months ago, Jacques Vaughn met the media and our Megan Triplett teed up the first query. Jacques, you mentioned during pregame that this team was going to play aggressive and hit first with their guys. When you look at this one, what were some of the details that led to the Pistons being so successful? Yeah, it was no secret how they play. They drive the basketball. They try to get into your paint and they try to get to your rim, try to create turnovers so they can get out in transition and get easy buckets and the offensive rebound in peace. So games like this, you have to have just a competitive edge about yourself in order to take on multiple guys crashing at the glass, being secure with the basketball so we don't turn the basketball over, a list of things. And so when those things don't happen, you give up 130 points. Do you look at this one as some of the results being because of the second night of a back to back and some guys potentially being kind of tired? You know I'm not going to allow that to happen, Megan. There's no excuses. You know, we all play the same amount of games throughout the course of the year and the schedule dictates its own self for each team. We gave effort in Philadelphia yesterday and the expectations, what we always talk about was to win this basketball game. So the people who suited up, the people who played, the people who stepped on the floor had an opportunity to impact the basketball game for their teammates and that's the objective every single time we step on the floor. We were expected to win tonight. That was, that's the goal. And whether it's a back to back, I remember four and five nights, three and four, four and six, doesn't matter. You do what's necessary, whether that's taking care of your body, the mental part of it, the work that goes on between days off, between games, game day to get yourself in a position to win. That's why we do this thing. And do you, we saw Ben Simmons who came out of the game. Do you have an update on Ben and also TJ Warren? Yeah, he ended up, Ben and Nick, sorry, Ben and TJ ended up having some knee soreness. So both of them. Coach, I think this is the second time for Ben on the second. TJ, sorry, sorry, knee contusion for TJ. So he got hit, that's contusion.  And Ben was knee soreness. Ben, this is the second time for him in the second game of back to back where he's had a left knee or a left calf or something like that. Is that a concern where the second game of back to back for him, he might not be able to maybe play in those? Well, I think Christian, the goal is, in my eyes, I'll say this, is for everyone to play every game and to do what's necessary to be prepared to play every game. There's a certain amount of minutes that each individual played in Philly. Some played equally tonight. So the preparation that it takes going into that, you just have to give credit to the guys who were prepared to play, ready to play, did what was necessary to get their bodies ready to play. And secondly, I mean, I think we spoke a little bit pre game about the Pistons and their physicality, but one thing that stands out about them is their size, right?  What can you guys do to maybe combat teams that are composed like that, that have that type of player or those players who are physical and strong with that size? Yeah, that's a great way to look at it. That's a challenge for us. And we talked about playing different lineups out there. Sometimes those lineups give us the opportunity to put 122 on the board. And now we got to worry about the other end. And so a lot of that Christian, I think boils down to the early work of you reacting to those guys.  So overall that early work of, you know, being prepared to have combat on place, it's nothing wrong with that word and nothing wrong with bringing that to the table every night. Jack, do you know how Ben got hurt? I do not. I just got a performance update that he had some soreness and that was it for me, Nick. Do we know yet for either Ben or TJ about an MRI tomorrow? I was not told anything about an MRI. That's not to say that it won't be done, but they didn't tell me anything before I came out here. Jack, surely before the game, obviously Kevin and Kai named to the All-Star game again, just your thoughts on those guys getting that honor again. Yeah, we chose to address the team about the expectations of winning after the basketball game, but we also chose to show gratitude and show a little bit of joy of, you know, saying those guys deserve to be All-Stars, 13 time, eight time, pretty impressive. So we celebrated that after the game as well. And then Nick, I know you spoke quite about him before the game, but he keeps kind of elevating his game during this run. It feels like he does a little bit, something different every night. What do you see? Do you see new things from him as much?  There's two cold tubs that are in there. And the two guys that are in there is Royce O'Neill and Nick Claxton. And I'm leaving, washing my hands, wiping my hands, and they're talking about being prepared to play tomorrow. That professionalism, that maturity will go a long ways for Nick Claxton. It's paying off for him. The preparation, the dedication to your craft to show up and be prepared to play every single night. There's something to it. And he's getting rewarded for it. Kind of forgot my question. Oh, Christian, my bad, man. You see, I'll be wanting to win, Christian. Huh? Now you see why I walk home. God get decompressed as I'm going home but it's cold today too. Yeah. So you're very inspiring today. We're motivating. Question about the defense. I know you've mentioned and talked about it after these last couple of games about defending without fouling. Is there some type of message that you're giving your players or what have you seen of the challenges that they have been having when it comes to that? Yes, the interest of balance, especially with our team because we're a team where we don't produce a lot of turnovers, all right? And so sometimes you get into a position where you can gamble and get a turnover. Prime example was End of the Shot Clock, Edmund Sumner's on the right side of the floor, Guy drives to the hole and Ed reaches in and almost gets to steal, but it's a foul, all right? So now we're in a position of do you try to go for the steal or not do you just position yourself? I think we got to get and lean more towards being conservative and just being vertical at the rim and not reaching as much and not worrying about turning someone over because the fouls are hurting us. It hurt us in the second half of Philly. It hurt us again tonight. And so it's the fouls where, you know, it's five minutes to go in the first quarter Philly the other night and we foul and they get two free throws because of the bonus. And so the timing of the fouls also are getting to us as well. So I think overall it's playing hard but playing smart at the same time. Okay, it's back to me now. Came back to you? Yeah, so I think we're past the point of maybe comparing last year's team to this year's team when Kevin is out. But at the same time, two and six now with him out, how do you keep the spirits high even though the losses are piling right now? It was the credit for the Miami win. Two and one, two and one fourth. I mean, he played, he was in that game. You don't get, all right, all right. But how do you keep the spirit of the group high even though the losses are piling? I think it boils down to a few things. This group has to be competitive and we're going to count on them to be competitive every single night. My message will not change. I will not budge an inch on giving them an excuse. So I think that's where the consistency is gonna come into play. And then there's a few things you gotta do to work. And then the proof of the evidence is we have the ability to be in games and to win games. When we all show up, when we all play and we dedicate ourselves to getting stops on one end of the floor and sharing the basketball on the other end. The recipe isn't very complicated. And we're gonna try not to complicate it, keep it real simple. Be honest with this group. First words out of my mouth was, we were expected to win this game. And so when we lace them up two days from now, we'll be expected to win that game. All right guys. All right Frank, I think it was very telling when a reporter asked about Nick Claxton and we all see the growth and the maturity on the floor. But we heard from Jacques Vaughn there. He peeled the curtain back a little bit and he told us a little bit about the maturity off the floor as well.  There's a lot of coaches that use the expression, the magic is in the work. And Nick Claxton, we're watching the players warm up maybe an hour before the game. Where is he standing at the free throw line? And he's shooting free throws because he knows that's a weakness in his game. Look at him when he gets around the basket with the ball. Look how confident he is with that left handed jump hook. Even now with his right hand, he's putting the work in. You're wondering if other players are doing that. Other players that need to get better. And let's look at a guy who's been an all star in this league, Ben Simmons, is he putting in the work to get better. You know, it's three years ago today that Kobe Bryant, his daughter, six other family and friends and the helicopter pilot died in that awful crash. You know, with a big theme among NBA players when that happened was a lot of players talked about the Mamba mentality. Everyone said that I'm gonna live by that. Well, it's not just about saying it. It's about going out and doing it. It's about putting in the work. Kobe Bryant didn't become the best player he was. He just doesn't wake up every morning and say, I'm Kobe Bryant. I'm good. He put the work in. Kevin Durant puts in as much work as any player. Remember talking to Jeff Van Gundy? He was the assistant coach in the US national team for the Olympics that were in Tokyo. He was blown away. Now there's a guy that's coached great players, including Hall of Famers like Patrick Ewing, Tracey McGrady, Yao Ming, been around Larry Johnson in New York, been around great players that work hard. He was blown away by the amount of work that Kevin Durant puts in. Kevin Durant, if he stopped playing today, is going to the Hall of Fame. He's going to go down as one of the greatest players ever. But that's not what motivates Kevin Durant. He wants, he loves to play. He loves to compete. And I think there's a lot of guys and, you know, let's hope that Ben Simmons can kind of recapture that and become that player again, putting in the work. Because it's happening for Nick Claxton, not by accident. He's putting in the work. That's why he's getting better. And I also love Joc Bon, whose old school came from the San Antonio Spurs. Greg Popovich, he played for Jerry Sloan in Utah. This whole idea and the media and the fans get caught up in it. Playing it back to back is not the hardest thing to do, guys. Was it hard for Kyrie Irving and Nick Claxton tonight? Did you see the numbers they put up last night? Did you see the numbers they put up tonight? This idea that gets so mere, oh, I can't believe how is he supposed to play. Last night after the game, a big part of the discussion was the minutes that Ben Simmons played and why was he in there in the last nine minutes? Well, guess what? He got to be in there the whole first half tonight. So you got to do something like this. The back to back thing, you can tell Joc Bon is getting ticked off. It's absolutely absurd. The teams don't play back to back that much anymore. Philadelphia to Brooklyn is a short trip. I get it, it's somewhat taxing on the body. But I didn't think Kyrie Irving had a problem with it. Nick Claxton didn't seem to have a problem. They were pretty productive tonight. They were, and you brought up, Kevin,


a person can watch your pockets and see that you got money or think you got money. And they got their agenda come out. They hold demeanor of what they mission was for with you. And so, yeah, everything changed when I bought the chain. When you bought the chain? Everything changed when I bought the chain, the rain chain? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's crazy. I got a new chain in the bitch, heavy in the motherfuckers swing. I played broke for a long time. Yeah, we on boss talk one on one, one on one. Yeah, we gon' talk.  Charleston went to jail last week. Okay. So what initiated this, like, how to talk? When Charleston was at the B.T. Awards, man, he was cool, talking.  He went to jail. And so his friend Kyle about the murder changed me and they asked me to burn Charleston out. And I told him I wasn't burning them out because I still ain't got my money from Miami when I was paying for his rooms. He owe you money now?   And so they were asking me to burn them out and I told them I gave them the run around. I ain't have no burn money, you know. After he got out of jail, he had blocked me. But we still trying to put this documentary out, right? So that's why we see the video where he says that you paid basically, that he wish you would have died instead of mode three. Yeah, everything, with money, with money involved, everything changed. You know, a person can watch your pockets and see that you got money or think you got money. And they got their agenda come out. They hold the meaning of what they mission was for with you. And so, yeah, yeah, everything changed when I bought the chain. When you bought the chain? Everything changed when I bought the chain, the rain chain? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's crazy. I got a new chain in the bitch heavy in the motherfucker's swing. I played broke for a long time. Man, people are trying to get me to do this, do this, do this. I played broke for a long time. Yeah, man.  So how do we know, for sure, that this ain't gonna like, cause Charleston got into a people fold, you know? People say it's just a sale, it's the same. No, he probably, he probably tried to come back around, but I can't do it.  I brought you around on people, you know what I'm saying? So you feel kind of like Sean did, when he said he brought around Dr. Rose. Charleston White has cussed out everybody and they mom won't say cheese. Julio Fulio, real street cats, they're really stepping, searching, hunting from Dr. Rose to a lot of different people. I didn't speak to Dr. Rose for four months because Charleston White.  That's my God, Dr. Rose fixed my teeth, he fixed my mom teeth, didn't charge me. Y'all didn't talk for four months? We didn't talk for four months. Brace that down, man, I mean, why would you not talk, why would he get mad at you for just dealing with Charleston? Charleston and you, that's business. So Charleston had made a comment about Dr. Rose in our interview, about, cause Dr. Rose is rapping now. Yeah, yeah, I've heard this music. And Charleston White, he didn't understand it. And Dr. Rose, and it's funny because the day before I upload the video, I didn't feel right. So I asked my girl, I'm like, I'm like, damn, should I edit that part out about Dr. Rose? She was like, no, that's how Charleston White feels. So I said, bet. And I know Dr. Rose is gonna understand me because I'm super unbiased. So I upload the video, he says that about Dr. Rose. Dr. Rose calls me immediately. And I could tell where her Dr. Rose. And it hurt me because me and Dr. Rose is like my friend. You start talking about them, but then at the end of the day, I thought you was really helping these boys' mamas.  Nah, come on. Nah, I be hearing the stuff that's going on.   What do you say to that? Like, do you feel like you can be in a character then talk to the kids at the school and then come back and say- That's so hard. So it's not the character? Uh-uh, because you just sit there and say it. Let me tell you what you just sit there and say it. You sit there and say it.  He's messy, this and that, this and that, this and that. You would have been coming out. I was only messing with you with the gym, couldn't get out. He started in there for four days. He was in there for four days? Mm-hmm. Did you talk to him during the four days? No, I talked to people around.  So when he got out, he was mad at everybody. So he got out.


Let me welcome everybody. Welcome to the Future Transform. I'm delighted to see you all here today. We've got a fantastic guest writing about one of the great issues of our time and I'm really looking forward to our conversation. We've been thinking and talking about future free speech and academic freedom in higher education on the forum for several years. We've had several great panels and sessions talking about this from all kinds of angles. Everything from what is the role of faculty departments and trying to manage or support free speech to the role of presidents, thorough outside organizations like the AUP. Now we are going to approach this from a bit of a different angle with the help of a wonderful writer. Len Gutkin is a writer who has done, among other things, a really nifty book about the figure of the dandy in late 19th century literature but also for a few years the Chronicle of Higher Education. He's been writing a series of fascinating newsletters and articles about free speech and higher education. He's been tackling this from a whole bunch of directions. Everything from religion and race to governance to state and national politics. I've just been eager to get him on the show because he's a terrific writer. He's a fascinating thinker and I think a great guide to our topic. So without any further ado, let me bring up on stage. Hello Len Gutkin. Hi Brian, thanks for having me.  Where have we found you today? I'm in Wheaton, Maryland in my home. It's always outside of DC. Excellent, excellent. And you have a wonderful setting. You've got a great big wing chair and you've got some nice cloth and weaving behind it. It looks delicious. Well Len, we have a habit on the form where we ask people to introduce themselves not by talking about their past but about their future. I'm curious, what are you going to be working on for the next year? What are the big topics that concern you? What are some of your projects? Sure, so I am actually working on a book. It's sort of in the proposal stage on some of the topics that you've already mentioned, the history of academic freedom and free speech in American institutions of higher education. And it's geared towards sort of trying to understand what's happened in the last, I would say 10 years beginning in around 2013 or 2014 and culminating, I would say, in the present. I think that the, and I'm sure we'll have a chance to talk about this today, but the events on campus around the Israel Gaza war have offered a kind of neat and tragic bookend to the tale I want to tell about what's happened to campus in the last decade or so. Excellent. Well, good luck writing that and when it hits print and ebook format, please let me know so we can bring you back. I would be glad to spread the word. Thank you. Friends, if you're new to the Future Trends Forum, what I usually do is I interrogate our poor guest with a couple of questions to start with. But then I get rid of my role with the mic and give it over to you. So as we start talking, you start thinking about what questions you'd like to ask. What comments you'd like to share? What ideas do you think really matter for you in your work and in your life when it comes to free speech in academia? So we just start off by saying, or asking them then, you mentioned 2013 or so. And I'm curious, what happened then? What started off this current wave of free speech controversy? Yeah, it's a great question and one that I don't, in fact, have the answer to. I think there are a range of answers. Some are offered by thinkers like the psychologist Jonathan Haight who, in his view, the kind of new period of activism, student activism, very much centered around feelings, around a sense of vulnerability on the part of the students. In his view, it's a kind of downstream effect of technological, sort of technologically induced psychological changes on the part of late adolescence. I'm not dismissive of that explanation, nor am I entirely convinced by it. So I don't, frankly, know something changes radically in that period in my experience and I've checked with a number of people, including people. So I was finishing my PhD in 2013, which was the period of some very sort of impassioned and upsetting, I think, for people on all sides of these issues. Protests at Ivy League schools like Yale and Harvard, that's when it seems to me that things have changed, that the student culture changed quite dramatically at that point. And when I've asked people who are older, quite a bit older, who have been in the academy for a very long time, they tend to corroborate that point of view. My own sort of the larger historical spread that I think we're seeing is something like at least a bicyclic, maybe a tricyclic narrative in which the student activism that first emerged in the late 1960s and the mid to the late 1960s, which then really evaporated in the 1970s and into the early 1980s, was resuscitated in a different key, much less militant, much more feelings-based in ways both good and bad in the late 80s and early 90s, and then went into a kind of a kind of quiescence again and in the middle of the 2010s re-emerged. Those are the three sort of points or climaxes that I see, and I think accounting for both the continuities and some of the really sharp differences between those three periods is the work of anybody trying to understand the politics of the academy at present, other really galvanizing events in this, in the most recent part of the history are the election of Donald Trump, which I think seemed to authorize or confirm many of the worst suspicions of, let's say, the campus activists left, the murder of George Floyd in the middle of the COVID pandemic, again supercharged, but was already a very kind of heated situation. So in the most recent period I think those are what were said, you know, those are the most salient events that I'm hardly original in saying that. Well thank you, thank you, that's a very, very nicely framed answer. We have in the chat our friend Mark Rush, who is a polycyon law professor, points out that the country has endured numerous cycles of speech suppression. World War I, McCarthyism now, and then Mark Corbett Wilson takes a different tack, and says student activism and diminutive apparatus, it was crushed by Reagan Republicans. Yeah, I would, I think that's probably not quite right. If you look at, there's a very good book on campus, Culture, Student Culture by Harwitz, Lefkowitz Harwitz is her last name, I'm blanking on her first name, but she's now in America, historian at Wellesley. In her construction, no, it's at least as she puts it, it's not simply that it was crushed, I mean things changed, one of the things that changed is that the stimulus of the draft, which was a real prod toward campus milligency, stops being there. I mean with the end of the Vietnam War there was less of a, you know, so by the, you know, by the late 70s things were just changing profoundly. So yeah, I mean there, that's a hard question, but I think that things changed for reasons other than the Reagan administration. In the chat, my dear friend Joel and Parker says her first name is Helen, and he got that for us. We have, that's, well thank you for saying that, thank you for saying that, and thank you friends in the chat, already the conversation is picking up. I guess a second question, which is a another large, you know, framing question, which is, we often hear the discussions around free speech and academic freedom as a kind of overlapping, but not completely coincident Venn diagram. The academic freedom is a form of free speech, but it has certain limitations that we don't associate with free speech in the larger nation. Can you just say a bit about that, that intersection or the overlap between free speech and academic freedom? Sure, yeah, it's one of the hardest questions I think about the theory of academic freedom, because the theory of academic freedom and the law of academic freedom are not coincident. The theory of academic freedom informs the law of academic freedom, but the law, the constitutional law of academic freedom is primarily applicable, of course, to public universities. You know, where it's had a kind of, it really was because of McCarthyite persecutions and resistance on the part of activist faculty members to those persecutions, a series of really important decisions in the 50s and 1960s made academic freedom a first amendment issue in public universities. And that's a tremendously fascinating history, and it maps on only very imperfectly for the private school situation. So there are schools like Stanford that are in theory and maybe in law, you'd have to ask somebody else committed to something like a first amendment style academic freedom norm. There are other schools, many of the schools in the message, maybe all the schools in Massachusetts, I think, which are bound by their, by the promises of their contract admission in a way that's really more sturdy than in many other states. That's a state by state thing. All right. The law of academic freedom is super complex, and it brings academic freedom into a realm of speech, which is of course not primarily what academic freedom is. It's not a free speech, right? It's not primarily free speech, right? And even it's critical to say. It's a complex overlap, and thank you for that, I think, very elegant tour. In fact, I'll give you a, because it's become an issue again, very starkly with the attempt of Ron DeSantis to ban the Students for Justice in Palestine, which is a student group, and is in Florida and in all states at public universities, students have the right of association. That's actually part of the academic freedom right. It doesn't apply to faculty, it applies to students in this case, and DeSantis can't do that. I mean, he's realized now that he can't do that. Columbia University, as I'm sure you know, has temporarily suspended the SJP and Brandeis University has banned it entirely, which they probably can do legally. But here's a case where a 1972 Supreme Court case has made the law of academic freedom result in a much sturdier protection in public universities than in private ones when it comes to student groups and student association. So that's a very, very important distinction to make, meeting public and private there. Friends, I have a couple more questions to ask, but already your questions are coming in. And we have some questions from two people who couldn't make it, so I want to make sure we get those. And the first I want to ask is from our friend in Malta, and since it's getting later and later right there, I want to give him a chance to ask first. And Phil asks, I teach Chinese students in the People's Republic of China using WeChat and consciously self-limit discussion, knowing that we're probably monitored. To what extent has sensible sensitivity in academia become self-censorship? I hope not anything like to the extent in the PRC. But yeah, that's a great question that I suspect can be answered better by many of the people here who have spent time in the classroom recently than by myself. I've certainly heard anecdotally about all kinds of neurotic self-censorship. I've also heard from people who feel that the whole issue is overblown, that the need to self-censor has been overstated by various kinds of interested ideological actors usually on the right. And so I wait to be informed. I don't know. Yeah. Well, let me just volunteer the forum. If any of you would like to share such a story or an observation about that, please feel free to use the chat box. If you would rather do that anonymously, please direct message me and I'll be happy to share your story without sharing your name. In the chat, to go back to your previous point, then Mark Rush adds another aspect which is different accreditors. So different accrediting agencies. The three of us have been talking about the current American Bar Association trying to implement or considering implementing a new free speech law for accreditation there. So if anyone would like to... So first, Phil, thank you for that great question. And I'd love to hear some time about what you think of teaching with WeChat. But if anyone wants to share a story about that, please feel free. We have a question from one person who can't make it here today. And that's our good friend, Don Shalas. And Don asks, what do you make of Charlie Kirk and the Turning Point USA's Professor Watchlist? Oh, wow. Yeah, I mean, I think it's the Professor Watchlist and it has, you know, predecessors I think from David Horowitz had a version of this, right, going way back. It's obviously meant to chill speech. It maybe has that effect to some extent. On the other hand, I think it can be about... I've talked to faculty members on these lists who feel that it's a badge of honor. I think that it's, as long as, you know, as long as institutions are committed in the way that they're supposed to be, to academic freedom and to protecting faculty members from political persecution, Professor Watchlist should be sort of a joke and not an emergency. If it becomes really dangerous, I would say it's less Charlie Kirk's fault than it is the fault of those state legislators who permit certain kinds of public pressure, which is maybe given momentum by the Professor Watchlist to affect administrative decisions. You know, Kirk would say he's just a... He's an activist journalist on the right. He's arguing for a certain kind of transparency. And I think that that is... From a legal standpoint, that's just undeniable. He has the right to assemble these Watchlists. And so it's up to institutions and administrators to respond appropriately, which is really to say to not respond at all when they get pressure from people, parents, donors, various constituents to act on these Watchlists, to punish or investigate or whatever. It's the burden of responsibilities on the institution. And again, we come back to the different contours that you mentioned before, the difference between public and private institutions, the issue of accreditation that Mark mentioned. Well, this is... Well, first of all, Don, that's a great question. Thank you. Thank you then for that answer. This is one key piece of the story. We have another question that came in here from Leslie Harris, and we put this up on the screen so you can all see. I wonder how universities can balance the desire for free speech and the responsibility to protect their students from harm? Yeah, that's... I mean, I think that's become sort of the question of the last few years. And we at the Chronicle Review have run a number of sort of point... counterpoint debates by people on different sides of that issue. It's become, I think, in my own view, the sort of certain kind of incoherence of the harm theory has become very palpable after the outbreak of all of these protests over Israel Gaza, because you have multiple sides of protesters claiming harm. Symbolic harm, not physical or literal harm. That's obviously not appropriate. And appealing to the institution for protection from these harms. And the institution... The institutions are unable to adjudicate between these rival claims. And are now, I suspect, or I know, because they've issued statements very much to this effect, regretting ever having gotten into the harm adjudication business now that it's become totally impossible. And so I expect that we'll see in the future, at least when it comes to institutional statements about solidarity with the harms or traumas of one group or another group, I think we'll see much less of that. When it comes to harm in the classroom, I think that's a more... That issue will probably persist in various ways. But I suspect even their institutions will, there may be downstream effects where they say, look, we need to weigh in less, be less certain about whose harms count or whose harms we recognize, because it's getting us in trouble or tying us into knots. You know, I think Claudine Gay, who's the new president of Harvard, was raked over the coals for what was perceived by many as a sort of insufficiently aghast statement over the massacre on October the 7th in Israel. And in my view, her statement was basically fun. She said a terrible thing happened, and we are hearts are with everybody. But her predecessor, and this didn't happen under Claudine Gay, the previous president who was an interim president at Harvard, had at the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, gone sort of full... I mean, they rose the Ukrainian flag on Harvard Yard, and elsewhere sent out and so on and so forth. There was the kind of... You know, Harvard became a kind of national outpost of Ukrainian patriotic fervor, and so in that context, and no fault of her own, you can see why Claudine Gay's statement seemed rather pallid. And I think that a lot of presidents, whether they announce what they're doing explicitly, as Maude Mandel has at Williams College, or whether they just sort of under the radar decide that they're going to shut up going forward, will do something like what Maude Mandel has done, and say, you know, no matter what happens now in the world, there's no need to hear from me about it. You know, unless it affects Williams or Harvard directly, I think we'll see a lot more of that. That's fascinating. You covered a lot of ground there. I just, if I could, if I could ask a question about something that you've written quite a lot about, you mentioned the... Or the differences between speech, such as the university proclaiming solidarity with Ukraine against Russia, but then you zoomed into the question of classrooms and following Leslie's excellent question, and you said that the question of classroom harm and speech is likely to persist. One of the fascinating stories around these lines is the Hamlin University case, where an adjunct art professor taught an image of the Prophet Muhammad, and things blew up from there. And I'm curious if it wouldn't be too much, if you could speak a bit about the Hamlin and how that's unfolded and what that might tell us about the free speech and higher education and these questions of harm and academic freedom. Sure, yeah, I'd love to. So Hamlin is, those of you who don't know the story, the quick and dirty version is that an adjunct professor of art history on a year-to-year contract in an art history course showed a very famous 14th century image of the Prophet Muhammad after several warnings, trigger warnings or whatever, because she had a number of devout Muslim students in the class. They complained anyway, and she was not rehired. And the AUP got involved, they issued a decision basically against Hamlin, although they didn't formally center them because they were hoping that Hamlin would reform. Hamlin sort of dug in its heels. The story gets very complicated and very ugly. But it's fascinating because not just because it's, I mean, it's fascinating in local terms, it involves clashes between this Somali immigrant community that's quite observant and more liberal Muslim professors at Hamlin. I mean, there's all kinds of journalistic interests, but the real interest is in how not novel the story is, if you look at the sort of longer history of academic freedom and blasphemy concerns. And this is where I think that, I mean, academic freedom is at root, or one way of thinking about it as an intellectual historian is that it is at root the refusal to recognize blasphemy claims in either scholarship or in teaching. And that becomes very clear if you look at the 19th century cases in which when academic freedom didn't really exist in any particular way and with scholars with formal appointments in Europe and through a lesser extent in America where there was less developed research profiles got into trouble. These are very famous people who got into trouble and were fired or at least harassed. It was basically scholarly textual work on the Bible. That was the big issue. Scholars who were working on dating the composition of different portions of the Old Testament, so on and so forth, all of which tended toward a kind of secularizing and relativizing attitude toward Christian scripture. And people lost their jobs, Ernest Renan at the College de France was fired for suggesting in a lecture that Christ was a great human but not a God man essentially. And that kind of thing happened over and over and over again. By the time you get to the 20th century in the United States and even long after the AUP has been sort of founded in 1915 and has released this great statement that I'm not going to include him, you continue to see controversy over religion in the classroom. But there it doesn't tend to be about research. It's not that they're getting mad at scholars for working on textual history of the Bible or whatever. It's more for views expressed in class. So very continuing for the sense of that we see so much of now. And there's some wonderful and sort of funny episodes that are planted in a great book by Robert Post and Matthew Finken called for the common good 2006 book by two law professors about the law and theory of academic freedom. It's short and very readable and anybody interested in the topic should read this book. But the cases are, you know, they're sort of hilarious. There's one which a professor of classics at a school in Tennessee, a small like branch college of the I don't know what he's called at the University of Tennessee public institution is teaching a course on the classics and they're translating something from Greek.   And he says, well, I as a liberal Christian don't this is 1940, by the way, as a liberal Christian, don't believe in eternal hellfire. And some of the students get angry and try to get him fired. And I forget now what whether he's fired or not. But it becomes one of the important day U.P. cases of the period. And there's several other similar ones from the same period, either about expressions of insufficient respect toward Christian doctrine or about Darwinian theory, which is in that period. As I suppose it still is in our secondary. But it does come to turn very much on the feelings of the students. And that happens in the first half of the 20th century. It's not a novel development. And this is one of the reasons I'm not entirely sold on the height model of sensitivity as a function of digital sensitization or whatever. Because you in fact see enormous individual sensitivity around the fronts to religion going very far back in a far less technological age. And so I think this issue is just obviously very, very much with us right now. It's one of the many of the most salient cases do involve Islam. Their Hamelin is not alone. But they also involve Christian belief and Christian events. So it will, I suspect, continue to be a thing until institutions sort of recommit to what is in my view the fundamentally secular project of academic freedom. It's just it comes out of a matrix of secular liberalism, small liberalism that can't exist. And so it does require those commitments. Thank you. Thank you. That's a very, very great historical tour through this. And I'm fascinated to hear that we get as far back as the 1940s this question of student feelings as a driver for responses to faculty free speech. In the chat Nancy W. Corrects us both and points out that it's Hamelin not Hamlin. So thank you. Thank you Nancy. I appreciate that. We have more questions coming up and I want to make sure people get a chance to put them up. And here's one that's this is actually perfect timing for our friend Stephen Volk who asks about the modern trend towards responses to freedom of speech. So the number of contemporary critics like Yasha Monk and Barry Weiss attribute the current crisis in U.S. society to campus culture in terms of post-modernism, post-structuralism, critical race theory. Your thoughts? I tend to think that the like the location of the affronts to campus freedom in those like critical or theoretical schools is probably very overstated. There are I think ways in which so-called critical race theory has been institutionalized in DEI departments that might you know that maybe there's some there there. But as a general rule I'm not convinced that the like the I mean critical race theory as I understand it is a is a race specific variation on a kind of demystifying sociology of law that goes back to the 1920s. And it's it's relativizing in much the same way that secular attitudes toward religion are. It says you know law is is a mask for various kinds of interests and that's the kind of theory that of course should be debated intensively in universities. And so I think that those those become sort of bogeymen for some observers on the more conservative side of the spectrum. But if you if you look more closely I doubt that they're responsible in the ways that they're supposed to be except in so far as they've been sort of crudely institutionalized in non-academic departments elsewhere in the university that is various kinds of administrative departments. That's that's how it looks to me and ditto for post structuralism and you know those are the buzzwords if you look at the sort of round of books that came out about academic freedom in the in the mid 90s which were sort of trying to process this earlier round of controversy over free speech and academic freedom and so on. And critical race theory was not on the agenda at that point but certainly post structuralism and post modernism were. And yet there's like a sophisticated version of the argument that says something like well academic freedom depends on a theory of objective truth. It requires its motivation and so if you espouse relativistic epistemological theories then it loses its form or something. You know I I don't know. I think it has more to do with less theoretical kinds of motivation again primarily around taboos sacred objects things that one doesn't want offended or transgressed or insulted. Thank you thank you that's that's a very solid response to a terrific question. Steven I'm just I'm waiting for Monk's book to arrive in my hopper right now actually. And so I really appreciate Len your your reframing of this. In fact if I could friends just just you know just remember to remind everybody please feel free to ask questions again the bottom of the screen that Q&A box just you know click that question mark and type it in. And if you want to join us on stage this is one of those sessions where it seems like you have to have a beard in order to be on screen but it's not true it's not true and anybody is allowed regardless of your facial configuration. I do want to pull one question that is kind of emerged from the chat a few different people called Mark actually have raised this that in the Hamlin story there is one of the issues was that the professor in question was an adjunct. What do you think of the difference between institutional support in terms of speak free speech for tenure track faculty versus adjuncts in which case in the United States of course in the past 20 years we've seen the foreign population shrink and the adjunct population swell to being the largest population instructors we now have. Oh yeah I mean adjuncts don't have protection I mean there's just I mean as we saw at the Hamlin I mean there just there isn't any and I think even even administrations more positively disposed toward free speech are going to sacrifice an adjunct if there's too much external pressure so yeah I mean the adjunctification is just a like a horrible accelerant of of the diminution of free speech at academic for academic freedom let's say be precise as a force on campus I don't think it's the cause of the new skepticism toward academic freedom I think it's more like an amplifying a factor that is making everything worse but not to my mind. Well I do wonder we asked the question collaboratively before but if anybody has run into instances of self-censorship and I think that would be one where the adjunct versus tenure track would be very precise. Thank you Len I appreciate that answer. And tenure versus pre-tenure I mean I think that this has made tenure you know tenure track but not tenure faculty members again anecdotally in my experience are much more nervous than they used to be. But again others deny that so it's you know it's one of those sort of empirical sociological questions that's hard to answer and it's easy to assume that the answer is whatever sort of lines up with your ideological priors. Well said we have a question from another friend who couldn't make it today but this is a friend who is co-authored a book on academic freedom Michael Devereux Bay and was also a great guest on the program last year and he wants to know if you could expand a bit on your recent writing about the free speech of administrators and how that differs from the war. Yeah it's I have to say the question that I um it turns out it's one of the trickiest questions in the in the book and depending on who you ask you get depending on which expert you ask you get very very different answers so you know when I did write about free speech of administrators Brian Leiter who's a law professor and philosopher at Chicago wrote to me he was like well administrators just don't have free speech as administrators at all and any version of the theory that things that they do is is confused and I am sympathetic to that as a norm I don't think it is the case in the theory as far as I can tell or in like a up case law so the question is one administrators speak out let's say extramurally or intramurally but on charged political topics should are they limiting this is one version of the question are they limiting the free speech of their faculty members or not so this came up comes up in various settings so all of the chancellors of the University of California system several years ago signed a letter about the BDS movement in which they said that the boycott divest in sanction movement against Israel is wrong violates academic freedom and they're not interested in it it was a page long and they there was a sort of campus outcry from faculty members who support BDS and they said well this is awfully chilling like the the most powerful people in this system are telling me that my political position is like formally not prohibited but formally disputed by the by the University of California and what Carol Crisks said in response to that was well I wasn't speaking you know as I was just speaking in my own capacity as an administrative citizen and scholar not as an attorney and check me on the facts but I think that's how she responded and that seems unconvincing to me uh you know I could imagine good reasons to prevent uh administrators at the very top of the administration from making political statements extramural or intramural political statements of that sort uh on the theory that it chills faculty and student speech um but the case I mean the the law gets super complicated at public places around this the there's a famous case uh about a uh Leonard Jeffries from the 1990s uh who was the chair of the black studies department at uh the city college and he had made a bunch of uh public speeches uh in which he like accused the Jews of having a special role in the slave trade and he prepared the theory of uh sort of melanin based superiority of people of african descent over lighter-skinned people get a bunch of weird ideas and he happened to be the chair of this department and there was a series of court cases they uh in which they tried to fire him from his chair from his position as chair uh they weren't trying to get rid of him from the faculty it was obvious to everybody at the time I think it might be less obvious now I think the climate has changed in some way it was obvious to everybody at the time that Leonard Jeffries was well within his rights to say all these things as a faculty member but that as an administrator and a you know an administrator at the bottom of the you know he's a chair he wasn't a dean or anything but as a as a chair he wasn't within his rights to say these things and keep his chairship and the case was uh twice uh the appellate that he was fired from the chair he sued he won twice in the I think second circuit uh on academic freedom grounds on the constitutionally uh inflected academic freedom grounds that were then recognized by the courts uh on a third go-round the supreme court remanded the case to the uh to the appellate not on academic freedom but on a newly decided law about public employee speech oh those are complicated this is pre-garcetti so it wasn't garcetti um and said look actually you got this wrong think about it again and this time the second circuit said okay jeffreys can be removed from the chair um but the point is at least at that point it was a super obscure it was obscure it was unclear to the courts how this should go and i don't know what the law looks like in cases about this since that very famous case um but it's confusing i guess is what i would say and the experts that i've spoken with including brian leiter including uh Henry Reichman formally uh you know had a drup who has several books on academic freedom uh they all give me sort of different versions i can't get a um there doesn't seem to be as far as i can tell settled consensus on this issue well that's fascinating that's fascinating and and and administrator we've been talking about department heads and presidents but does does that also cover the full range of non-faculty staff from custodians and librarians technologists and grants officers deans and vice provost uh so i think the answer is no as far as i understand um that public employee law uh does not protect non-academic faculty members in the same way that or non-academic employees in the same way that protects academic employees uh but this again is a complicated question that i am not fact qualified to to weigh in on um my understanding is is that the answer is no uh even after garcetti because there's something called the garcetti exception garcetti is another public employee speech decision uh in which um the same thing just this said well i hope that this new limitation in 2006 on public employee speech doesn't uh doesn't compromise the long settled academic freedom uh the long settled first amendment interested in academic freedom that the court has recognized and the majority justice kennedy said we don't rule on whether it does or not that's not the question before us um and so that's that's the so-called garcetti exception as i understand it and i think people you know people like like faisal mohammed it gail who pays a lot of attention to this stuff i'm sort of looking and watching and waiting to see when the garcetti exception will be either affirmed uh or uh or or destroyed um there's a great article uh if i can recommend something from the chronicle review by the law profi- indiana law professor steve sanders uh we published about a week ago um we've got steve sanders at the chronicle review and he unlike i i'm like me he knows what you know he knows the law inside and out he has a good rundown of the state of um public employee law and and some of the recent both supreme court and the pellet court decisions so i would direct anybody to that and i bet if you wrote to him and asked him for he'd be a great guy to have on the show actually he'd uh you know excellent excellent um well thank you for that thank you for that detailed answer that sounds like a real deep question um uh that we don't talk enough about anything and you mentioned hank reichmann who we've had on the forum as as a guest it was terrific um friends we have about 12 minutes left so uh we have a couple of questions in the pipeline but i want to make sure that each of you get a chance to ask your question or share your concerns so again if you'd like to either click the raised hand and join us on stage uh or just you know hit the q&a box and give us some some questions be happy to see them uh we have a question that came in from chris aldrich uh in the chat he asked i'm curious if anyone has any experience with free speech rankings like that of the foundation for individual rights and expression and how well or poorly they've done with respect to the methodology and actual on-the-ground experience i'm curious lenn if you want to take a whack at the fire which most recently gave harvard its worst possible rating yeah so i um have no insight into how that uh sausage gets made i don't know how the criteria are weighted i do know that uh journalists that i know who have tried to look into it um are somewhat skeptical that the rankings are it's you know are scientific um but i i don't know uh more than that um i know there's a lot of skepticism about those rankings including from people who uh who tend to support the mission uh the fires okay well thank you thank you and i i uh those can be um those can be very interesting to consider chris so thank you for raising them um we have uh another um a return back to our question about um uh turning point and uh and watch lists but from a different angle uh and this question comes from uh joseph robert schull asks where do these faculty and student watch lists and free speech persecutions figure in the freedom picture in the light of plans of dismantle higher education put forth by people like chris rufo oh that's a good question well i guess there i mean i i suppose you can see them as propaganda for the cause of rufo and the other sort of new trustees at new college um and uh yeah who knows i mean will he implement some kind of watch list style surveillance system at new college that probably won't go over well um yeah it's a great question i i guess i would see it you know primarily they're they're kind of propaganda for the cause that um perhaps helps rufo and other activists in that kind of sphere uh convince politicians uh to to let them have their way well that's uh that's a good answer i i don't mean good as in that's a happy and delightful thing the kind of way that's a very very solid answer thank you uh jesse for for the question and thanks don for raising us to begin with uh the checkbox has been going in a whole bunch of different directions mark over wilson takes us back to war church in this case which is very interesting for a professor who specifically gets in trouble for his speech we've also had some good questions or some good notes about the difference between tenure track and adjunct faculty and um a couple of notes on law uh fieldingard mentions the use of slap laws to uh silence journalists which may not be impacting faculty and uh then uh carl aho takes issue with mentioning brian leiter because he uh points out that uh quote brian leiter is notoriously litigant fatigious about the speech of others especially grad students um and so i i i don't know i'm not aware that he uh has sued grad students and i you know i uh but i i do i i think he's a uh a serious thinker about academic freedom and and what it entails uh yeah yeah yeah sorry i wanted to share that and of course um uh friends if you like uh i can i can share extracts from the chat uh anonymized on a blog post along the recording of this so let me know if you'd like me not to do that um in the chat uh i i guess i have a couple of questions while people are fuming and thinking right now um one is and this is tricky since the israel gaza story is so so intense and so unstable right now but where where do you see free speech and academia headed over the next few years do you think for example that the 2024 election uh is going to heighten free speech controversies as both uh leading candidates trump and biden have drawn attention to higher education their campaigns and as the individual campuses become areas for mobilization for support uh do you think that um uh ai is likely to worsen or benefit the free speech controversy look ahead a bit where where do you see this headed yeah so let me let me try to answer the um the electoral question because i think that the the coordinates i think seem to be changing be for a long time and i you know there are questions about rufo we've talked about the santas in florida uh you know for a long time it seemed uh that the threat to free speech or there was a perceived threat to free speech from the so-called campus left and various conservative politicians made a lot of this it was valuable to them electorally um that was the kind of rhetoric um what's happened in the immediate wake of the israel gaza war as far as i can tell with free speech on campus has been uh a crack down on certain kinds of left-wing speech that is i mean i think that the in the absence of uh really strong reasons which i have not seen they certainly haven't been made public columbia university's suspension of jewish voices for peace and uh students for justice in palestine looks very much like a politically motivated crackdown on on his favorite political speech um and to the extent that that is the case and to the extent further that this crackdown is motivated by donor pressure and there's another wonderful recent chronicle article that i recommend um by uh lila carwin burman uh and uh henry saskin i forgot his first name um about the sort of the ways in which donors can exert pressure on campuses or this uh you know to the extent that that continues i think that the whole sort of political calculus will change um republicans are not going to want to step in and say we support the sjp in fact they tried to make it genuinely illegal in florida though they're gonna fail um so it's gonna it's gonna compromise their capacity to um to use campus freedom and free speech uh as a kind of political tool on the other hand i think that it's going to compromise the capacity of the left uh or whatever you want to call it of the sort of campus sensitivity administrative class to continue to make uh very uh convincing prohibitions on the basis of sensitivity various kinds so you know i don't know i think it will i think it'll have a real i think it'll really mix mix the pot up in ways that will be fascinating to watch um my net the column that comes out on monday will it be about donor interference and the suspension of these organizations uh it's a truly fascinating situation and there's a um those of you haven't seen it there's a guardian article about an event an incident at bar college which happens to be my alma mater but it's not what i mentioned uh in which uh you know we have a very explicit kind of donor interference that we know about only because it was resisted by the president of the college in which a class on apartheid in israel and the class is devoted to the question of whether apartheid is an appropriate label uh for israel's political arrangements uh there was pressure to cancel it including from a very very big donor on the board of trustees uh was told to buzz off and to resign uh and we know about that because it became public because it was rejected but i think we can assume that versions of that pressure are happening across the university landscape right now um and it's going to have it's going to really it's going to really mix up how we think about campus speech and who's permitting it who's projecting it and so on perhaps to the extent that higher education increasingly has to rely on donors as our costs go up and the state support goes down and as also general the macroeconomic trend of increasing economically wealth and equality means uh we have more and more such donors perhaps this will this is a line that we need to keep an eye on yes and one of the things that lila points out is that not only do they rely on donors but they rely on mega donors far more than ever so a very small number of very wealthy donors i think could be the much higher uh proportion of the pie that has historically been the case so if one of them so you know this gives them enormous potential political sure you know well thank thank you that's a that's a really good point if anyone wants to share a link to that in the chat that would be great uh ed web our dear friend from dickinson college says there's also a structural problem that free speech has to be supported by financial security from the individual adjunct up to the donor dependent or state funding institution um thank you ed we have a video question from mark let me see if i can bring him up on stage i think his camera is having issues this may be an audio only question uh mark how are you doing sir thanks i'm doing well i hope y'all can hear me we can so uh you know i've been in higher ed for more than 20 years and i guess what i always find fascinating about this free speech on campus is how students greatly outnumber faculty and staff and yet we expect these students usually these young people right to come to campus already understanding what we are talking about and how we think about this and the fact of the matter is that is simply implausible and i just invite all of us that are here and work at a college or university how are you educating how are the students being educated about this because it's just like oh it's the first amendment it's like well the first amendment is 45 words but we all know it goes way beyond that and i just invite us to think about that how are we getting the students to understand their role and our role in what this means oh great question please go ahead let us you want to tackle that yeah that's i think it's a great question i think i've wondered if various kinds of orientation ought to be implemented around academic freedom and free speech both i think that um at at stanford law after the uh the sort of infamous kyle duncan incident something like that was implemented by jenny martinez who was the dean of the law school at the time and who is now i think the provost of the entire university um and so i wouldn't be surprised and maybe especially if these very fraught you know very upsetting to students and faculty both uh protests and counter protests over the war in the middle east go on if incoming classes or maybe students to the beginning of the next semester are orientated in some way you know this is how to protest appropriately this is what you certainly can't do um and so on um that's i i wouldn't be shocked in the personally i think it would be a good idea for sure well thank you thank you for that answer mark thank you for the really good question much appreciated um and i appreciate all of this but unfortunately i have to do the opposite of showing appreciation which is that to draw our hour to a close because it is the end of our session um len thank you so much for being just a great interlocutor for sharing all of your ideas it's been a real pleasure talking with you i'm curious what's what's the best way to keep up with your work should we should we follow you on social media or should we sign up your the best way would be to sign up for my newsletter which uh i think if you go to the most recent one it comes out every monday morning and then we'll be published on the uh it's published on the website of the chronicle simultaneously um and you can just go there and you know log in through your institutional chronicle account and hit like subscribe i think it's a little button at the top and then i'll be in your inbox uh and uh if if i'm showing up in the spam or promotions you know tell it go to the regular bit you know i'm supposed to tell everybody that it's it's in some way and it happens uh you know email defenses can be very rigorous well please i i strongly recommend uh following lens columns because they're just there's always thoughtful and always always good um thank you thank you so much for joining us much appreciated thank you so much for having me take care and good look with the book too thank you friends thank you all for uh for the great questions and great comments this has been a real deep dive into a really fraught and tricky subject i appreciate all of you taking the time to share all of your thoughts if you'd like to continue sharing those thoughts on social media please just use the hashtag ftte here are the places you can find me on twitter mastodon threads blue sky and of course on my blog if you'd like to go into our previous sessions where we've touched on these topics just go to tinyurl.com slash fdfr kind or take a look at our forum website in order to find the topics that are coming up thank you everybody i hope that uh as we are heading towards late november i hope those of you in the northern hemisphere are staying warm and those of you in the southern hemisphere are not too hot uh please take care everybody be safe and we'll see you next time online bye bye


Spouses of Russian soldiers conscripted into the army from Moscow and sent to Ukraine have held a protest rally in the Russian capital. Family members of the military personnel joined the Russian Communist Party's rally to convey their voices to relevant institutions after their request to hold a separate rally was declined back in October. The women attending the rally said their husbands have been fighting for a long time without any leave despite the fact that they are entitled to a leave according to the law. The rally participants raised the placards with the slogans justice for the mobilized and return the mobilized. The rally lasted for five minutes and was dispersed by police. The leadership of the Communist Party pledged to convey the protesters' demands to the leadership of the country and the army.


So let's take a look at trigonometric functions beyond the right angle. So let's consider this trigonometry in the unit circle. Suppose our angle has been moved into standard position. So remember that's going to have the vertex at the origin, one side on the positive x-axis, and other side wherever it ends up. Now let's consider a unit circle centered at the origin. That's a circle with radius one centered at the origin. The terminal side of the angle will intersect the unit circle at some point b. And since we're on a set of coordinate axes, we can say that this point b has coordinates x, y. Now let's consider this coordinate a little bit more carefully. If the point b has coordinates x, y, then this vertical line, b, c, has length y. Likewise, this horizontal line, a, c, has length x. And a useful rule in mathematics is look for the right triangle. Since b, c is vertical, that means that this angle b, c, a is a right angle, and so a, b, c is a right triangle. Now I know a, c is x and b, c is y, but what about this third side, a, b? Well remember, that's the distance between the center of the circle and the point of the circle, and since this is a unit circle, the radius a, b has length one. Now since a, b, c is a right triangle, we can talk about the sine, cosine, and tangent of this angle a. So the sine of a is going to be the length of the opposite side divided by the length of the hypotenuse. That opposite side has length y, and the hypotenuse, because it's the radius of the unit circle, has length one. So the sine is y over one, or just y. Similarly, the cosine of the angle is the adjacent over the hypotenuse, and that's going to be x over one, or just x. And finally, the tangent is going to be the opposite over the adjacent, and that's going to be y over x. So now let's change our viewpoint slightly. Suppose angle a is in standard position. Let b be the point where the terminal side intersects the unit circle with coordinates x, y. Then the sine of a is equal to y, the cosine of a is equal to x, and the tangent of a is equal to y over x. And what's useful to keep in mind here is while this was determined by assuming that this angle a was an acute angle, we can still find these values, x, y, and y over x, whatever the measure of the angle a is. And this allows us to introduce the following. Let theta be an angle in standard position and let its terminal side intersect the unit circle centered at the origin at a point with coordinates x, y. Then the sine of theta is y, the cosine of theta is x, and the tangent of theta is y over x. So for example, suppose we have the circle shown, let's find the sine, cosine, and tangent for the angle. So let's pull in our definition. So sine is equal to the y-coordinate, cosine is equal to the x-coordinate, and tangent is the quotient of the y and x-coordinates. Now in a kind and gentle universe, we'd have the x and y-coordinates. Unfortunately, the universe isn't so kind and generous. What's that? Oh, here we have the x and y-coordinates. Since sine is our y-coordinate, our sine is going to be 513s. Since cosine is the x-coordinate, our cosine will be minus 1213s. And since tangent is the quotient of the y over the x-coordinates, it's going to be negative 512s. Now we have to find sine, cosine, and tangent for any angle theta. But the other trigonometric functions can also be defined in terms of sine, cosine, and tangent. And so this allows us to find the rest for any angle theta. secant theta is 1 over cosine, cosecant is 1 over sine, and cotangent is 1 over tangent. So we can try to find this secant, cosecant, and cotangent for the angle shown. Now we've already found the sine, cosine, and tangent, and the thing to remember is the secant, cosecant, and cotangent are the reciprocals of these functions. So secant is the reciprocal of cosine, so it's going to be... cosecant is the reciprocal of sine, and cotangent is the reciprocal of tangent. So these will be...


if you want to keep watching thumbs up thumbs up it's best two out of three or three out of five two out of three three let's do this the net is men's height I usually play on men's height thank you for the happy birthday wishes guy okay let's go as we're watching I will


We're going to be looking at a web server, actually, files, anyone with a web browser or any modern day computer can download files from a web server, whether it be through a web browser or just using a program like WGet or Curl. And I run Apache on a lot of my systems, but Apache is kind of overkill if you just want to share some files. You can obviously tweak Netcat to share a certain file. I've done that in the past, but that's kind of cumbersome. Busybox. I love Busybox. It has a built-in HTTP daemon, and you can daemon. And you can put it in anything from routers to your desktop computer to your phone. But it doesn't have a default like a web directory. So to get to a certain file, people have to know the exact link to a certain file, which is fine if you're going to share that file. That's one way to do it. And you can create directory indexes for it, but then you need a separate script. You need to set up folders. It works, and it's great, but there's a simpler way. And you might be thinking, OK, Python. Python, you can set up a simple server.  And Python runs on almost everything. And you now have a web directory. People can download from it. And yes, that's true. That is a great way to do it. But there's another option. And it's actually a Python script. So it'll run on a machine you have Python on. And it's called wolf, W-O-O-F. And it should be in your repositories on most distributions. I'll use app 2 to search for it. You'll see it's right here. I already have it installed. It says share files through HTTP. So it's designed for sharing files. If I man wolf, we can see here.  And it gives you options as into what port you want to share it on. By default, it goes to port 8080. And you also give it a count. So you can say, if you don't say anything, after the file is downloaded once, the web server stops. So you can create this thing, point it at a file, send the link to somebody. They click on it. It downloads. And the web server shuts off. So no one else can download that file. You can also point it at a directory using the dash z, dash j, dash capital Z, or dash u options. And what that does is, now, if you were using another web server with a web directory and you wanted to share 10 files or 100 files, someone would have to click on each one of those files to download it. Well, with Wolf, you point it at a directory, you give it one of these options for what compression you want, or an uncompressed tar ball. And when they click on it, it sends them that compressed zip file, or a gzip file, or just a tar file, or a bzip2 file. And it just downloads that whole directory as one file that they can then uncompress on the device. They don't have to click on 100 different links. So let's go ahead and give this a try. I'm going to quit out of the man page. I'm in a directory here from a previous tutorial that I have, two MP3s and a WAV file. So let's say I wanted to share this one.mp3. What I can do is I just say Wolf, once I have Wolf installed, obviously, and point it at that file. And I'll hit Enter. It tells me right here that I'm my current IP address, port 8080. And again, you can specify a port if port 8080 has already been used or you want to use a different port on your machine. And now I can go here and I can type in that address. I could probably type in localhosts as well, but just as an example, I'll give my local IP address here, 8080. And when I hit Enter, I don't have to get a file name because it's pointing out that one file, one.mp3. And now that's downloads my computer. And again, I can point, they give this link to anybody on their phone that click on it. It will automatically download that file. As you can see, the web server killed itself after it downloaded that file. And again, you can do dash C and I can say two. And when I hit Enter now, I can go there. See, I downloaded it again and I downloaded it again. And if I try to download it a third time, well, I can't because after two times, it turned off the web server. So the web server doesn't keep running after the file has been downloaded. Now as another example, as I said, I can say Wolf and I'm gonna say dot for the current directory, but I can point at any directory. And I'm gonna say dash Z, lowercase C, which I believe was a GZIP file. So it's gonna be a tar ball file inside a GZIP file. I'll go ahead and hit Enter. And now when I come here and I go to this link, it's going to give me a file called FM because that's the name of the folder dot tar dot GZ. And I can then unzip this file like so. And I have all three of those files inside a folder, inside a file.  So that is a quick look at Wolf, but it does a little bit more that we're gonna look at in the next video. But go ahead and check this out again. It's a Python script. So it should run on any machine running Python. And of course, again, you can always use your Python simple server, but this gives a few other options and we're gonna get into a little bit more in the next video. I thank you for watching. Please visit filmsbychris.com. That's Chris with the K. There's a link in the description. If you enjoyed this video and if you enjoy most of my videos, think about supporting over at patreon.com. Ford Session Metal X1000. There's a link to that in the description. You can also support me through PayPal at my website on the support section. And at filmsbychris.com you can also search through all my videos from both my channels. I thank you for watching. And as always, I hope that you have a great day.


Citizen science has been gaining momentum in recent years, with many projects successfully involving members of the public in scientific research. However, there are still barriers to participation in citizen science projects in non-western, non-educated, non-industrialized, non-rich and non-democratic contexts. This paper examines the experiences of 15 citizen science project coordinators in order to identify barriers and opportunities for engaging marginalized and indigenous communities in citizen science. The authors found that projects have employed various strategies to address these barriers, including decentralizing and using low-tech solutions, engaging in bottom up approaches and focusing on human rights. They also identified positive outcomes, such as increased community empowerment and improved access to information. Overall, the study suggests that citizen science can be a powerful tool for engaging marginalized and indigenous communities in scientific research, and that it may have more far-reaching benefits than just scientific advancement. This article was offered by Petra Begne, Artemis Scalatidou, Dimitris Aguio and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


Is Maxwell House the best coffee in the whole world? Well, your father says so, and your father knows best. Yes, it's Father Knows Best, transcribed in Hollywood, starring Robert Young his father. A half-hour visit with your neighbors, the Andersons, brought to you by Maxwell House, the coffee that's bought and enjoyed by more people than any other brand of coffee at any price. Maxwell House, always good to the last drop. It's a peculiar thing about people, especially people who belong to a family. First, they begin to look alike, then, as if that weren't bad enough, they begin to think alike. That'd be a fine thing if you were related to Betty Grable or Albert Einstein, but what if you were related to the Andersons? Looking like them wouldn't be too bad, I suppose, but thinking the way they do, well, that can lead to all sorts of complications, like this. But why does it have to be a surprise? But who wants to go to an anniversary party if it isn't a surprise? I do. Who are you gonna call now? Mr. Smith. You already called them twice. Well, I forgot to tell him something. Betty, wouldn't it be just as good if Mom and Dad knew? Then they could help us a little. Oh, so that's what it is. You're afraid of a little extra work, that's all. What? I am not. Mr. Smith, this is Betty Anderson. Don't tell me you're not... It isn't anything like that. Mr. Smith, if you see my father or my mother, you won't say anything about it, will you? Tell him it's a surprise party. Well... Just a minute, Mr. Smith. He knows it's a surprise party. I told him that in the beginning. Mr. Smith... Betty, I give you my word of honor. I won't tell him again. I'm sorry, I can't hear you. I said, if you told him in the beginning... I'll give you my word of honor in the beginning. But will you please keep still? You said you couldn't hear me. I said I couldn't hear... Uh-oh, I can't talk now. Somebody's coming. Goodbye! Oh, hi, Kathy. Where'd you come from? I was in the kitchen. Whatcha doing? It's a secret. I can keep a secret. Oh, sure. If we tell you, we might as well put it in the newspaper. I won't tell anybody, honest I won't. Betty, let's go upstairs. That's a good idea. Can I go too?  I belong upstairs just as much as you do.  I don't have to do it. You tell me.  Ah, you talk too much. You better tell me what the secret is, or I'll tell... I know, sweetheart. What are they doing? Where's Mommy? She's fixing dinner. Betty and Butter are always whispering. Well, maybe they're discussing something they don't want you to hear. Everybody's got things they don't want me to hear. Everybody's got secrets except me. Well, I'll tell you what. How would you like to have a special secret with me? Oh, Daddy, you could trust me. I won't tell anybody. Not even if they twist my arms and pull my ears and kick me in the shins. Oh, all right, Kathy. I, uh... Trust you. Oh, I'll never tell anybody, Daddy. Cross my heart and hope to die as long as I live. Fine. Do you know what the day after tomorrow is? Saturday? It's our wedding anniversary. Mommy's in mind. It is? And do you know what I'm going to do? I'm giving Mommy a surprise party. Oh. That's a secret now. Oh, I'll never tell anybody, Daddy. Not even if they kill me. Uh, yes. Now, I'll tell you what we'll do. I have to call Mr. Smith to make a few arrangements. So, you go into the kitchen and make sure that Mommy doesn't hear me. Isn't this exciting, Daddy? It sure is, kitten. Go ahead now. Okay. And if she starts to come out all yell. That's a good girl. All yell loud. All right, Kathy. Real loud. All right. Nine or 90, they're all the same. Once they start talking, you can't stop them. Yackity, yackity, yackity. Oh, hello, heck. This is Jim Anderson. Oh, hiya, Jim. What's up? Heck, I know this is kind of short notice, but Saturday's our wedding anniversary. I can't hear you very well, Jim. Can't you talk a little louder? Well, Margaret's in the kitchen, and I don't want her to hear me. Well, what good is it if I can't hear you? Heck, Saturday's our wedding anniversary, and I was just wondering... Daddy! I can't talk to you now. Yeah, but Jim... I'll call you later. Well, hello, honey. Jim, what on earth are you doing? Doing? Me? I was... Why, nothing. Who were you talking to? I wasn't talking to anybody. I was just trying to find out what time it is, that's all. There's a clock right in back of you. I know, but it seemed later than that, and I wanted to check with the operator. That's what he was doing, Mommy. How do you know? He always checks with the operator. Don't you, Daddy? Yes, it's the... I always do. From time to time. About the time. Jim, are you sure everything's all right? Everything's fine, isn't it, Kathy? Is it? Of course it is. Just fine. Well, if you say so. Mommy, I've got a good idea. Let's go back to the kitchen. Why? Don't you like the kitchen? Jim... Well, what she means, honey, is that... you can't very well cook in the hall, can you? Something is cooking in the hall. Is dinner ready, Mom? Not yet, dear. Well, whenever it is, so am I. We'll make a special note of it. Okay. Now, why is everyone so anxious to get me into the kitchen? We're hungry, honey. That's all. You're sure that's the only reason? Of course. Why... What other reason could we have? That's what I'm trying to find out. You know, I've been trying to figure this out for years. Women are all fired suspicious. That's very simple, dear. Men. Mommy, the kettle! Oh, dear. Women would be suspicious if there weren't any men. Of course they would, but not of the same things. Well, I suppose that makes sense. I don't know to who, but... Kathy. Yes, Daddy? Get back on guard duty. I'm going to call Mr. Smith. What? Let me know if your mother heads this way again. Okay. This is fun, isn't it, Daddy? Fun. Every time I start one of these things, I ought to have my brains examined. My brains? Call them? Hello, Heck. This is Jim. What happened right in the middle of the... Daddy! Goodbye, Heck. I'm in here, honey. Will you tell the children to come down to dinner? You bet. I'll call them right now. But Betty, dinner's ready. Okay. I'll be right down. They'll be right down, Margaret. Thank you, dear. If you don't mind, I think I'll run upstairs and wash my hands. Jim, the phone's ringing. I can't hear you, honey. This darn phone... Not you, Heck. Betty. Because I wanted to talk to you. This ready. I know dinner's ready. Jim. We'll be right in, Margaret. What are you doing out there? Not a thing, honey. I thought you said you were hungry. I am. We're just... But I know you're here. Everybody in the neighborhood knows you're here.  I thought it was time for dinner. It is. And you want me to walk? I'll get it. Leave it alone. But, Father, it's the phone. Jim. I've been answering it all night. There's no reason why... Hello? Look, Heck, I just finished telling you... Jim, if this is your idea of a joke, it isn't the least bit funny. Wait a minute, Heck. Honey, I've been telling the children... Will you please go into dinner before everything gets ice cold? But I have to tell... I'll take care of Hector. But, honey... Jim... Hector, Margaret will speak to you. That's nice. Okay, kids, let's go. What's everybody so excited about? Maybe we're having steak for dinner. We are? Hector? Margaret, how do you stand living in that nut factory? Well, it isn't easy. Is Elizabeth there? Not right now. You wanted to call you? Will you ask her to, please? Yeah, okay. I want to tell her about the surprise party I'm giving for Jim on Saturday. He's planning a surprise party, too. Seems there's a lot going on in the Anderson Home Father doesn't know anything about. And yet, ladies, most of the time, the head of the house does know exactly what the score is. For example, he's the one who knows best about downright good coffee. Yes, your husband is the world's greatest coffee expert. Naturally, we're often called experts, too, because more families buy our Maxwell House Coffee than any other brand. But when the tempting aroma of your coffee fills the kitchen, that man of yours is the only expert who matters. And tomorrow, if you'll fill his cup with the rich goodness of Maxwell House Coffee, we know he'll smile with real enjoyment and say, I've never tasted finer coffee. Believe me, he'll say that. In fact, we're so certain he'll praise our Maxwell House. We'll return your money if he doesn't. You see, that heartwarming good to the last drop flavor can come only from the Maxwell House recipe. It's a recipe that demands certain superb coffees blended and roasted just so. And only Maxwell House has that recipe.  Tomorrow, pour your husband a cup of Maxwell House. If he doesn't say, best coffee ever, why just send us the can and unused portion and we'll give you back your money. Our address is right on every familiar blue tin. Yes, serve our coffee to that expert you married. He's sure to enjoy Maxwell House. Coffee that's always good to the last drop. A great many people believe that all things come in threes. Good things, bad things, births, deaths, accidents, everything happens in threes. But even they were sure, with doubt that three surprise parties could ever happen at one time, which proves conclusively that they've never been in Springfield. Anyway, it's a short time later and the Anderson's dinner is over at last. Their problems, however, are just beginning, like this. Kathy. Yes, Mommy. Has your father come back? Not yet. Betty. I'm in the kitchen, bud. Can I see you for a minute, please? I have to help Mother. Go ahead, Betty. I can finish up in here. Well, if you're sure. I'm quite sure. Okay. If you need me for anything, just yell. That's exactly what I'll do. I am not, head. But, won't you? Isn't it thrilling? Not your old secret. I don't care if you've got a million of them. Kathy. You want me, Mommy?  Oh, sure. I finished it long ago. What's this about a secret? Oh, Betty and Bud think they're so wonderful just because they've got a secret. Angel, speaking of secrets, would you like to do something for Mommy? I don't know any secrets. I know, dear. And even if I did, I couldn't tell because then it wouldn't be a secret anymore. Of course. Besides, I don't know anything about the surprise part. Kathy. Gee. I'm sure you didn't. And, Kathy, I don't know how you found out. Let's be sure that no one else knows anything about our secret. What secret? The surprise party I'm giving for your father on Saturday. Kathy, what's wrong with you? I don't feel well. You're tired, sweetheart. A good night's rest and you'll be as good as new. Mommy. Yes, dear? If somebody tells you a secret and then somebody else tells you a secret. Kathy. What are you supposed to do? About what, dear? What I just said.  You'd better see what they want, dear. But what about my problem? We'll talk about it sometime when we're not so tired. Okay. Now run along like a good girl. Okay. And, Kathy, I wish you'd stop saying okay. Okay. There's all the secrets in the whole world and they have to pick out the same one. What are you mumbling about? I'm not happy. Well, don't worry, Squirt. We're gonna fix that right now. Look, how'd you like to know what our secret is? I wouldn't. Find no enough secrets. But we have to tell you. No, you don't. We do. Kathy, you've got to help us. I don't have to do anything and I don't want to know any more secrets. That's fine. Your own sister and brother. Your own flesh and fish. Secret. We're giving mother and father a surprise party on Saturday. And if you tell one person but one, well, you better not. That's all. Why did you have to tell me? Because we want you to get them out of the house. They won't go. Why not? I can't you. Because it's a secret. But all you have to do is get them to take you for a walk or something. I used to be so happy. Look, Kathy, I'll give you my old catcher's knit. I didn't know anything. And I'll give you back your football. I was such a happy little dope. But it's bother. Remember, Kathy, if you say one word... Hiya, dad. How's every little old thing? But would you like to make a full confession now or shall I send Kathy for the rubber hose? What? Where did you hide the body? Hello, father. I didn't have the hose. What body? Hello, Betty. I know it. And anybody. And if anybody thinks I know what I'm talking about, he's crazy. Others in the kitchen. Good. Wake me up in time for the fourth race. Betty, I think we'd better go upstairs. We'll see you later, father. Give my regards to the governor. Buzz, buzz, buzz. Whisper, whisper, whisper. Nothing but secrets. Daddy. You haven't told anybody about ours, have you? No, but I... Good. Oh, keep an eye peeled for your mother. I've got to call Mr. Smith again. But I want to ask you... Not now, Kathy. We'll talk about it later. Can I even ask one question? All right, but make it... Oh, heck, I forgot to tell you something. Again? Not now, Kathy. Gee whiz. I'll leave the back door open and you take everybody into the kitchen. You told me... Oh, did I tell you the signal? What signal? Beasel bub. When I say beasel bub, everybody comes rushing in. That's the signal. Can you remember it? I'll have it tattooed on my chest. Oh, here's another thing. Please, Jim. I got a small ch... Look, heck, you won't say anything about this to Margaret, will you? After all, we want it to be a surprise, don't we? Oh, yeah, sure. We're going to surprise everybody. I'll be seeing you, heck. Good night, Jim. Good night, pal. What is it?  I mean, I don't have any time for secrets right now. But this is about the party. Oh, what about it? Well, secret?  Uh... Why don't you call me up next Monday? Hey. Kathy, if you don't want to help me... What about the party? Everybody tells you the same secret. If everybody knows, then it isn't a secret. Well, nobody knows, but is it telling a secret if you suppose? If I suppose what? Well, suppose Betty and Bud are giving a surprise party for you and Mommy. What? Come down here and bring Bud with you. No one's going to hurt you. Down the stairs. Say something, Dan. I've... What's this about you and Bud giving a party? Kathy... Just you wait. I didn't tell him. Honest, I didn't. Leave Kathy alone. It's a good thing somebody around here has some sense. You mean, Kathy? Me? Well, what's the sense of having two parties on the same night? You mean, there's going to be another party? That's right. I'm giving a surprise party for your mother on Saturday. But that's what we're doing. Holy cow. Look, let's go into the den and close the door. After we've saved up all our money.  Yes, Daddy. I still think she had something to do with it. Now, first, I want to say that your mother and I are very grateful. For what? Well, I think it's very nice that you wanted to give us a party. Oh, it wasn't anything. Aren't we still going to have a party? Of course we are. There isn't much sense to having two sets of refreshments, is there? Why not? Oh, Bud. Well, what's wrong with it? I've got an idea. Suppose we'd say that it's your party, but we'll toss to see who pays for the refreshments. How'll that be? Bud? Okay, we'll take heads. Good. Here we go. It's, um, tails. That means we pay, huh? Uh, no. I won, so I have to pay. And it's still our party? That's right. Boy, that's wonderful. Daddy? Yes, kitten? Now are you going to toss with mommy? Never mind, Betty. I'm right here. Hello? Jim, this is Hec. Oh, hello, Hec. We're all next to come over. Didn't Margaret tell you? No, she just said she'd see us. Well, can you see our kitchen window from there? I suppose so. All right, as soon as the light goes out, bring everybody in the back way. Okay. And don't forget the signal. Bees old bub. That's my boy. See you in a few minutes, Hec. Okay, pal. Well, that takes care of that. Father, I'm getting a little worried. About what? I don't see any sandwiches or anything. What if Kathy made a mistake? She didn't make any mistake. I checked with Mrs. Smith and your mother's giving a party. Boy, I hope mom made a lot of sandwiches, so I'm starving. Bud, there's one thing we've got to be sure of. We must never find out that her party isn't exactly a surprise. Well, we certainly won't. Watch it, Betty. Huh? Oh, hello, honey. All finished with the dishes? Yes, dear. All finished. I dried, didn't I, mommy? You certainly did. Did you turn the light out in the kitchen? Of course. Want me to turn it back on? No, just leave it the way it is. Shall we go into the living room? All right. The paper says it's going to be warmed tomorrow. It's about time. Isn't it, Kathy? Huh? Oh, sure. I thought today was very nice. Yes, it was fine. Sure is getting hungry, isn't it? I mean, late. Yes, gets later all the time. You know, we're all being very silly. Uh, what do you mean, honey? Well, sitting here pretending that we don't know about your party. Party? Why? What? Elizabeth told me all about the party you and the children are giving. We're giving. And I think it's very sweet. Honey, you mean the party you're giving. No, I mean the one you're giving. I didn't want to interfere, so I canceled all my plans. Holy cow. Margaret, do you mean you didn't prepare any refreshments? Of course not. I thought certainly yours would be enough. Ours? Oh, Margaret. There'll be a house full of people and nothing to give them. Boy, what a mess. You mean you haven't prepared any refreshments?  Oh, Jim. What are we going to do? But we'll have to run down to the delicacy. But this is important. What if somebody says Beaselbub? Beaselbub? Said and done, the one thing you want when you buy coffee is flavor, the most in flavor for your money. And frankly, that's Maxwell House, the one coffee famous above all others for flavor. So tomorrow at your grocers, look for our familiar blue tin with the big white cup and drop. Take home a pound of Maxwell House, then offer a savory cup full to the world's greatest coffee expert, your husband. When he asks for a second cup, his smile will tell you better than I can why Maxwell House is famous for flavor. As for value, just count all the truly good cups you get from each pound. You'll agree Maxwell House is today's coffee buy. Yes, for the most in honest to goodness coffee drinking pleasure, insist on Maxwell House coffee. Always good to the last drop. It's some time later and the Anderson Surprise Party is going full blast. Thanks to the delicatessen and a raid on every icebox in the neighborhood, the question of refreshments has been solved. Not so, however, is the question of Hector Smith, like this. Heck? Oh, heck? You want me, Jim? Come over here for a second. I want to talk to you. Okay, pal, what's on your mind? Look, heck, you did this deliberately, didn't you? Did what?  Well, sure, what did you want me to do? Well, you could have told me about it, couldn't you? Of course not. Why? Jim, I'm surprised at you. It was a secret. Hurry, hurry, step right up today for brand new crinkles. Candy-kissed rice, it's twice as nice. Crinkles, the sensational new sugar-coated rice cereal. Yes, sir, the whole family will have a circus eating crinkles because candy-kissed rice is twice as nice. Just add milk or cream and eat. No sugar needed. Crinkles are the quick energy treat for snack time, too. Crinkles, the newest post-serial. Get candy-kissed rice crinkles today at your grocer. Hurry, hurry, hurry, hurry, hurry, hurry. Join us again next week when we'll be back with Father Knows Best, starring Robert Young, is Jim Anderson, Roy Bargy, and the Maxwell House Orchestra. In our cast for June Whitley is Margaret, Rhoda Williams, Ted Donaldson, Norma Jean-Nilson, Herb Bygren, and yours truly, Bill Foreman. So until next Thursday, good night and good luck from the makers of Maxwell House, America's favorite brand of coffee, always good to the last drop. Father Knows Best was transcribed in Hollywood and written by F. J. Now stay tuned in for Dragnet, which follows immediately over most of these stations. Your police force goes into action. It's Dragnet next on NBC.


the vent smile smart keyboard this is a PC in the keyboard yeah this is a keyboard mini PC here are the ports what is the CPU inside Intel Baytrell Intel Baytrell and the keyboard with internet VGA HDMI USB USB and audio yes let's look at the keyboard is a good keyboard for sure so it has all the keys yeah convenience with for big touching for office work and this runs Windows yeah Windows 10 what's the price maybe 90 to 100 for different quantities all right are you already shipping yes infrastructure now all right that's the keyboard PC yes