0
SPEAKER_01
The following is a conversation with Harvey Silverglate, a legendary free speech advocate, co-founder of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and the author of several books on the freedom of speech and criminal justice, including The Shadow University, The Betrayal of Liberty on America s Campuses.
0
SPEAKER_01
Harvey is running to be on the Harvard Board of Overseers this year with a write-in campaign, so you have to spell his name correctly, Silverglate.
0
SPEAKER_01
promising to advocate for free speech and to push for reducing the size of Harvard s administration bureaucracy.
0
SPEAKER_01
Election is over this Tuesday, May 16th at 5 p.m.
0
SPEAKER_01
Eastern.
0
SPEAKER_01
To vote, you have to be Harvard alumni.
0
SPEAKER_01
So if you happen to be one, please vote online.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s a good way to support freedom of speech on Harvard campus.
0
SPEAKER_01
Instructions how to do so are in the description.
0
SPEAKER_01
As a side note, please allow me to say that since there are several controversial conversations coming up, I tried to make sure that this podcast is a platform for free discourse where ideas are not censored, but explored, and if necessary, challenged in a thoughtful, empathetic way.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s by having such difficult conversations, not by avoiding them, that we can begin to heal divides and to shed lights on the dark parts of human history and human nature.
0
SPEAKER_01
And now, a quick few second mention of each sponsor.
0
SPEAKER_01
Check them out in the description.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s the best way to support this podcast.
0
SPEAKER_01
We got Factor for nutritious and delicious pre-made meals, SimpliSafe for home security, and Athletic Greens for, well, delicious, delicious health.
0
SPEAKER_01
Choose wisely, my friends.
0
SPEAKER_01
Also, if you want to work with our amazing team, we re always hiring.
0
SPEAKER_01
Go to LexFreeman.com slash hiring.
0
SPEAKER_01
And now, onto the full ad reads.
0
SPEAKER_01
As always, no ads in the middle.
0
SPEAKER_01
I try to make this interesting, but if you must skip, please still check out the sponsors.
0
SPEAKER_01
I enjoy their stuff.
0
SPEAKER_01
Maybe you will, too.
0
SPEAKER_01
This show is brought to you by Factor, a ready-to-eat meal kit service that delivers nutritious and delicious meals straight to your door.
0
SPEAKER_01
They got keto, they got vegan, they got calorie smart, they got protein plus, and if you know me, you know which one I go with.
0
SPEAKER_01
I go with keto.
0
SPEAKER_01
For over a decade, I ve been eating mostly carnivore keto, which, when I don t have services like Factor, ends up me going to the grocery store, getting some ground beef, and just cooking that and eating that with a little bit of salt.
0
SPEAKER_01
Now, there s nothing wrong with that, but there s downsides.
0
SPEAKER_01
One of the downsides is there s not diversity in flavor and richness and experience in the eating process, especially if I get to share that experience with somebody else.
0
SPEAKER_01
Second, it takes quite a bit of time.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so I think Factor solves these problems.
0
SPEAKER_01
They got such amazing meals, they re so delicious, and they fit into my diet, my keto diet.
0
SPEAKER_01
and they allow me to share those meals with other people and really enjoy them, the full variety of it.
0
SPEAKER_01
It tastes delicious and it s fun and it s so easy to do, it fits into my day.
0
SPEAKER_01
You just heat the thing, I don t know how many minutes, maybe like two minutes, and you just get to enjoy it.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s fresh, it s healthy, it s affordable, I love it.
0
SPEAKER_01
Get Factor and enjoy clean eating without the hassle.
0
SPEAKER_01
Go to factormeals.com slash Lex 40 and use code Lex 40 to get 40% off your first box.
0
SPEAKER_01
That s factormeals.com slash Lex 40 and use code Lex 40.
0
SPEAKER_01
This show is also brought to you by SimpliSafe, a home security company designed to be simple and effective.
0
SPEAKER_01
30 minute setup and you can customize the system for your needs.
0
SPEAKER_01
I have set it up.
0
SPEAKER_01
I feel like it took like less than 30 minutes.
0
SPEAKER_01
It was super fast.
0
SPEAKER_01
I have a ton of cameras.
0
SPEAKER_01
Everything is easy to use.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s one of the key components of my physical security systems.
0
SPEAKER_01
Of course, I take my cyber and physical security extremely seriously for many reasons.
0
SPEAKER_01
I have many ways in which I protect my security.
0
SPEAKER_01
Everything from physical to cyber to mental, all that kind of stuff.
0
SPEAKER_01
But I think for most people, and for myself, there should be this kind of low-hanging fruit of make sure your home is protected with an easy to use, easy to monitor, easy to interact with, easy to set up security system.
0
SPEAKER_01
That s what SimpliSafe is.
0
SPEAKER_01
Go to simplisafe.com to get a free indoor security camera plus 20% off your order with interactive monitoring.
0
SPEAKER_01
And I do recommend you get the interactive monitoring.
0
SPEAKER_01
This show is brought to you by Athletic Greens and it s A-G-1 Drink, which is an all-in-one daily drink to support better health and peak performance.
0
SPEAKER_01
I ve been drinking it every single day, twice a day.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s the thing I break my fast with when I m traveling, got the travel packs.
0
SPEAKER_01
I mean, it s just, it s a simple part of my day that makes me feel at home, that makes me feel happy, that makes me feel like I have a nutritional foundation to take on the day and do all the kinds of crazy stuff, physical and mental, that I do.
0
SPEAKER_01
Sometimes things become such an integrated part of your life that you start to take them for granted and you only realize how much they mean to you when they re gone.
0
SPEAKER_01
So the times when I run out of travel packs and I m traveling or
0
SPEAKER_01
or there s a curve ball where I have to travel unexpectedly, all that kind of stuff.
0
SPEAKER_01
I realize, oh wow, there s these little parts of the day that bring me joy, and one of them is drinking an Athletic Greens drink.
0
SPEAKER_01
Maybe it could be part of your life in the same kind of way.
0
SPEAKER_01
They ll give you a free one-year supply of vitamin D and five free travel packs with your first purchase when you go to athleticgreens.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_01
This is the Lex Friedman Podcast.
0
SPEAKER_01
To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.
0
SPEAKER_01
And now, dear friends, here s Harvey Silverglate.
0
SPEAKER_01
You co-founded the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, also known as FIRE, a legendary organization that fights for the freedom of speech for all Americans in our courtrooms, on our campuses, and in our culture.
0
SPEAKER_01
So let s start with the big question.
0
SPEAKER_01
What is freedom of speech?
0
SPEAKER_00
First of all, the organization, when I co-founded it,
0
SPEAKER_00
in 1999 was called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
0
SPEAKER_00
It focused on
0
SPEAKER_00
free speech issues on college campuses in academia, and only earlier this year did we decide to expand our reach beyond the campuses, which is why the name, although the acronym FIRE remains, it s now the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
0
SPEAKER_00
The E used to be education.
0
SPEAKER_00
The E used to be education, it s now expression.
0
SPEAKER_00
And we basically do a lot of the cases the ACLU used to do, the ACLU now orders us
0
SPEAKER_00
they re a progressive organization rather than a civil liberties organization.
0
SPEAKER_00
And we ve taken the role of dealing with free speech in the society generally.
0
SPEAKER_00
And now this is a particularly, you know,
0
SPEAKER_00
in an era prone to censorship.
0
SPEAKER_00
Everybody thinks they re right and that people who disagree with them should not be able to voice their views.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s a very difficult period right now, both on campus and off campus.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s about as intolerant an era as I can remember.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m gonna be 81 May 10th.
0
SPEAKER_00
I was born on Mother s Day 1942.
0
SPEAKER_00
And I can t remember it being this bad.
0
SPEAKER_00
I was born during the McCarthy era.
0
SPEAKER_00
So that says a lot.
0
SPEAKER_00
And it sort of reminds me of that.
0
SPEAKER_01
Well, let s start with that, almost a philosophical question, a legal question, a human question.
0
SPEAKER_01
What is this freedom that you care so much about, that you fought for so much, freedom of speech?
0
SPEAKER_00
It is the most important right that Americans have.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s not a coincidence or an accident that it s named in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
0
SPEAKER_00
Without it, no democratic society can be democratic for long.
0
SPEAKER_00
And I m an absolutist.
0
SPEAKER_00
That is, I believe that, for example, people say to me, but what about hate speech?
0
SPEAKER_00
Well, hate speech is much more important than love speech.
0
SPEAKER_00
And the reason is, I m much more interested in knowing whom I should not turn my back on.
0
SPEAKER_00
that I am interested in figuring out who loves me or who likes me.
0
SPEAKER_00
So hate speech is the most important, in my view, and yet it s banned in, for example, schools.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s unbelievable.
0
SPEAKER_00
Kids are not schooled into understanding the glory of the First Amendment when schools say to them they shouldn t say things that are gonna make somebody feel bad.
0
SPEAKER_00
I mean, the purpose of speech is to express honest views that people have.
0
SPEAKER_00
So I believe hate speech is as important as love speech, and my view is more important.
0
SPEAKER_00
So it should be brought to the surface rather than operate in shadows.
0
SPEAKER_01
Absolutely, absolutely.
0
SPEAKER_01
What is the connection between freedom of speech and freedom of thought?
0
SPEAKER_00
Well, in a free society,
0
SPEAKER_00
Thoughts start in the brain and then they come out the mouth.
0
SPEAKER_00
So they re different ends of the same spectrum.
0
SPEAKER_00
So to you, the censorship of speech eventually leads to a censorship of thought.
0
SPEAKER_00
Of course.
0
SPEAKER_00
Censorship of the mode by which other people know what you re thinking.
0
SPEAKER_01
So there s some aspect of our society that is, that thinking is done collectively, and without being able to speak to each other, we cannot do this kind of collective thinking.
0
SPEAKER_00
Correct.
0
SPEAKER_00
And out of speech, the theory is that ultimately, out of speech,
0
SPEAKER_00
comes truth, that isn t necessarily so, but I do think that when there s free speech, better decisions are made, because people put their views on the table in a frank, accurate way, and then those views mix together and clash, and out of that usually comes the better decision.
0
SPEAKER_00
Not always, but usually, or more often than not.
0
SPEAKER_00
But if somebody is not allowed to sit at the table of decision making, then the decision making process is poorer, less robust, less diverse, and ultimately less successful.
0
SPEAKER_01
Can you elaborate on the idea of free speech absolutism?
0
SPEAKER_01
So,
0
SPEAKER_01
hate speech can be quite painful to quite a large number of people.
0
SPEAKER_01
Does this worry you?
0
SPEAKER_00
Yep.
0
SPEAKER_00
Living in a free society requires that you expose yourself to some discomfort, you call it pain.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s maybe emotional pain, it s not physical pain.
0
SPEAKER_00
But it s the price we pay for living in a free society.
0
SPEAKER_00
Every so often we re insulted.
0
SPEAKER_00
we re emotionally hurt, think of the alternative.
0
SPEAKER_00
All the alternatives are worse.
0
SPEAKER_00
Nobody ever promised us a rose garden.
0
SPEAKER_00
We re lucky to be in a country that has the First Amendment.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s also the most diverse country in the world because of immigration.
0
SPEAKER_00
I mean, my,
0
SPEAKER_00
My grandparents, my father s side came over from Russia.
0
SPEAKER_00
My mother s side came over from Poland.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m very happy that my grandparents came in from Russia.
0
SPEAKER_00
I would not want to be in Russia today.
0
SPEAKER_00
I d probably be sharing a cell with a Wall Street Journal reporter.
0
SPEAKER_00
So I m thankful that they came in, and this is a great country.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s got troubles right now, but our country doesn t.
0
SPEAKER_00
And we ve had, before we had a civil war, we had segregation, we had the decimation of the Indians, we re not perfect.
0
SPEAKER_00
but it s the best place in the world for somebody who values liberty.
0
SPEAKER_01
So you don t think that hate speech can empower large groups that eventually lead to physical action, to physical harm to others?
0
SPEAKER_00
No, I don t.
0
SPEAKER_00
I think that we have developed a culture in which
0
SPEAKER_00
It s understood that if you don t like what you hear, you talk back.
0
SPEAKER_00
You write something.
0
SPEAKER_00
We don t punch each other, we insult each other.
0
SPEAKER_00
Is insulting great?
0
SPEAKER_00
Well, I don t know, it s okay.
0
SPEAKER_00
I used to, as a kid in Brooklyn, where I was born, I was born and raised in Bensonhurst, we used to say, sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never harm me.
0
SPEAKER_00
And it s absolutely true, what was true when I was five is true when I m almost 81.
0
SPEAKER_00
So I ve lived a long time, I ve seen it all.
0
SPEAKER_00
And I m talking from experience as well as theory.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s what happens when you reach your 80s.
0
SPEAKER_01
I read that you had this line that you cannot be protected from being called an asshole.
0
SPEAKER_00
Correct.
0
SPEAKER_00
Especially if you re an asshole.
0
SPEAKER_01
Well that s, but you don t have to be an asshole to be called an asshole.
0
SPEAKER_01
That s correct.
0
SPEAKER_01
And I think the internet has taught me that.
0
SPEAKER_00
Well the internet has posed a particular challenge to free speech absolutists because of some of the stuff that s on there is god awful.
0
SPEAKER_00
But I have no different rule for freedom of speech on the internet than I have in newspapers or in lectures or in classrooms or conversations among people.
0
SPEAKER_01
What do you think about the tension between freedom of speech and freedom of reach, as is kind of sometimes termed?
0
SPEAKER_01
So the internet really challenges that aspect.
0
SPEAKER_01
It allows speech to become viral and spread very quickly to a very large number of people.
0
SPEAKER_00
Well, you know, we ve had,
0
SPEAKER_00
We ve had revolutions in the modalities of communication.
0
SPEAKER_00
After all, newspapers were the first challenge.
0
SPEAKER_00
Radio and television posed a new challenge.
0
SPEAKER_00
The FCC tried, but ultimately gave up the attempt to control obscenity, for example.
0
SPEAKER_00
And the Supreme Court has been pretty close.
0
SPEAKER_00
The one thing that liberal and conservative Supreme Courts, right now we re in a conservative era due to Trump nominations.
0
SPEAKER_00
During much of my life, the Warren Court, it was William O. Douglas, Brennan, the liberal court.
0
SPEAKER_00
One thing they agree on is free speech.
0
SPEAKER_00
They don t agree on much else.
0
SPEAKER_00
but they do agree on free speech, and I think the reason is that they recognize that, well, my group is in the ascendance today, but it may not be tomorrow, and I wanna have objective, clear rules so that when I m in the minority, I m able to voice my opinion.
0
SPEAKER_00
And so it s one of the few things that both sides of the political spectrum,
0
SPEAKER_00
The only people who don t are the people way over on the right that I call the fascists and the people way over on the left who are the communists.
0
SPEAKER_00
But with respect to most people on the political spectrum, Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Libertarians, they agree on the primacy of free speech because it protects them
0
SPEAKER_00
when protection is needed.
0
SPEAKER_01
So to you, even on the internet, free speech absolutism should rule.
0
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
0
SPEAKER_00
Nobody s gonna die.
0
SPEAKER_00
Remember, death threats are not protected.
0
SPEAKER_00
Nobody s gonna die.
0
SPEAKER_00
So people are gonna be a little bit insulted.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s the price you pay for living in a free society.
0
SPEAKER_00
And it s a small price, in my view.
0
SPEAKER_00
People,
1
SPEAKER_00
some people don t have as tough a hide as others, well, then develop it.
1
SPEAKER_00
I don t mean to sound cruel, but you re living in a free society, develop a tough hide.
1
SPEAKER_01
So that s the cost of living in a free society.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yep, there s a cost.
1
SPEAKER_01
The thing is that it can really hurt at scale to be cyberbullied, to be attacked for the ideas you express, or maybe ideas you didn t express, but that somebody decided to lie about you and use that to attack you.
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, first of all, there are some exceptions to the First Amendment.
1
SPEAKER_00
Libel and slander is an exception.
1
SPEAKER_00
direct threats are an exception.
1
SPEAKER_00
If you say such and such, I will murder you, that is not lawful.
1
SPEAKER_00
If you say about somebody, oh, you know, you beat your wife, that is not lawful if in fact the person knows you don t beat your wife.
1
SPEAKER_00
There are some limits.
1
SPEAKER_00
Defamation is one, direct threats are another.
1
SPEAKER_00
So it s not, the First Amendment is not absolute, but it s more absolute than it is in any other society, and it s pretty near absolute.
1
SPEAKER_00
For example, fraud.
1
SPEAKER_00
If you sell somebody a car, and you say, oh, this is in great running shape, and in fact, it s an old jalopy, and it s not gonna make it more than 10 miles, that s fraud.
1
SPEAKER_00
That s not free speech.
1
SPEAKER_00
So free speech is not absolute.
1
SPEAKER_00
There are these limits, but they re very narrow, specific categories of limits.
1
SPEAKER_01
But there s gray area here because while legally you re not allowed to defame a person, in the court of public opinion, especially with the aid of anonymity on the internet, rumors can spread at scale.
1
SPEAKER_01
Thousands, hundreds of thousands of people can make up things about you.
1
SPEAKER_00
You have to defend yourself.
1
SPEAKER_01
Using more speech.
1
SPEAKER_00
We re big, we re through freedom of speech.
1
SPEAKER_00
We re big boys and girls.
1
SPEAKER_00
You have to defend yourself.
1
SPEAKER_00
You know, in some societies, if you say something, if you, right now, if you say something nasty about Putin, you ll end up in the gulag.
1
SPEAKER_00
If you say something nasty about,
1
SPEAKER_00
Biden, you end up in the New York Times.
1
SPEAKER_00
Where would you rather be?
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, let s talk about the thing you ve done for over 20 years, which is fight for the freedom of speech on college campuses.
1
SPEAKER_01
So why is freedom of speech important on college campuses?
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, it s important everywhere in the society, but it s most important on college campuses.
1
SPEAKER_00
Why?
1
SPEAKER_00
Because that s where we educate our young citizens.
1
SPEAKER_00
And if you are educated under a notion that some dean can call you on the carpet because you say something which is considered racist or you can say something which is considered dangerous to social cohesion, then it s not a liberal arts college, no.
1
SPEAKER_00
The theory that
1
SPEAKER_00
I used in the shadow university.
1
SPEAKER_00
A book you ve written, The Shadow University.
1
1998.
1
SPEAKER_00
1998.
1
SPEAKER_00
You were ahead of a lot of these things, by the way.
1
SPEAKER_00
I m afraid that as a pessimist, I always saw the bad side of things.
1
SPEAKER_01
Betrayal of Liberty on America s Campus is The Shadow University, a book you co-authored with Alan Charles.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yes, with one of my Princeton classmates, Alan Charles Kors, who s now an Emeritus Professor of Enlightenment History at the University of Pennsylvania.
1
SPEAKER_00
I only taught for one semester, and I can go into that later, the reason I did not continue to teach in colleges.
1
SPEAKER_00
It was Harvard Law School, I taught a course in the mid-1980s.
1
SPEAKER_00
But in any event, the college campuses are one of the most important for
1
SPEAKER_00
for free speech, because this is where people get education.
1
SPEAKER_00
And if you don t really get a good education, if certain points of view are not allowed to be expressed, because education comes from the clash of ideas, and you then have to decide, this is how you become a thinking adult.
1
SPEAKER_00
You have to decide which ideas make more sense to you, which ones you re gonna follow.
1
SPEAKER_00
The college experience is transformative.
1
SPEAKER_00
And if there is censorship on campuses, it s highly destructive of the educational enterprise and ultimately to the entire society.
1
SPEAKER_00
You know, we have in the sciences, we have a scientific method.
1
SPEAKER_00
Scientific method is you try experiments and you see which ones work and then you develop theories based upon the results of experiments.
1
SPEAKER_00
Well this is not much different from every other aspect of life.
1
SPEAKER_00
You have to entertain different views on different subjects.
1
SPEAKER_00
You hear all the views and you make a decision as to which one s accurate and which one s not.
1
SPEAKER_00
So the scientific method I apply to non-science, to history, to journalism, to all of these things.
1
SPEAKER_01
So that scientific method includes ideas, hateful ideas also.
1
SPEAKER_00
Correct, if you don t allow hateful ideas.
1
SPEAKER_00
I mean, when scientists do experiments,
1
SPEAKER_00
Nobody says to them, oh, you know, don t do that experiment because it would be very bad if that turns out to be accurate, that outcome.
1
SPEAKER_00
That s not the way it works.
1
SPEAKER_00
Every point of view is thrown into the marketplace, whether it s science or whether it s,
1
SPEAKER_00
you know, non-science.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that includes the kind of ideas and the kind of discourse that might actually lead to an increase in hate on campuses?
1
SPEAKER_00
The First Amendment prohibits speech which is liable to produce imminent, imminent violence.
1
SPEAKER_00
So for example,
1
SPEAKER_00
You know, the exception is yelling falsely, falsely yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.
1
SPEAKER_00
A lot of people misstate it.
1
SPEAKER_00
They say, oh, the exception is yelling fire in a movie theater.
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, if there s really a fire, you re performing a real important function by yelling fire.
1
SPEAKER_00
But it s falsely yelling fire.
1
SPEAKER_00
You can start a riot, people would be crushed trying to get out.
1
SPEAKER_00
So, that s one of the exceptions of the First Amendment, as the Supreme Court has defined it.
1
SPEAKER_00
There are very few exceptions.
1
SPEAKER_00
And defamation is an exception.
1
SPEAKER_00
I m not a fan of that exception, frankly.
1
SPEAKER_00
But if you say something about somebody that has serious implications in their life, in their ability to earn a living, if you accuse somebody of being a pedophile when it s not true, that person can sue you.
1
SPEAKER_00
My own view is I think that s an unfortunate exception, but I m not on the Supreme Court.
1
SPEAKER_00
I think that I m with, a friend of mine was Nat Hentoff.
1
SPEAKER_00
Nat Hentoff who wrote for decades for the Village Voice in New York.
1
SPEAKER_00
He was a friend of mine.
1
SPEAKER_00
He was a free speech absolutist.
1
SPEAKER_00
And he wrote a fabulous book called Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee.
1
SPEAKER_00
And he was an absolutist, and I m with Nat Hentoff.
1
SPEAKER_01
Even on the defamation aspect.
1
SPEAKER_01
I mean, I agree with you in some sense, just practically speaking, it seems like
1
SPEAKER_01
that the best way in the public sphere to defend against defamation is with more speech.
1
SPEAKER_01
And through authenticity, through authentic communication of the truth as you see it.
1
SPEAKER_00
You know, at times the Boston Globe has said something about me that hasn t been accurate.
1
SPEAKER_00
They have invariably published my letter to the editor.
1
SPEAKER_00
I m also,
1
SPEAKER_00
I m not bashful about getting in touch with the reporter.
1
SPEAKER_00
At the end of every column, they give the reporter s email address.
1
SPEAKER_00
And I know people say that I have more access to the media than most people.
1
SPEAKER_00
But all that means is I get the fame more than most people.
1
SPEAKER_01
Can we also comment on, from the individual consumer of speech, there s a kind of sense that freedom of speech means you should be forced to read all of it.
1
SPEAKER_01
Freedom of speech versus freedom of reach.
1
SPEAKER_01
we as consumers of speech, do we have the right to select what we read?
1
SPEAKER_00
We do.
1
SPEAKER_00
And nobody can force us to sit in a room and listen to a radio program that we don t wanna listen to.
1
SPEAKER_00
Nobody can force us to read a book that we don t wanna read.
1
SPEAKER_00
The whole notion of freedom of speech means that people have autonomy on their choices.
1
SPEAKER_01
in order to form a complete mind and complete human being, there s a kind of tension of that autonomy versus consuming as many varied perspectives as possible, which is underlying the ethic of free speech.
1
SPEAKER_01
So on college campuses, it seems like a good way to develop the mind is to get as many perspectives as possible, even if you don t really want to.
1
SPEAKER_00
That is the theory.
1
SPEAKER_00
Academic freedom is supposed to be the highest degree of free speech.
1
SPEAKER_00
You should be able to entertain all kinds of hateful, threatening ideas, and the way I put it is there s something wrong when you can say something with complete abandon without any fear in Harvard Square,
1
SPEAKER_00
whereas on the other side of the fence, you can t say it in Harvard Yard.
1
SPEAKER_00
It should be the opposite.
1
SPEAKER_00
And what happens is universities, from the best to the worst, from the most famous to the least well-known, have been taken over by administrators.
1
SPEAKER_00
Administrators do not really subsume academic values.
1
SPEAKER_00
They know nothing about the Constitution.
1
SPEAKER_00
They know nothing about free speech.
1
SPEAKER_00
They know nothing about academic freedom.
1
SPEAKER_00
they feel that their job is to keep order.
1
SPEAKER_00
And so they develop speech codes, kangaroo courts to enforce the speech codes.
1
SPEAKER_00
And these are very dire developments.
1
SPEAKER_00
I wrote about them in the shadow university in 98, and tried to deal with them in 1999 when I started FIRE, co-started FIRE.
1
SPEAKER_00
And, um,
1
SPEAKER_00
I would fire, the reason I m running currently for the Harvard Board of Overseers is what I d like to do is convince the Harvard Corporation, the so-called president and fellows of Harvard College, the chief governing board of the university with the real power, the Board of Overseers is a secondary body, but quite influential, to fire 95% of the administrators.
1
SPEAKER_00
It would have a salutary effect on the academics of the university.
1
SPEAKER_00
It would have a salutary effect on free speech and academic freedom.
1
SPEAKER_00
It would cut tuitions by about 40%.
1
SPEAKER_00
And it would create a whole different atmosphere on the campus.
1
SPEAKER_00
And the same could be said of MIT or any other place.
1
SPEAKER_00
I think administrators are a very bad influence on American higher education.
1
SPEAKER_01
Can you sort of elaborate the intuition why this thing that you call administrative bloat is such a bad thing for a university?
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, first of all, just in terms of the
1
SPEAKER_00
The cost of maintaining, there are more administrators in American higher education than there are faculty members.
1
SPEAKER_00
The cost is enormous.
1
SPEAKER_00
Number two, they are inimical to the teaching enterprise and they feel that their job is to control things, to make sure there are no problems and nobody s feelings are hurt.
1
SPEAKER_00
Being called before a dean because you said something that insulted somebody is something that shouldn t happen in American higher education, yet it happens because you have these administrators who think it s their job to protect people from being insulted.
1
SPEAKER_00
You insult a black student, you insult a woman.
1
SPEAKER_00
There s a disciplinary hearing.
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, there shouldn t be.
1
SPEAKER_00
Black people are accustomed to being insulted.
1
SPEAKER_00
Jews are accustomed to being insulted.
1
SPEAKER_00
Women are accustomed to being insulted.
1
SPEAKER_00
And it s very good to know who doesn t like you.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s useful.
1
SPEAKER_00
It is very, it s essential information to know who doesn t like you.
1
SPEAKER_00
If everybody is forced to say I love you and nobody can say I hate you, you get a false view of what life is all about.
1
SPEAKER_00
Outside of the university.
1
SPEAKER_00
Outside of the university.
1
SPEAKER_00
I mean, you do graduate eventually.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that s ultimately the mission of the university, is to prepare you to make you into a great human being, into a great leader that can take on the problems of the world.
1
SPEAKER_00
Correct, correct.
1
SPEAKER_00
And you don t do it by treating you like a little flower.
1
SPEAKER_01
But what role does the university have to protect students?
1
SPEAKER_01
To women, African Americans, anybody, Jews, anybody who can be a victim of hate speech.
1
SPEAKER_00
They protect you from physical assault.
1
SPEAKER_00
If somebody physically assaults you,
1
SPEAKER_00
then they get punished.
1
SPEAKER_00
But they shouldn t protect you against insult.
1
SPEAKER_00
because that is a violation of academic freedom, the freedom of the insulter to insult you.
1
SPEAKER_00
And also, as I said, it s very useful to know who doesn t like you.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s useful for the so-called victim.
1
SPEAKER_00
I think it s essential, I wanna know who doesn t like me.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s as important to me as knowing who likes me.
1
SPEAKER_01
But do you also believe in this open space of discourse that the insulter will eventually lose?
1
SPEAKER_00
I think that s true.
1
SPEAKER_00
I think the insulter eventually will wear out his or her welcome.
1
SPEAKER_00
I do.
1
SPEAKER_00
But I like to know who the insulters are.
1
SPEAKER_00
Because it gives you a deeper understanding of human nature.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, and usually, by the way, my experience has been that the insulters have generally not been as smart as the people they ve insulted.
1
SPEAKER_00
And that s probably one of the reasons they insult them, because they feel inferior.
1
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I m not trying to be a psychoanalyst here, but a lot of the people who are the haters are pretty low down in the intellectual scale.
1
SPEAKER_01
Anyway, 95% of administration, you would fire, you re calling to fire 95% of the administration.
1
SPEAKER_01
People should know, I think,
1
SPEAKER_01
people that don t really think about the structure, the way the universities work, are not familiar, I think, with the fact that administration, there s a huge bloat of administration.
1
SPEAKER_01
You know, when you think about what makes a great university, it s about the students, it s about the faculty, it s about the people that do research, if it s a research university.
1
SPEAKER_01
They don t think about the bureaucracy of meetings and committees and rules and paperwork and all that and all the people that are involved with pushing that kind of paper.
1
SPEAKER_01
And there s a huge cost to that, but it also slows down and suppresses the beautiful variety that makes the university great, which is the teaching,
1
SPEAKER_01
the student life, the protests, the clubs, all the fun that you can have in a university, all the very kind of exploration, which you can t really do once you graduate.
1
SPEAKER_01
The university is a place to really explore in every single way.
1
SPEAKER_01
So let me just talk about this important thing because I m very fortunate to have contacted you almost by accident in a very important moment in your life.
1
SPEAKER_01
You re running for the Harvard Board of Overseers.
1
SPEAKER_01
What is this board?
1
SPEAKER_01
How much power does it have?
2
SPEAKER_00
and what would you do if elected?
2
SPEAKER_00
Okay, first of all I have a prediction.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
2
SPEAKER_00
That in about five years they re gonna probably change the name because overseers reminds people of the slavery era.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
2
SPEAKER_00
And we re in a such a politically correct era now that the English language is being restricted, corrupted is the way I put it.
2
SPEAKER_00
because certain words are forbidden.
2
SPEAKER_00
We have some problems in this country, and I think part of the problem is the educational system has lost the sense of what academic freedom and free speech are all about.
2
SPEAKER_00
And I think it s essential that the educational system begin to take more seriously what free speech and academic freedom really are.
2
SPEAKER_00
That s why I m running for the Harvard Board of Overseers.
2
SPEAKER_01
So let me just linger on the role of the administration in protecting free speech.
2
SPEAKER_01
So what often happens, I think you ve written about this, is there s going to be a few, maybe a small number of hypersensitive students and faculty that protest.
2
SPEAKER_01
So how does Harvard administration resist the influence of those hypersensitive protesters in protecting speech and protecting even hate speech?
2
SPEAKER_00
Harvard has done fairly well under the presidency of Lawrence Bacow.
2
SPEAKER_00
I have had a couple of meetings with Bacow.
2
SPEAKER_00
I like Bacow.
2
SPEAKER_00
I have donated to Harvard a print of my late wife, took a picture of Bob Dylan and Allen Ginsberg when the Rolling Thunder review got to Harvard Square.
2
SPEAKER_00
And it s sort of an iconic photograph.
2
SPEAKER_00
She called it the music lesson, because it s got Dylan teaching Ginsburg how to play the guitar.
2
SPEAKER_00
And I donated one of those to Harvard.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s hanging in Backhouse office.
2
SPEAKER_00
The new president, Claudine Gay, is not known for respecting academic freedom and free speech.
2
SPEAKER_00
People have said to me, well, give her a chance.
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, I m willing to give her a chance, but she does have a record.
2
SPEAKER_00
and she s a bureaucrat.
2
SPEAKER_00
I don t think she believes in free speech and academic freedom.
2
SPEAKER_00
I think she s a progressive, not a liberal.
2
SPEAKER_00
I m not happy with the appointment of Claudine Gay, and it has made more essential my attempt to get on the board of overseers.
2
SPEAKER_01
So let s talk about the Board of Overseers and your run for it.
2
SPEAKER_01
The specifics, actually.
2
SPEAKER_01
It would be nice because I think you re a write-in candidate and the election is over on May 16th?
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
2
SPEAKER_01
And I think there are specifics, I ll probably give them in the intro, I ll give links to people, but the specifics are complicated.
2
SPEAKER_01
Let me just mention that you have to be Harvard alumni, so I ve graduated from Harvard.
2
SPEAKER_00
You have to, in order to run and in order to vote.
2
SPEAKER_01
In order to vote.
2
SPEAKER_01
And the process, I imagine, is not trivial, but
2
SPEAKER_01
This is done online, and if you re an alumni, you should have received an email from a particular email address, harvard.mgelectionservicescourt.com, and presumably there s a way to get some validation number from that email, and then you go online, you enter that validation number, and you vote.
2
SPEAKER_01
And to vote for Harvey, you have to enter his name correctly, Harvey Silverglate, and spell it correctly.
2
SPEAKER_01
Obviously, I m imagining this because I m MIT, not Harvard.
2
SPEAKER_01
So I m imagining the process is not trivial.
2
SPEAKER_01
You have to click on things, you have to sort of follow instructions that are not trivial.
2
SPEAKER_01
And I ll also provide an email if the process is painful, it doesn t work for you, that you can email.
2
SPEAKER_01
Email harvard and complain, ithelp at harvard.edu and so on.
2
SPEAKER_01
I ll provide all the links.
2
SPEAKER_01
But is there something else you can say
2
SPEAKER_01
about the voting process, what you re running on.
2
SPEAKER_00
This is my second run.
2
SPEAKER_00
The first time I got enough signatures to get on the ballot.
2
SPEAKER_00
Then the Harvard Alumni Association sent out a letter to all living Harvard alums recommending that they vote for the officially nominated candidates.
2
SPEAKER_00
that excluded two petition candidates of whom I was one.
2
SPEAKER_00
And I wrote to the Alumni Association and I said, you have now sent out the curricula vitaes and the policy positions of all the officially nominated candidates.
2
SPEAKER_00
There are two petition candidates on the ballot.
2
SPEAKER_00
I would like to be able to send out my
2
SPEAKER_00
positions to the voters.
2
SPEAKER_00
They wrote me back saying, our policy is to only send out the policy positions and the platforms of officially nominated candidates.
2
SPEAKER_00
Can you believe that?
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, this is a liberal arts college, right?
2
SPEAKER_00
Where from the clash of ideas, truth emerges.
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, really?
2
SPEAKER_00
This is what I call Harvard s
2
SPEAKER_00
not so subtle means of candidate suppression, not voter suppression, candidate suppression.
2
SPEAKER_00
And everybody can vote, but not everybody can run.
2
SPEAKER_00
It ill becomes a liberal arts college where the clash of ideas will produce the truth.
2
SPEAKER_00
We ll worry about the clash of ideas on the board of overseers.
2
SPEAKER_00
The board of overseers is important.
2
SPEAKER_00
It doesn t have the same power and authority as the Harvard Corporation, the so-called president and fellows of Harvard College, but it s very influential.
2
SPEAKER_00
and very important, and it would be a great perch for me to try to exert influence for the university to get back to where it was before it was taken over by the administrators.
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, I m pretty sure that most of Harvard alumni, most of the students currently going to Harvard, most of the faculty at Harvard probably stand behind the ideas and the ideals that you stand behind.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yep.
2
SPEAKER_01
the people that love Harvard and what it stands for.
2
SPEAKER_00
See, the alumni were educated in an era where these concepts were taken more seriously.
2
SPEAKER_00
And before the administration, the administrators took over.
2
SPEAKER_00
So I do think if I get my message out, I m gonna win the seat.
2
SPEAKER_00
And if I win a seat,
2
SPEAKER_00
I will have a great perch for trying to convince the real power that be, which is the Harvard Corporation, to do the things that I m suggesting.
2
SPEAKER_00
Get rid of 95% of the administrators, get rid of their speech codes, reduce tuition by 40%, all of these salutary benefits.
2
SPEAKER_00
Can you imagine if Harvard became the most affordable college in the United States?
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, the affordability is another aspect, but I think before that, just the freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of thought at America s greatest universities, I think is something that everybody would agree on.
2
SPEAKER_00
It would have a tremendous effect on the whole country.
2
SPEAKER_01
And is there something to say about the details of how difficult it is for alumni to vote?
2
SPEAKER_01
Do you have experience with this?
2
SPEAKER_00
You can vote online or you can vote by paper ballot.
2
SPEAKER_00
You can request a paper ballot.
2
SPEAKER_00
And all I can say is that the hard part is getting the message out.
2
SPEAKER_00
My name doesn t appear on the ballot because I couldn t get enough signatures.
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, Harvey, Harvey Silverglate.
2
SPEAKER_00
S-I-L-V-E-R-G-L-A-T.
2
SPEAKER_00
You know, when my grandparents arrived from Russia, the name in Russian was something like Zilberglit.
2
SPEAKER_00
And the immigration officer had several choices.
2
SPEAKER_00
He could have said silver gate.
2
SPEAKER_00
Silver and gate are real English words.
2
SPEAKER_00
He could have said silver glade, G-L-A-D-E.
2
SPEAKER_00
Those are real English words.
2
SPEAKER_00
That s how my name is often misspelled, either silver gate or silver glade.
2
SPEAKER_00
Silver glade is a nonsense syllable.
2
SPEAKER_00
and why the immigration officer chose to transliterate zilberglit as silverglade, I ll never understand, and it is the cause of endless mistakes in my name.
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, the fundamental absurdity of life is also the source of its beauty.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
2
SPEAKER_01
Anyway, we shall spell it out and we shall get, yell loud and wide that everybody who has ever graduated from Harvard should vote for you if they believe in the ideals of the great American universities, which I think most people do.
2
SPEAKER_01
Let me also ask about diversity, inclusion, and equity programs.
2
SPEAKER_01
You ve had a few harsh words to say about those.
2
SPEAKER_01
The idea of diversity, I think, is a beautiful idea.
2
SPEAKER_01
You said that Harvard s idea of diversity is for everyone to look different and think alike.
2
SPEAKER_01
Correct.
2
SPEAKER_01
Can you elaborate?
2
SPEAKER_00
And be comfortable.
2
SPEAKER_00
and be comfortable.
2
SPEAKER_00
First of all, it is impossible, if liberal arts education is taken seriously, it s impossible for students to feel comfortable.
2
SPEAKER_00
Why?
2
SPEAKER_00
Because one of the roles of college is to challenge all the beliefs that they grew up with, which mostly are the beliefs inculcated by parents and by elementary school teachers.
2
SPEAKER_00
And the idea is to be able to challenge those thoughts, those ideas.
2
SPEAKER_00
And if you don t have free speech and academic freedom, those views get reified, they do not get challenged.
2
SPEAKER_00
So it violates the fundamental role of higher educational institutions to have any restrictions at all.
2
SPEAKER_00
That s number one.
2
SPEAKER_00
Number two, as I think I said earlier, if people, students are not allowed to be frank with one another, they don t really learn about one another.
2
SPEAKER_00
You know, I ve given a lot of lectures in which I have said, and I think students now understand it, I m much more interested in hearing from the people who hate me than the people who love me.
2
SPEAKER_00
I m much more interested in knowing who disagrees with me than people who agree with me.
2
SPEAKER_00
That s how I learn, and that s how they learn, the clash of ideas, which is the theory behind the First Amendment.
2
SPEAKER_00
that truth will somehow emerge, or if not truth, at least a better truth, a truer truth, a more useful truth, if ideas are allowed to clash.
2
SPEAKER_01
especially in the structure of a university where, at least I would say there s some set of rules, some set of civility.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think I would rather read Mein Kampf to understand people that hate.
2
SPEAKER_01
There is also a quality to disagreement that we should strive for.
2
SPEAKER_01
And I think a university is a place where when disagreement and even hate is allowed, it s done in a high effort way.
2
SPEAKER_00
You know, somebody asked me once about what books I would,
2
SPEAKER_00
what I have is required reading in literature courses, and I listed my income, and they were horrified.
2
SPEAKER_00
And I said, well, it s one of the most important books of the 20th century.
2
SPEAKER_00
Six million Jews died, an enormous number of other people died.
2
SPEAKER_00
because one guy wrote a book called Mein Kampf and took it seriously.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s one of the most important books ever written.
2
SPEAKER_00
How can an educated person not have at least breezed through Mein Kampf?
2
SPEAKER_00
And... It s not a great read, though.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s not a great read.
2
SPEAKER_00
He was not a great writer.
2
SPEAKER_00
But you do get a sense for the sociopath that was Adolf Hitler.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes, because he really acted on the words that he wrote.
2
SPEAKER_01
And it was there, and if people took that work seriously, they would have understood.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s one of the most important books of the 20th century, and it s politically incorrect to read it.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s crazy.
2
SPEAKER_01
But can you speak to the efforts to increase diversity in universities, which I think is embodied in this DEIE effort of diversity, inclusion, and equity programs.
2
SPEAKER_01
Where do they go right, where do they go wrong?
2
SPEAKER_00
Okay, let me tell you, first of all, this may surprise a lot of people.
2
SPEAKER_00
I am opposed to affirmative action.
2
SPEAKER_00
And I think that what it does is it labels people by their race, by their religion, and by their national origin.
2
SPEAKER_00
Precisely what we don t want people to do is be pigeonholed in those categories.
2
SPEAKER_00
The reason that affirmative action has become the way that universities decide on who gets admitted is because historically, people in what s called marginalized groups, blacks, gays, Hispanics, have been discriminated against in the admissions process.
2
SPEAKER_00
Now, what I have suggested is that instead of affirmative action, and by the way, here s a prediction.
2
SPEAKER_00
The Supreme Court is going to abolish affirmative action.
2
SPEAKER_00
There s a case pending, it s a Harvard case.
2
SPEAKER_00
There are two cases joined together, one of a public university and one of a private university.
2
SPEAKER_00
The private university is Harvard.
2
SPEAKER_00
I predict that the Supreme Court will vote six to three to abolish affirmative action.
2
SPEAKER_00
It is, on its face, it is a violation of equal protection of the law.
2
SPEAKER_00
Some groups are favored because of race or ethnicity.
2
SPEAKER_00
It is a classic violation of equal protection clause.
2
SPEAKER_00
When affirmative action was approved,
2
SPEAKER_00
The deciding vote was Justice Sandra Day O Connor.
2
SPEAKER_00
She wrote a very famous opinion in which she said, I hesitate to vote to keep up the notion of affirmative action, because it s such an obvious violation of equal protection.
2
SPEAKER_00
But we have an urgent problem in this society.
2
SPEAKER_00
We are not educating our,
2
SPEAKER_00
members of racial, ethnic minorities, and we have to try to get them into our colleges.
2
SPEAKER_00
So I think it should be approved for 25 years, and it will, it should be, in 25 years, it should have performed its role.
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, it hasn t.
2
SPEAKER_00
And the 25 years is coming up.
2
SPEAKER_00
I think it s three or four years left.
2
SPEAKER_00
The Supreme Court is going to abolish it.
2
SPEAKER_00
You can take my word for that.
2
SPEAKER_00
Because it is such an obvious violation of equal protection.
2
SPEAKER_00
Why did affirmative action come into play?
2
SPEAKER_00
Because the secondary and elementary schools are so bad.
2
SPEAKER_00
Public secondary and elementary schools are so bad.
2
SPEAKER_00
Why are they so bad?
2
SPEAKER_00
Partly because of the control that the teachers  union has.
2
SPEAKER_00
Randy Weingarten runs the public school system in the United States.
2
SPEAKER_00
And what I have suggested is that the effort should be to, this is an emergency, it s a national emergency, to improve
2
SPEAKER_00
the quality of elementary and secondary education.
2
SPEAKER_00
And one way to do it is to hire teachers who are fabulous teachers rather than necessarily members of the union.
2
SPEAKER_00
I have come to oppose public workers unions.
2
SPEAKER_00
I am a very strong supporter of
3
SPEAKER_00
unions in the private sector.
3
SPEAKER_00
Why do I think there s such a difference between unions in the public sector and the private sector?
3
SPEAKER_00
In the private sector, management is arguing bargaining with its own money and with the money of shareholders.
3
SPEAKER_00
In the public sector, there s only one side.
3
SPEAKER_00
There is the teacher s union, and then there s a school committee that is dealing with the taxpayers  money, not their own.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so it s a very skewed power balance.
3
SPEAKER_00
So as supportive as I am of private sector unions, I am in opposition of public sector unions.
3
SPEAKER_00
They re very destructive.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I think without teachers union,
3
SPEAKER_00
Teachers who are really skilled will be able to get jobs.
3
SPEAKER_00
They would not have to worry about the seniority of teachers who long since have given up really creative teaching.
3
SPEAKER_00
And we have to improve the public educational system.
3
SPEAKER_00
I had, my late wife and I, had a classmate, we have a son who s now 44, who went to the public schools in Cambridge.
3
SPEAKER_00
He has a friend, first name Eugene, who was a black kid from Roxbury, whose mother understood that the schools in Roxbury were terrible, the schools in Cambridge were pretty good.
3
SPEAKER_00
He lived in our house,
3
SPEAKER_00
Monday to Friday, and he went to school with Isaac in the Cambridge Public Schools.
3
SPEAKER_00
Elsa and I would show up to school committee meetings when there was bargaining between the teachers  union and the school committee.
3
SPEAKER_00
The teachers  union objected to our being there.
3
SPEAKER_00
We argued we re taxpayers.
3
SPEAKER_00
We have a kid in the school and we have
3
SPEAKER_00
who his best friend lives with us and goes to school with him, we have a real interest.
3
SPEAKER_00
And the school committee walked out of the bargaining session.
3
SPEAKER_00
The city council then reconsidered its vote and they voted that citizens, taxpayers, parents of kids in the school could not show up to these negotiation sessions.
3
SPEAKER_00
I thought that was absolutely outrageous.
3
SPEAKER_00
But I understood why.
3
SPEAKER_00
Because these contracts are crazy.
3
SPEAKER_00
No sane municipality should enter into some of these contracts.
3
SPEAKER_00
And...
3
SPEAKER_00
So I have become an opponent of the National Teachers Association, the Cambridge Teachers Association.
3
SPEAKER_00
I don t think there should be unions for public employees, because there s no real bargaining going on.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I think that the public school system will never be improved as long as the
3
SPEAKER_00
The teachers are unionized.
3
SPEAKER_01
So that, to you, is at the core of the problem that results in the kind of inequality of opportunity that affirmative action is designed to solve.
3
SPEAKER_00
Correct.
3
SPEAKER_00
If the educational system in the elementary and high school levels is improved, we wouldn t need affirmative action.
3
SPEAKER_00
These kids would get good educations.
3
SPEAKER_01
So from all backgrounds, poor kids in the United States will get good education if public unions are abolished.
3
SPEAKER_01
Correct.
3
SPEAKER_00
But do you... And incidentally, the Postal Service would probably work better too.
3
SPEAKER_01
That s a whole other conversation.
3
SPEAKER_01
But to you, at the core of the problem of the inequality in universities that diversity, inclusion, and equity programs are trying to solve is the public education system of secondary education.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yes, correct.
3
SPEAKER_01
Elementary and secondary.
3
SPEAKER_01
Elementary and secondary education.
3
SPEAKER_01
Well then, is there use, what is the benefit, what is the drawback of DIE, diversity, inclusion, and equity programs at universities like Harvard?
3
SPEAKER_00
It s an affirmative action, basically.
3
SPEAKER_00
And what it does is it allows the system of elementary and secondary education to be bad.
3
SPEAKER_00
Because they could say, oh, we got our kids into Harvard.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yes, but you haven t educated them.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it covers up the wound.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I think we will never improve as long as we re able to cover up the wound.
3
SPEAKER_00
And as I said, affirmative action is gonna be abolished by the Supreme Court.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s a clear violation of equal protection.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s what s Sandra Day O Connor understood, but ignored intentionally, but as an experiment.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I believe it s gonna be abolished, and that s gonna have, that s gonna force
3
SPEAKER_00
the elementary and high schools to get serious.
3
SPEAKER_01
Do you see the same issues that you discuss now at Harvard, at MIT?
3
SPEAKER_01
We re here in Boston, so I have to talk about the great universities here in Boston.
3
SPEAKER_01
You ve written about MIT.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s a university I love.
3
SPEAKER_01
I m a research scientist there.
3
SPEAKER_01
Do you see the same kind of issues there?
3
SPEAKER_01
Yes, I do.
3
SPEAKER_01
Do you remember, can you explain the case of Dorian Abbott Lecture that was canceled at MIT?
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, well, you know, this is not the only, it s not the only incident.
3
SPEAKER_00
There have been incidents all around the country of academics, professors who have views that don t comport with the, as the great Lillian Hellman, another friend of my late wife,
3
SPEAKER_00
She said she refused to cut her garments in order to fit the fashions of the day.
3
SPEAKER_00
Dorian Abbott didn t cut his suit to fit the fashions of the day, his intellectual suit.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so he was, this has happened at Princeton, this has happened at Harvard, this has happened at MIT.
3
SPEAKER_00
The great universities in the country have decided that the clash of ideas is not such a good idea because some people s feelings will be hurt.
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, there was quite a revolt.
3
SPEAKER_00
against it, fire sounded the alarm.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then in the end, the universities were, I believe Abbott was invited to come back.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think he turned them down.
3
SPEAKER_00
He shouldn t have turned them down, but he did.
3
SPEAKER_00
And when the light is cast upon these situations, the universities back down because they re so embarrassed.
3
SPEAKER_00
And the newspapers, because newspapers depend on the First Amendment in order to exist, newspapers tend to give pretty good publicity to these cases of censorship.
3
SPEAKER_00
So they grill the universities.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_01
So they really emphasize, they catalyze the embarrassment.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_01
So is that one of the ways, is that the best way to fight all of this?
3
SPEAKER_00
Yes, sunshine is the best disinfectant.
3
SPEAKER_01
You ve written about MIT s connection to Jeffrey Epstein.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_01
He was well-connected at MIT and at Harvard.
3
SPEAKER_01
What lessons do you draw about human nature, about universities, about all of this from this saga?
3
SPEAKER_00
Let me say this.
3
SPEAKER_00
I believe that universities
3
SPEAKER_00
If somebody wants to, for example, donate to a university and donates on the requirement that the building be named after them, if the university is taking the donations and the person is funding a building and wants the building named after them,
3
SPEAKER_00
the building should be named after him, him, or them.
3
SPEAKER_00
Harvard is facing this now with the Sackler building because the Sacklers have become now a persona non grata because of their role in producing the opioids that caused the huge scandalous opioid addiction.
3
SPEAKER_00
There are people who want to remove the name Sackler from the Sackler Art Museum at Harvard.
3
SPEAKER_00
Larry Bacow, the president of Harvard, to his credit, has refused to do that.
3
SPEAKER_00
And if it reminds people that the money was earned through selling opioids, that s good.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s good that people understand that that s where the Sacklers got their money.
3
SPEAKER_00
They should be reminded.
3
SPEAKER_00
In my undergraduate alma mater, Princeton, there s a movement to remove the name Woodrow Wilson.
3
SPEAKER_00
because Wilson was president of Princeton before he became governor of New Jersey, before he became president of the United States.
3
SPEAKER_00
How he got to be governor of New Jersey was he was so insufferable that the trustees of Princeton got him the nomination to run for governor of New Jersey.
3
SPEAKER_00
They had said, we gotta get this guy out of here.
3
SPEAKER_00
And not because he was anti-black and anti-Semitic, as the trustees were as well, but because he just was insufferable.
3
SPEAKER_00
He drove the faculty crazy.
3
SPEAKER_00
And they got him out.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so Princeton was thinking of changing the name.
3
SPEAKER_00
I wrote a letter to President Eisgruber at Princeton saying, you know, this is part of the university s history.
3
SPEAKER_00
You don t wanna, you wanna rewrite history falsely?
3
SPEAKER_00
Woodrow Wilson was the president of this institution.
3
SPEAKER_00
He was one of your predecessors.
3
SPEAKER_00
He never answered me either.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think these people, you know, they know they have no answer.
3
SPEAKER_00
The reason I didn t get a response from President Eisgruber is the same as the reason I didn t get a response from the headmaster of Milton Academy.
3
SPEAKER_00
They understand that what they re doing is violative of the fundamental precepts of academic institutions.
3
SPEAKER_00
They re ashamed that they feel they have no choice because they feel that they would be criticized for racism, homophobia, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
3
SPEAKER_00
Criticized by how many people?
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, they feel that they would be criticized by students and parents and donors.
3
SPEAKER_00
I disagree with that.
3
SPEAKER_00
I actually think there are more people out there that agree with me than agree with them.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, by a large margin.
3
SPEAKER_00
By a large margin in what I call the real world, which is the world outside the campus.
3
SPEAKER_00
But academics are afraid they d be criticized.
3
SPEAKER_00
They re incredibly thin-skinned.
3
SPEAKER_00
When I say academics, I mean academic administrators.
3
SPEAKER_00
They re very thin-skinned, politically correct, holier-than-thou.
3
SPEAKER_00
As I said, I would fire 95% of them, and I would be more careful in who I
3
SPEAKER_00
elected to lead these institutions.
3
SPEAKER_00
I said pulling gay is probably gonna be a disaster at Harvard.
3
SPEAKER_01
So it takes guts, it takes courage to be in the administration when the task of protecting the freedom of speech is there.
3
SPEAKER_01
And also, which in part requires you to admit and to uphold the mistakes you have done in the past.
3
SPEAKER_01
Correct.
3
SPEAKER_01
Not to hide them.
3
SPEAKER_00
Correct.
3
SPEAKER_01
And that to you, I mean Jeffrey Epstein for Harvard and for MIT is a very recent mistake.
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, there s a debate whether it s a mistake.
3
SPEAKER_00
They took money from him.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_00
Okay.
3
SPEAKER_00
Is it a mistake to take money from bad people?
3
SPEAKER_00
Do you have to do a morals test of a potential donor?
3
SPEAKER_00
I don t think so.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s complicated because- If there are no conditions attached to it, I think it s emotionally complicated.
3
SPEAKER_00
I don t think that it is rationally complicated.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s emotionally complicated.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s particularly complicated if they want naming rights.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_00
You know, the Jeffrey Epstein Biological Laboratory,
3
SPEAKER_00
That would be a problem for most universities.
3
SPEAKER_00
I don t think that naming rights have to be given to somebody that you don t think is worthy of having their name.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think the university has the right to say, no, we ll take your money, but we will not name the building after you.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think they have a right to do that.
3
SPEAKER_01
There s some degree in which you whitewash the name, though.
3
SPEAKER_01
If you, not with naming rights, but if you take the money, it allows the person in public discourse to say that they re collaborating, they re working together with Harvard and with MIT.
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, I have a problem with universities making morals tests of donors.
3
SPEAKER_00
Because not every donor is as bad as Epstein, but some of the donors made their money in industry by being rapacious, by paying low wages, by exploiting people.
3
SPEAKER_01
You can make the case that accepting money from the Department of Defense, from DARPA, from the United States organizations that contributed to waging war and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians over the past few decades.
3
SPEAKER_01
Folks like the tenured Professor Noam Chomsky will make the case that that is far more evil than accepting money from Jeffrey Epstein.
3
SPEAKER_01
Still, Jeffrey Epstein is a known pedophile.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_00
So that s why I say I would not give him naming rights.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think the university has the autonomy to not give naming rights.
3
SPEAKER_00
But I think that giving morals tests to donors is a Pandora s box.
3
SPEAKER_01
What do you think about the aftermath of the Jeffrey Epstein saga?
3
SPEAKER_01
It feels like, I m not familiar with Harvard s response, but MIT s response seemed to fire a few scapegoats, and it didn t seem like a genuine response to the evils that human beings are capable of sort of
3
SPEAKER_01
like rising to the surface, the description in a fully transparent way of all the interactions that happened with Jeffrey Epstein and what that means.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, what that means about the role of money in universities, what that means about just human beings in power.
3
SPEAKER_00
Money is essential to run a university.
3
SPEAKER_00
One of the reasons it s essential is because the university is artificially
3
SPEAKER_00
artificially requires huge amounts of money, and that s partly because of the administrative army that they support.
3
SPEAKER_00
And they would be less dependent on the Jeffrey Epstein s of the world if they didn t have
3
SPEAKER_00
So it s sort of all part of the same circle.
3
SPEAKER_01
But there s a tension here.
3
SPEAKER_01
You re saying we shouldn t be putting a morals test on money, but actually if you make, if you expand the amount of money needed to run the university, you re going to make less and less, more and more unethical decisions in terms of accepting money.
3
SPEAKER_00
Correct.
3
SPEAKER_00
And this is, I am flexible enough to say that I don t think I would name a building after somebody who is truly evil.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think university has the,
3
SPEAKER_00
has the right to limit the naming rights for a donor.
3
SPEAKER_00
If I was an absolutist, I would not even say that.
3
SPEAKER_00
I m not an absolutist.
3
SPEAKER_00
I have my limits.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that s one of them.
3
SPEAKER_00
The Jeffrey Epstein Biological Laboratory, it s a little bit much.
3
SPEAKER_01
It feels like there should be a requirement on, there should be more requirements on who to accept money from.
3
SPEAKER_01
But the question is, the concern you have is about who gets to decide.
3
SPEAKER_01
And what s the alternative?
3
SPEAKER_00
Correct, I think there is no alternative.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think that turning down donation because you,
3
SPEAKER_00
you don t approve of the conduct of the donor is a Pandora s box.
3
SPEAKER_01
But I m just sickened by the fact that an evil human being was allowed to walk in the halls of a university I love.
3
SPEAKER_01
So what do we do with that?
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, are you telling me that none of the students are evil?
3
SPEAKER_00
Are you telling me none of the faculty members are evil?
3
SPEAKER_00
Are you telling me none of the administrators are evil?
3
SPEAKER_01
But that doesn t, sure, sure.
3
SPEAKER_01
So saying, scapegoating, saying that Jeffrey Epstein is evil can help us forget, can aid us in forgetting that there is other evil in the world, and some of it might be roaming still the halls of MIT and Harvard.
3
SPEAKER_00
Hey listen, I won t tell you the name, but I represented somebody in the MIT administration a few years ago,
4
SPEAKER_00
who was charged with sexual improprieties against students.
4
SPEAKER_00
And as a lawyer, I represented that person.
4
SPEAKER_00
People said, how could you represent, some of the people I represented, bad people.
4
SPEAKER_00
Say, how can you represent some?
4
SPEAKER_00
I said, well, if I was a cardiologist and this person had a heart attack on the street and I didn t deliver CPR, I would have my license taken away.
4
SPEAKER_00
I m a lawyer.
4
SPEAKER_00
The only difference between my obligation and the doctor s obligation is the Constitution gives people the right to assistance of counsel.
4
SPEAKER_00
The Constitution says nothing about the assistance of cardiologists.
4
SPEAKER_00
I have a very high duty to represent unpopular people.
4
SPEAKER_00
Well, I think I apply the same test to the college donors.
4
SPEAKER_00
The university should not have a morals test.
4
SPEAKER_00
Who s money to take?
4
SPEAKER_00
I do draw a line about naming rights of buildings.
4
SPEAKER_00
And as I say, that s an inconsistency with my absolutism, but I just emotionally, I just can t deal with having, you know, as I said, the Jeffrey Epstein Biological Laboratory,
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, for me, emotionally, there s nothing that sickens me more in the university than the abuse of power.
4
SPEAKER_00
Right, and there s an awful lot of people who abuse power at a university.
4
SPEAKER_01
And especially when it comes to abuse power over students.
4
SPEAKER_01
Correct.
4
SPEAKER_01
So sexual harassment, so in the realm of sexual abuse of power, and all kinds of other abuses of power.
4
SPEAKER_00
It is a crime to use one s power position in order to take sexual advantage of a student.
4
SPEAKER_00
It s a crime.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
4
SPEAKER_00
This is not a close question.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, but there s a legal crime and there s a deeply ethical crime and there s an emotional response that I have.
4
SPEAKER_01
You are a good lawyer and perhaps a good man to want to defend some folks who are evil in this world.
4
SPEAKER_01
I don t think I have that emotional fortitude.
4
SPEAKER_00
Well, then you shouldn t be a criminal defense lawyer or a cardiologist.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think you re right.
4
SPEAKER_01
I m still deeply sickened by Jeffrey Epstein and the faculty, the administration that still might be in these great American universities that are abusing their power in small ways and big ways.
4
SPEAKER_01
But that s human nature.
4
SPEAKER_01
You get a little bit of power, and you re a bad man or a bad woman, and you take advantage of it.
4
SPEAKER_01
We see that in the smallest of ways and in the biggest of ways in institutions and regimes all across the world.
4
SPEAKER_01
Boy, Harvey, it s a complicated situation.
4
SPEAKER_00
Well, it s a complicated world, and it s complicated to be a human being, and this is nothing new.
4
SPEAKER_00
And we should talk about it without restriction.
4
SPEAKER_01
All right, just to linger on liberal arts, in 2014, and probably still today, you wrote that liberals are killing the liberal arts.
4
SPEAKER_01
So can you explain?
4
SPEAKER_00
Yes, the problem with, I m a political liberal.
4
SPEAKER_00
The problem with the political left is that it has divided between what s called progressives and liberals.
4
SPEAKER_00
Liberals are people of the left who believe in the First Amendment, an absolute First Amendment, and in due process of law.
4
SPEAKER_00
And the problem with progressives now, in the pursuit of equality, what they view as equality, they re willing to bend those rules.
4
SPEAKER_00
And this movement actually started in Brandeis.
4
SPEAKER_00
The critical, it s the critical race theory.
4
SPEAKER_00
It started, Herbert Marcuse was a professor at Brandeis, and he came up with this theory.
4
SPEAKER_00
The theory was this, this is right out of Orwell.
4
SPEAKER_00
In order to create true equality in a society where you have some downtrodden and some who are the ubermentioned,
4
SPEAKER_00
In order to create real equality, you have to reduce the rights of the upper classes and artificially increase the rights of the lower classes.
4
SPEAKER_00
And that will produce, out of unequal treatment, true equality will be attained.
4
SPEAKER_00
This is nonsense.
4
SPEAKER_00
The idea of discrimination producing true equality is nonsense.
4
SPEAKER_00
My view is, as I ve said earlier in our discussion, that the way to increase the opportunities for the lower classes is to give them real educations.
4
SPEAKER_00
And until we do that, it s not gonna happen.
4
SPEAKER_00
And in order to do that, we have to overcome the problem of the teachers unions at the elementary and secondary school levels.
4
SPEAKER_00
Until we re willing to do that honestly and improve those schools, we re gonna have a problem of large number of uneducated people
4
SPEAKER_00
who need a boost because we haven t given them proper educations.
4
SPEAKER_01
What do you think about some of the more controversial faculty in the world?
4
SPEAKER_01
So an example of somebody I ve spoken with many times on mic and offline is Jordan Peterson.
4
SPEAKER_01
I m not sure if you re familiar with his work.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
4
SPEAKER_01
But he is an outspoken critic or proponent of free speech on campus and he s been attacked quite a bit.
4
SPEAKER_01
He s a controversial figure.
4
SPEAKER_01
What s the role of the university to protect the Jordan Petersons of the world?
4
SPEAKER_00
I think the university has an absolute, absolute, not relative, not border that, absolute role, obligation to protect the academic freedom of even the most controversial
4
SPEAKER_00
faculty members.
4
SPEAKER_00
And you can imagine, on a university campus, you have more people who are outliers than you do in the general population.
4
SPEAKER_00
And... That s the hope, at least.
4
SPEAKER_00
Hopefully, yeah.
4
SPEAKER_00
And those outliers have to be protected.
4
SPEAKER_00
They can t be pressured, they can t be fired, they can t be disabled from spewing their views, whether they re considered racist, whether they re considered to promote an idea of human society that s considered obnoxious.
4
SPEAKER_00
It doesn t matter.
4
SPEAKER_00
If you can t have freedom of thought on the college campuses, where can you?
4
SPEAKER_00
Them we re lost, as a society we re lost.
4
SPEAKER_00
And as an educational institution, educational institutions no longer educate, they will indoctrinate.
4
SPEAKER_00
That we have to avoid at all costs.
4
SPEAKER_01
And we should also remember that the outlier might also be the only bearer of truth.
4
SPEAKER_01
So in Nazi Germany speaking against the fascism, fascist regime, in communist Soviet Union speaking against communism, they might hold the key to solving the ailments of that society.
4
SPEAKER_00
Absolutely.
4
SPEAKER_00
And some of the most important discoveries in science, for example,
4
SPEAKER_00
were mocked at the beginning.
4
SPEAKER_00
I mean, think of poor Charlie Darwin.
4
SPEAKER_01
Charlie, I see he is on nickname levels with you.
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, because we re talking about these big topics of sexism, racism, and hate, we should not forget about the smaller topics which might even have the much bigger impact, which is what you re speaking to, which is, I don t know,
4
SPEAKER_01
outlier ideas in science.
4
SPEAKER_01
So basically welcoming controversial ideas in science.
4
SPEAKER_01
And by controversial, I mean just stuff that most of the community doesn t agree on.
4
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t actually harm anyone at all.
4
SPEAKER_01
but even then there s always pressure.
4
SPEAKER_01
One of the things I m really concerned about is how little power young faculty have, that there s a kind of hierarchy, seniority, that universities have, empowered by the administration, where the young faculty that come in, they re kind of... Pre-tenure.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, there s a process in chasing tenure
4
SPEAKER_01
where you re kind of supposed to behave.
4
SPEAKER_01
And there s an incentive to kind of fit in and to not be an outcast.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that s a really huge problem because oftentimes the youth is when the craziest, the biggest ideas, the revolutionary ideas come.
4
SPEAKER_01
And if you re forced to behave and fit in and not speak out, then even in the realm of science, the innovation is stifled.
4
SPEAKER_00
Well, now you trigger my, having to tell you this story.
4
SPEAKER_00
You re triggered, this is good.
4
SPEAKER_00
In the mid-1980s, I decided to take a four-month sabbatical from my law practice.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
4
SPEAKER_00
Professor James Vorenberg, who was at the time Dean of the Harvard Law School, heard about it.
4
SPEAKER_00
Heard about it from his wife, Elizabeth Betty Vorenberg,
4
SPEAKER_00
whom I was very friendly with because we were both on the ACLU, the ACLU of Massachusetts board at the time.
4
SPEAKER_00
And Betty told Jim that Harvey was taking a sabbatical.
4
SPEAKER_00
Jim called Harvey and asked Harvey if he would like to teach a course at the Harvard Law School because there was nobody who had teaching criminal law from the perspective of somebody who actually was in court, litigated.
4
SPEAKER_00
It was all theoretical.
4
SPEAKER_00
I said, sure, I ll do it.
4
SPEAKER_00
So I taught a semester at Harvard Law School.
4
SPEAKER_00
The student evaluations were fabulous.
4
SPEAKER_00
Why?
4
SPEAKER_00
Because it was really interesting.
4
SPEAKER_00
They were hearing a lawyer who was talking about real cases.
4
SPEAKER_00
I actually brought in a few of my clients to some of the classes.
4
SPEAKER_00
And so Jim called me and said, Harvey, the students love this course.
4
SPEAKER_00
I d like to offer you a tenure track position.
4
SPEAKER_00
at the law school, you d have to give up your law practice.
4
SPEAKER_00
I turned him down.
4
SPEAKER_00
He said, did you just say no?
4
SPEAKER_00
I said, yes, I said no.
4
SPEAKER_00
He said, how come?
4
SPEAKER_00
He says, nobody has ever, in my administration, has ever turned down a tenure track offer at Harvard Law School.
4
SPEAKER_00
I said, because I could see that I m not a good fit.
4
SPEAKER_00
that the administrators overrun the place, that faculty members, especially untenured, who are afraid to say things, that might not help them in the tenure quest.
4
SPEAKER_00
It s not a good fit for me.
4
SPEAKER_01
You saw this in the mid-1980s, all right.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yes, about 1985.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I went back to my law practice.
4
SPEAKER_00
I did not want to,
4
SPEAKER_00
get into this meat grinder that I saw.
4
SPEAKER_00
Actually, I started to see it before the turn of the century, because I co-authored The Shadow University in 98, and then co-founded FIRE in 99.
4
SPEAKER_00
I m an early student of this phenomenon.
4
SPEAKER_01
What are some other aspects of the book, The Shadow University, that we may have not covered?
4
SPEAKER_00
Well, let me tell you a story.
4
SPEAKER_00
I believe I tell it, The Shadow University, because it was part of.
4
SPEAKER_00
I m loving these stories, Harvey.
4
SPEAKER_00
The stories are fabulous.
4
SPEAKER_00
Let me tell you a story of, I did a tour of the country, visiting campuses.
4
SPEAKER_00
I visited a college called Hamline University, I believe it was in Indiana or Illinois, somewhere in the Midwest.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I attended a freshman orientation.
4
SPEAKER_00
Now listen to this.
4
SPEAKER_00
This was a freshman orientation.
4
SPEAKER_00
The administrators,
4
SPEAKER_00
the deans and the deanettes and the deputy assistant deans and deanettes and the third deputy assistant deans and deanettes lined the students up according to their skin hues.
4
SPEAKER_00
Oh boy.
4
SPEAKER_00
The blonde, blue-eyed white folks were at one end.
4
SPEAKER_00
The darkest, you know, African-Americans whose bloodlines had not yet mixed with any of the whites
4
SPEAKER_00
on the other end.
4
SPEAKER_00
And the exercise was you had to tell how your race affected your success in life up until that point.
4
SPEAKER_00
I thought it was the most demeaning thing that one could imagine.
4
SPEAKER_00
Demeaning.
4
SPEAKER_00
I thought to myself, they could do the same about sexual orientation, they could do the same about religion, they could do the same about national origin, it would be demeaning no matter what.
4
SPEAKER_00
And the students actually,
4
SPEAKER_00
verbalized how their race had either been a plus or a minus.
4
SPEAKER_00
They did.
4
SPEAKER_00
They did.
4
SPEAKER_00
And I thought it was so demeaning, it just confirmed all of my distaste for this kind of,
4
SPEAKER_00
this kind of approach.
4
SPEAKER_01
Let me ask you from the interviewer seat.
4
SPEAKER_01
So I get to do this podcast and I often have to think about giving a large platform and having a conversation with very controversial figures.
4
SPEAKER_01
And the level of controversy has been slowly increasing.
4
SPEAKER_01
What s the role
4
SPEAKER_01
of this medium to you, this medium of speech between two people and me speaking with a controversial figure, me or some other interviewer?
4
SPEAKER_01
What s the role of giving platform to controversial figures?
4
SPEAKER_01
Say members of the KKK or dictators, people who are seen as evil?
4
SPEAKER_00
Well, we wanna face the world with reality.
4
SPEAKER_00
And the reality is that there are some unpleasantnesses in the world, running from genocide right through to ordinary discrimination, to offensiveness.
4
SPEAKER_00
It s the real world as we know it exists, we re afraid to say it.
4
SPEAKER_00
Do we wanna make people think that we live in a world where those words are not used, where those animosities don t exist?
4
SPEAKER_00
The answer is no.
4
SPEAKER_01
But you can whitewash, you can normalize the use of those words and you can whitewash the acceptability of certain leaders.
4
SPEAKER_01
So for example, interviewing Hitler in 1938, 1935, 1936, 1937, 38, those are all different dynamics there.
4
SPEAKER_01
But you can normalize this person and in so doing create enormous harm.
4
SPEAKER_00
Well see, I don t see it as normalizing.
4
SPEAKER_00
I see it as exposing.
4
SPEAKER_00
If more people had taken Montcalf seriously, Franklin Roosevelt would have acted much sooner.
4
SPEAKER_00
He only got us into the war, asked Congress to get us into the war, when the Japanese made the mistake of attacking Pearl Harbor.
4
SPEAKER_00
But there were some people in the State Department, there were some people in the administration who were trying
4
SPEAKER_00
trying to get Roosevelt to see what Hitler was really like, and he was blind to it.
4
SPEAKER_00
This was one of the greatest presidents the United States ever had.
4
SPEAKER_00
He was blind to it until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
4
SPEAKER_00
So I think that words, unpleasant ideas, as expressed by Rhodes, are essential for communicating fact and truth and reality.
4
SPEAKER_00
And that s why I think that we should not whitewash language, we should not whitewash the fact that Jeffrey Epstein was pretty close to MIT.
4
SPEAKER_00
And Harvard.
4
SPEAKER_00
And Harvard.
4
SPEAKER_00
And
4
SPEAKER_00
Reality actually means something.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, but from the role of the interviewer, that s something I have to think a lot about.
4
SPEAKER_01
Whether interviewing Hitler, you said exposing.
4
SPEAKER_01
I think it s hard to know what Hitler s like in a room, but it s also hard to know, I ve never met Jeffrey Epstein, it s hard to know what Jeffrey Epstein s like in a room.
4
SPEAKER_01
But I imagine to some degree they re charismatic figures.
4
SPEAKER_01
So exposing them,
5
SPEAKER_00
in the interview setting is not an easy task.
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, interviewing is not an easy job.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s not a good idea to have an interview with being an idiot.
5
SPEAKER_01
I know exactly what you re saying and I know why you re looking at me directly as you say it.
5
SPEAKER_01
I appreciate that, Harvey.
5
SPEAKER_01
All right, let me ask about your friend, your colleague, Alan Dershowitz.
5
SPEAKER_01
And I ll also ask about your review of his most recent book.
5
SPEAKER_01
But before then, it d be interesting to ask what you think of him as a human being, as a lawyer.
5
SPEAKER_01
He s quite an interesting case.
5
SPEAKER_01
He s represented some of the most controversial figures in history.
5
SPEAKER_00
Including Jeffrey Epstein.
5
SPEAKER_01
Including Jeffrey Epstein.
5
SPEAKER_01
Mike Tyson, Julian Assange, Jim Baker, and Jeffrey Epstein, and even Donald Trump.
5
SPEAKER_01
So he s an interesting figure.
5
SPEAKER_01
What do you think about that?
5
SPEAKER_00
Klaus von Bülow.
5
SPEAKER_01
What do you think about him as a human being, as a lawyer, what he represents in terms of values and ideals?
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, he s a criminal defense lawyer.
5
SPEAKER_00
And the job of a criminal defense lawyer is to represent accused criminals.
5
SPEAKER_00
He is a lifelong Democrat.
5
SPEAKER_00
He didn t represent Trump because he agrees with him politically.
5
SPEAKER_00
Voted for Hillary, I believe you wrote.
5
SPEAKER_00
He voted for Hillary, yes.
5
SPEAKER_00
That s what he says, and I absolutely believe it.
5
SPEAKER_00
He s a liberal Democrat.
5
SPEAKER_00
But he s a criminal defense lawyer as well as a professor.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I ve represented some very nasty people in my career.
5
SPEAKER_00
I wouldn t go out for coffee with them, but they have constitutional rights to representation.
5
SPEAKER_00
And you take that very seriously.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yes, you notice something that people don t understand about Dershowitz.
5
SPEAKER_00
He was asked by Trump to represent him in the second impeachment as well.
5
SPEAKER_00
He turned him down.
5
SPEAKER_00
Why do you think he turned him down?
5
SPEAKER_00
So people should know he represented Trump in the first impeachment trial.
5
SPEAKER_00
He represented him only in the first.
5
SPEAKER_00
And he was successful, and when Trump was impeached the second time, he asked Allen to represent him.
5
SPEAKER_00
Allen has had a lifelong policy of only representing somebody once, never twice.
5
SPEAKER_00
Why?
5
SPEAKER_00
Because he never wanted to be house counsel to the mafia.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so he, early on, had this position.
5
SPEAKER_00
Only represent somebody once.
5
SPEAKER_00
The mafia wants a lawyer who s an in-house counsel who represents them in all their cases.
5
SPEAKER_00
So that s the reason, and now I never publicly explained it, I know it s a fact, because I ve known it from the day that we met at Harvard Law School, 1964, he was a first year professor, I was a first year student.
5
SPEAKER_00
We both had Brooklyn accents and we hit it off.
5
SPEAKER_00
We ve been close friends ever since.
5
SPEAKER_01
So there s some kind of unethical line that s crossed when you continuously represent a client.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, he thought it was not so much an ethical one.
5
SPEAKER_00
You have a right to represent mafia people, but he didn t want to be house counsel.
5
SPEAKER_00
He didn t want to be, you know, have them ask him for advice in advance of what they were doing.
5
SPEAKER_00
He was willing to represent somebody once, no matter how awful.
5
SPEAKER_00
I mean, Klaus von Bulow was accused of killing his wife.
5
SPEAKER_00
These are pretty nasty people.
5
SPEAKER_00
but he didn t want to be House Counsel to any of them.
5
SPEAKER_01
So you wrote a review of Alan Dershowitz s new book on Donald Trump.
5
SPEAKER_01
The title of that book is Get Trump, the Threat to Civil Liberties Due Process and Our Constitutional Rule of Law.
5
SPEAKER_01
Can you summarize this book and your review of it?
5
SPEAKER_00
Yes, by the way, I co-authored it with my research assistant who s sitting right here.
5
SPEAKER_01
Emily.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
5
SPEAKER_00
And
5
SPEAKER_00
I thought that the book was another example of the fact that everybody s entitled to a defense and that Allen s being involved with Trump was purely professional.
5
SPEAKER_00
It was not political.
5
SPEAKER_00
It was not philosophical.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I thought that the fact that he was being criticized, he was being shunned because of his connection to Trump, I found very interesting.
5
SPEAKER_00
that this is a guy who represented such, I call them distasteful figures, as Klaus von Bulow, as Mike Tyson, as OJ Simpson, as Sheldon Siegel.
5
SPEAKER_00
And when he was considered to be a skillful lawyer, made his reputation,
5
SPEAKER_00
And then he represents Donald Trump, who to my knowledge, never killed anybody.
5
SPEAKER_00
And he s suddenly shunned.
5
SPEAKER_00
I thought the hypocrisy of it, the political preening, it was very distasteful to me.
5
SPEAKER_00
And it was not only because he was my friend.
5
SPEAKER_00
If he wasn t my friend, I think I d have the same view.
5
SPEAKER_00
the holier-than-thou nonsense, the hypocrisy of it.
5
SPEAKER_00
They wouldn t talk to him on Martha s Vineyard now.
5
SPEAKER_00
Alan and I are different.
5
SPEAKER_00
I m not so sensitive.
5
SPEAKER_00
If someone doesn t want to talk to me, no problem, no problem at all.
5
SPEAKER_00
But Alan is, considering how controversial his life has been,
5
SPEAKER_00
He s somewhat sensitive.
5
SPEAKER_00
He s somewhat sensitive, and I ve kept telling Alan, you know, Alan, don t let it get to you.
5
SPEAKER_01
I can relate, I can definitely relate.
5
SPEAKER_01
Taking on some controversial conversations, still wear my heart on my sleeve, it hurts, all of it hurts.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yep.
5
SPEAKER_01
But maybe the pain makes you better.
5
SPEAKER_01
student of human nature.
5
SPEAKER_01
Maybe that s the case for him.
5
SPEAKER_01
Nevertheless, the book makes a complicated and I think an interesting point.
5
SPEAKER_01
He opens the book with, not that Donald Trump has announced his candidacy for re-election as president, the unremitting efforts by his political opponents to, quote, get him.
5
SPEAKER_01
to stop him from running at any cost will only increase.
5
SPEAKER_01
These efforts may pose the most significant threat to civil liberty since McCarthyism. 
5
SPEAKER_01
So is he right?
5
SPEAKER_00
He s absolutely right.
5
SPEAKER_00
Because these attempted, for example, the prosecution, the one prosecution that has been brought now, Alvin Bragg in the Manhattan.
5
SPEAKER_00
I have looked at that and I don t believe that Trump has committed a crime.
5
SPEAKER_00
And yet, Bragg was pressured to bring that.
5
SPEAKER_00
People in his office were threatening to quit if he didn t indict.
5
SPEAKER_00
Wholly improper, wholly unethical.
5
SPEAKER_00
And he s gonna lose the case.
5
SPEAKER_00
Has Trump committed crimes?
5
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
5
SPEAKER_00
Mostly they re tax crimes.
5
SPEAKER_00
He has cheated on taxes his whole career, as far as I could tell.
5
SPEAKER_00
He could easily be indicted for state and federal taxes, but they re not as sexy.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I think that he s become a target by ambitious politicians, ambitious prosecutors.
5
SPEAKER_00
He has gotten some sympathy, which he doesn t deserve.
5
SPEAKER_00
And a lot of it is, pardon the phrase, political correctness.
5
SPEAKER_00
The better people are not supposed to be Trumpers.
5
SPEAKER_00
I had an interesting experience about Trump.
5
SPEAKER_00
I had two interesting experiences.
5
SPEAKER_00
The more recent one was I was in the house of Lawrence Summers, the former president of Harvard, who was driven out by political correctness, by the way.
5
SPEAKER_00
He insulted women biologists.
5
SPEAKER_00
I was in his house when he was still president of Harvard, when the Trump-Hillary Clinton contest took place.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I was with Elsa.
5
SPEAKER_00
We were invited to Summer s house in Brookline.
5
SPEAKER_00
And it looked like Hillary was going to win.
5
SPEAKER_00
And the Harvard faculty members, they were all celebrating.
5
SPEAKER_00
They were all figuring out what their cabinet positions were going to be, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
5
SPEAKER_00
And then about 1130 at night, all of a sudden it was announced that in terms of electoral votes, Trump had just eked out a victory, that Hillary beat him in the popular vote, but he had won the electoral college.
5
SPEAKER_00
And there was an immediate depression.
5
SPEAKER_01
And that was- Meaning like quiet over the room.
5
SPEAKER_00
The room became absolutely stone solid.
5
SPEAKER_00
and they were all disappointed.
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, that was a memorable moment, and it told me that
5
SPEAKER_00
They were a little bit too overconfident.
5
SPEAKER_00
They were savoring being part of a presidential administration.
5
SPEAKER_00
Ambition had been thwarted.
5
SPEAKER_00
I m not a great fan of preening ambition.
5
SPEAKER_00
I think it blinds people to realities.
5
SPEAKER_00
And the resulting arrogance from such ambition.
5
SPEAKER_00
And the arrogance, yes.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s one of the reasons I didn t accept Jim Vorenberg s offer to be part of the academic community.
5
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I represent professors, I have friends who are professors, I represent students, I have friends who are students.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I have a great regard for universities and higher education, but I was not about to become part of the culture.
5
SPEAKER_00
I thought that it was not good for me and not good for the institution either.
5
SPEAKER_00
A culture that can breed arrogance.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
5
SPEAKER_01
Self-importance.
5
SPEAKER_01
Yep.
5
SPEAKER_01
And in a sense, the election of Donald Trump was a big F you to such.
5
SPEAKER_00
Correct.
5
SPEAKER_00
Which is why I think he,
5
SPEAKER_00
why I think he managed to pull it off.
5
SPEAKER_01
to jump topics a little bit.
5
SPEAKER_01
What do you think about something you ve written about?
5
SPEAKER_01
What do you think about the mass surveillance programs by the NSA and also probably by other organizations, CIA, FBI, and others?
5
SPEAKER_01
And broadly, what do you think about the importance of privacy for the American citizen?
5
SPEAKER_00
Okay, I believe that the FBI should be abolished.
5
SPEAKER_00
because I believe that its culture was so corrupted by its first director, John Edgar Hoover, J. Edgar Hoover, that it is impossible to reform the FBI to make its agents honest, to force them to obey the constitution, the first, fourth, and fifth amendments especially,
5
SPEAKER_00
Um, and it s a culture that cannot be changed.
5
SPEAKER_00
Uh, Hoover established the culture and no FBI director since has been able to change it.
5
SPEAKER_00
If you go online, I did on YouTube a video
5
SPEAKER_00
for the ACLU of Massachusetts.
5
SPEAKER_00
It was when I was on the board.
5
SPEAKER_00
It was probably when I was president of the board.
5
SPEAKER_00
I was president of the board for two years.
5
SPEAKER_00
I was on the board for 20 years.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I did a video about advising people to never, ever, ever talk to an FBI agent when they come knocking on your door.
5
SPEAKER_01
Can you briefly explain the intuition?
5
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
5
SPEAKER_01
Why not to talk to an FBI agent?
5
SPEAKER_00
They have a system.
5
SPEAKER_00
When they come in and interview you,
5
SPEAKER_00
Two agents show up, never one.
5
SPEAKER_00
One asks the question, the other one takes notes.
5
SPEAKER_00
The note-taking agent takes notes and then goes back to the office and types up a report called a Form 302, which is the official record of what was asked and answered.
5
SPEAKER_00
So when I have a client interviewed by the FBI, I show up and
5
SPEAKER_00
I always agree, almost always agree to the interview.
5
SPEAKER_00
But I bring a tape recorder.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I say, all right, I m gonna tape this.
5
SPEAKER_00
And they say, well, by regulation, we re not allowed to do the interview if it s taped.
5
SPEAKER_00
The record is the 302, the agent is taking notes.
5
SPEAKER_00
I say, well, I have a policy too.
5
SPEAKER_00
My policy is to never allow a client to be interviewed unless it s recorded.
5
SPEAKER_00
So it s unfortunate, but we re going to have to end this meeting and the agents get up and leave.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I ve never seen a Form 302 that I consider to be accurate.
5
SPEAKER_00
The agents write down what they wish you had said, rather than what you said.
5
SPEAKER_00
It is a wholly corrupt organization that has not gotten any better since Hoover died.
5
SPEAKER_01
And fundamentally, the corruption is in the culture.
5
SPEAKER_01
that is resisting the Constitution of the United States, the first and fourth and fifth amendment.
5
SPEAKER_00
Correct.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s not financial corruption.
5
SPEAKER_00
It is corruption of the mission.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I think it should be abolished.
5
SPEAKER_00
And if we need a federal investigative agency, it should be a new name, a new culture, wholly new members, a new director, and it s impossible to reform the FBI.
5
SPEAKER_01
Can you elaborate on what exactly is broken about the FBI?
5
SPEAKER_01
Is it the famous saying from Stalin s KGB head, Barry, show me the man and I ll show you the crime?
5
SPEAKER_01
Right.
5
SPEAKER_01
Is it that kind of process of-
5
SPEAKER_00
It s that kind of process.
5
SPEAKER_00
They decide who s guilty and then they go about concocting a case against the person who they wanna get.
5
SPEAKER_00
So the goal is not to find the truth or... It s to solve the case and close it and enhance their reputations.
5
SPEAKER_01
But to show that an innocent man is guilty is also solving the case from their perspective.
5
SPEAKER_01
So to falsely convict
5
SPEAKER_01
or falsely imprison an innocent man is also solving the case.
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, it closes the case if they falsely imprison an innocent man.
5
SPEAKER_00
They re interested in closing cases.
5
SPEAKER_01
So that s the FBI, but broadly speaking about the surveillance aspect of this, what are your views on the right that an American citizen has to privacy?
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, wiretapping and electronic surveillance are very, very intrusive.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I think that the circumstance that these tools are used should be narrowed.
5
SPEAKER_00
For example, they re used in a lot of drug cases.
5
SPEAKER_00
Since I don t think drugs should be illegal in any event, I certainly think that it s a terrible violation of privacy to use wiretapping in a drug case.
5
SPEAKER_00
I could see it in cases of murder,
5
SPEAKER_00
possibly in cases of serious extortion, but on other kinds of crimes, with a wiretap, especially drug cases, I believe drugs should all be legalized anyway.
5
SPEAKER_00
I think it s, the price we pay as a society is not worth it.
5
SPEAKER_01
there s on the Wikipedia page for nothing to hide, you re cited.
5
SPEAKER_01
In fact, your book that you gave me today, Three Felonies a Day, is cited.
5
SPEAKER_01
So nothing to hide argument.
5
SPEAKER_01
That s an argument that if you re a well-behaved citizen, you have nothing to hide and therefore your privacy can be violated.
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, the problem is that under the Federal Criminal Code, particularly the Federal Criminal Code,
5
SPEAKER_00
It is very easy to be charged with a crime.
5
SPEAKER_00
Now, why?
5
SPEAKER_00
Under the Constitution, the federal government does not have plenary criminal jurisdiction.
5
SPEAKER_00
That s up to the state.
5
SPEAKER_00
How is it that the feds indict in so many areas of American life?
6
SPEAKER_00
It s because the Supreme Court has allowed the following absolutely insane situation to prevail.
6
SPEAKER_00
Anything can be made a federal crime if in the course of the commission of the crime, the means of interstate communication or travel are used.
6
SPEAKER_00
That means that if you commit a crime, which ordinarily would be a state crime, and you use the telephone or you send a letter, it suddenly becomes federal.
6
SPEAKER_00
That means that the limitation that the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution intended to keep the feds out of daily life and to give that jurisdiction to the state,
6
SPEAKER_00
has been completely thwarted.
6
SPEAKER_00
Because I can t think of a case where somebody doesn t use a telephone in the course of planning, discussing something that s arguably criminal.
6
SPEAKER_00
And so this limited authority of the federal government to bring charges in criminal cases is illusory.
6
SPEAKER_00
Feds can indict a ham sandwich.
6
SPEAKER_01
So basically everybody s guilty.
6
SPEAKER_01
And if the Feds wanna bring you in, they can.
6
SPEAKER_00
They can find a way.
6
SPEAKER_00
Correct.
6
SPEAKER_00
And that allows them to terrorize people who are dissidents.
6
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, what is broken, what works about the American criminal justice system from your perspective?
6
SPEAKER_00
The jury system.
6
SPEAKER_01
The jury system?
6
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
6
SPEAKER_00
You like the jury system, everyday citizens representing.
6
SPEAKER_00
12 ordinary people have to agree unanimously in order to convict.
6
SPEAKER_01
What do you think about the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court?
6
SPEAKER_01
What works and what is broken about the Supreme Court as an institution?
6
SPEAKER_01
What are its strengths and weaknesses?
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, the Supreme Court is unfortunately fairly political.
6
SPEAKER_00
And the current Supreme Court is overruling precedents, which it s really improper.
6
SPEAKER_00
Precedents should not be overruled so easily.
6
SPEAKER_00
it s about to overrule the affirmative action.
6
SPEAKER_00
Now, I m opposed to affirmative action.
6
SPEAKER_00
I think I made that clear earlier in our discussion, but still it s a precedent and it should be given some respect, but in order to propagate a more conservative
6
SPEAKER_00
agenda, the court is treating precedent as if it doesn t have any role.
6
SPEAKER_00
And that s a huge mistake.
6
SPEAKER_00
Some of the congressmen on the Democratic side are looking to enlarge the court in order to basically do what Franklin Roosevelt was not able to do, and that is change the court s philosophy.
6
SPEAKER_00
But I think that s very short-sighted.
6
SPEAKER_00
Because this is a long game.
6
SPEAKER_00
This is a republic we have here.
6
SPEAKER_00
And anyone who tries to, for example, enlarge the court from nine to 12 in order to get more liberals on the court, then some other administration will try to enlarge it from 12 to 15 to get more liberals on the court.
6
SPEAKER_00
constant fiddling with very important institution.
6
SPEAKER_01
So the law should have more lasting power than the political bickering of the day.
6
SPEAKER_00
Correct.
6
SPEAKER_01
Let me ask you, you ve lived one heck of a life and fought a lot of battles and you continue to do so with the Harvard Board of Overseers.
6
SPEAKER_01
So first of all, thank you for that.
6
SPEAKER_01
But
6
SPEAKER_01
We re all human, we re all mortal.
6
SPEAKER_01
Do you ponder your death?
6
SPEAKER_01
Do you ponder your mortality?
6
SPEAKER_01
Are you afraid of it?
6
SPEAKER_00
Well, let me say this.
6
SPEAKER_00
My father died at 48.
6
SPEAKER_00
He died at 48 because he smoked four packs of Camels a day.
6
SPEAKER_00
He got a massive heart attack at 43.
6
SPEAKER_00
He continued to smoke despite that.
6
SPEAKER_00
He died at 48.
6
SPEAKER_00
So I did not expect to live this long, because I thought it was genetic.
6
SPEAKER_00
It turns out it was cigarettes.
6
SPEAKER_00
So here I am, I m gonna be 81 on May 10th.
6
SPEAKER_00
I was born on May 10th, 1942, which is Mother s Day, coincidentally.
6
SPEAKER_00
And I realize I m not gonna live forever.
6
SPEAKER_00
I also take pride in the fact that I have demonstrated that a lawyer does not have to go with a law firm in order to manage to make it.
6
SPEAKER_00
You can make your own, write your own, what s the word?
6
SPEAKER_00
Write your own ticket.
6
SPEAKER_00
I ve done that.
6
SPEAKER_00
I agree that I ve had an elite education.
6
SPEAKER_00
I went to Princeton and Harvard Law School, but I don t think you have to necessarily go to elite institutions in order to really make it.
6
SPEAKER_00
You need to work hard.
6
SPEAKER_00
that you shouldn t put yourself in a place where you re not gonna feel comfortable and, what s the word, empowered.
6
SPEAKER_00
Like I refused to take Javorenburg s invitation for a tenure track position at Harvard Law School.
6
SPEAKER_00
I ll tell you one other story that illustrates this.
6
SPEAKER_00
I was originally pre-med, my freshman, sophomore years at Princeton, I was in the pre-med program.
6
SPEAKER_00
Why?
6
SPEAKER_00
Because my parents wanted me to marry the daughter of our family physician.
6
SPEAKER_00
And the idea was, I was gonna go to medical school.
6
SPEAKER_00
I was gonna go into medical practice with him in Hackensack, New Jersey.
6
SPEAKER_00
We had moved from Brooklyn at the time.
6
SPEAKER_00
Long story, why we had to move from Brooklyn had to do with my father s having a problem with the Furries Union and having his life threatened.
6
SPEAKER_00
And we moved to Maywood, New Jersey, because he got a job in a fur shop in Passaic, New Jersey.
6
SPEAKER_00
And a family physician, they had three daughters, the oldest of whom was my age.
6
SPEAKER_00
She went to Hackensack High School.
6
SPEAKER_00
I went to Pagoda High School.
6
SPEAKER_00
They re both in North Bergen County.
6
SPEAKER_00
And the idea was that she and I were gonna marry.
6
SPEAKER_00
I was gonna become, I was gonna go to medical school.
6
SPEAKER_00
I was going to take, become a partner of her father in his medical practice in Hackensack.
6
SPEAKER_00
When he retired, I was gonna inherit the practice.
6
SPEAKER_00
This scenario was concocted by Carolyn s mother and my mother.
6
SPEAKER_00
In my sophomore year at Princeton, I won a fellowship to spend that summer between my sophomore and junior year in Paris.
6
SPEAKER_00
I was fluent by then.
6
SPEAKER_00
I had taken an accelerated French course my freshman and sophomore year.
6
SPEAKER_00
And I went to Paris.
6
SPEAKER_00
It was my first time out of the country.
6
SPEAKER_00
And
6
SPEAKER_00
I spent the entire summer working, supporting myself, participating in the airfare, and I earned money for room and board.
6
SPEAKER_00
And I thought about my life, and I decided, number one, I didn t wanna be a physician, I wanted to be a lawyer.
6
SPEAKER_00
Number two, I didn t wanna marry Carolyn.
6
SPEAKER_00
And I came back, I changed from pre-med to pre-law,
6
SPEAKER_00
I broke up with Carolyn, who was by that time in school at Douglas, right down the road from Princeton.
6
SPEAKER_00
She had followed me, or I had followed her.
6
SPEAKER_00
And my life suddenly took a wholly different turn.
6
SPEAKER_00
So that summer in Paris, Paris had a outsized effect on my life.
6
SPEAKER_00
Every year, the Bravo Theater shows Casablanca, where Bogart has this great line, he says, we ll always have Paris.
6
SPEAKER_00
And I think to myself, I always used to say to Elsa, we used to see Casablanca every Valentine s Day, because it was such an important movie to me, because Paris was transformative in my life.
6
SPEAKER_00
And we went to Paris every year during my vacation, we went to Paris.
6
SPEAKER_00
That was where she took some great pictures of Isaac.
6
SPEAKER_00
He s this high and this high.
6
SPEAKER_00
They were hanging up in the house.
6
SPEAKER_00
And so I always, even after Elsa s death, I ve seen Casablanca twice now.
6
SPEAKER_00
She died in 2020.
6
SPEAKER_00
And I always think we ll always have Paris.
6
SPEAKER_00
We ll always have Paris.
6
SPEAKER_01
Well, Harvey, like I said, I hope you re very successful in your run for the Harvard Board of Overseers.
6
SPEAKER_01
I think what you stand for in the realm of freedom of speech is, I think, the thing that makes these universities great institutions in American culture.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I ll do everything I can to help you succeed.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I just am really grateful for all the work you ve done.
6
SPEAKER_01
and I m grateful that you would talk with me today.
6
SPEAKER_01
This is amazing.
6
SPEAKER_01
Thank you.
6
SPEAKER_01
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Harvey Silverglate.
6
SPEAKER_01
To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
6
SPEAKER_01
And now let me leave you with some words from Harry S. Truman.
6
SPEAKER_01
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of the opposition, it is only one way to go.
6
SPEAKER_01
And that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures until it becomes the source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
6
SPEAKER_01
Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.