected us to the rest of the world which ertainly has woven into q! cf1o the restgyxt the world ofr(tf o immigrations and generations have created that. and,t( london is as definedq an after the olympics of creative and cool city. ambassadors,r%uze1 absolutely right about this. there are threats to london's positions andçó as we would says city in the world. you can be creative and mñez but there is a limit to+ your creativitye1 and coolness if the aree1 problemse1 with visas andu are restricted of coming in oreá

v universal rule ban coming in. so the threate1 facing london a actually rather pro saic. actually rather pro saic. it isxp+! housing and infrastructure desperately indeed with plans to do so.q &háhp &hc% pace that london needs and so on and the skilled labor. i think you can see this and the ambitiousi] poetic part of the identity which is a creative city, but also the risks ife1 i becomes disconñeq from the

means by which that creativity leads a shift that's sustained. >> when you someone who has looked at the governmentfá of london in someq details, when yu were considering your mayor bid, did youlbho feel jealous whenyu looq;q at singaporeq of your bureaucracy where i can actually that would be the answer? sáre1 mean one is if you are th mayor of a greate1 city, you transcend traditional triable politics. that's the first thing. plan for the long-term. i mean if i look at the transformation of singapore has been overwhelmed over 20 ore1 3 years. >> 50 years. >> there you go. and, you know, actuallys7 meeti theçó challenges of modernizati

that london will take for 20 years. so, ijf think that is -- yout( , i thinkq it is au at other cities. londonists and distinct. and projected to the world has to be trueçó to ñithat. the respectok of the cities a2g states of siqjut would never % work for london. >> that'sok çóright. >> ñiand,ok it ise1 a city wi with -- looking at tñ/ue two things means that you can begin to understand the challenges

facing london in the next ten years.i] >> right. i would like to bringe1 you in now, you never actually run a city but you have run goldenfá sacks. you alsofá run the u.s. treasur. i am curious from yourñ] experience, having traveled all over the world, whic cities do you think of the moste1 successl today. >> well, soe1 i happenñi e1to, of all, i love my cities, i have lived in new york and i have lived in washington. i came back to livinglp in chicago. i amó[ a big fan of chicago. now, number one, and number two, i would say that -- that i agreed with the commes that's beenxd made here of how importa management is to a city, and we all watched ande1w3 i watched chicago going up and down based on the mayors here. you can have -- it is harder to

screw upáañok national governme that has a city.xd it takes and reallyi] measuremes of intensive. i look at it from a sort of an unusual perspectiwt i think basically cities don't work unless there isok a strong economic base. if you don't have fá-- w3govern don't create jobs but theyt( business to create jobs. business and capital are going to go where it is mostq ktáiq so again, i look at it as a focus. i think singapore has done añ1 magnificent job and london has doq a magnificent job.

my focus having traveledfáe1 ar many places, butfá because my focus is u.s. china relations.xd on u.s. chinakorelati).