Louder with Crowder - September 28, 2026


Change My Mind Debates: Harvard Professor Randall Kennedy

Hosted by
Mentioned
BTS: A Beautiful Day for Violence in the Neighborhood

Episode Stats


Length

3 hours and 8 minutes

Words per minute

133.99

Word count

25,243

Sentence count

1,976


Transcript

Transcripts from "Louder with Crowder" are sourced from the Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool. Explore them interactively here.
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:08.000 And she tells your mom it.
00:00:10.000 Would you sign up if I tell my mom and she tells your mom it?
00:00:29.000 She tells your mom it.
00:00:31.000 Would you sign up if I tell my mom and she tells your mom it?
00:00:51.000 You know, back when I was in the academy, we would follow every toast with a song.
00:01:05.000 God's dog.
00:02:04.000 Captain Jean -Luc.
00:02:33.000 The road that we'd swung on When I have plucked the rose.
00:03:20.000 I'm a clown
00:03:53.000 That's an interesting twist. Hmm.
00:05:20.000 I used to look like I was within the table
00:05:51.000 No such thing Why is it always
00:07:50.000 I need them
00:08:20.000 Blood, blood, eye pockiness, blood, blood, brain, this potion, blood, brain, blood, eyes within the chamber.
00:08:51.000 It's what I'm allowed To do
00:09:50.000 We'll be right back.
00:10:25.000 is gonna change.
00:10:28.000 Who's that?
00:12:57.000 Reach the wizard.
00:13:57.000 At this, I'm not gonna find another girl like her in a million years.
00:14:09.000 Also, I've never had fun. Sorry, Rod. That says someday, boo. And as they say, never done it. And I've never had fun. Sorry, Rod. That says someday, boo. Do you trust me?
00:14:27.000 Say to me
00:14:57.000 Let's make some magic!
00:15:33.000 There's this.
00:15:34.000 has won the presidency.
00:16:37.000 Only being strong Like what? What?
00:17:38.000 Why is it always me?
00:18:09.000 I'm sorry, I'm so glad My favorite girl
00:18:59.000 is going to change.
00:19:32.000 I'm so high
00:21:31.000 Breach the Wizards Breach the Wizards
00:22:33.000 Look at this. You're not going to find another girl like her in a million years.
00:22:42.000 It's all so magical. I've never had fun. Sorry, Rod. That says someday, boo. End of.
00:22:58.000 We have just learned moments ago that the Supreme Court has now striking down both Harvard and UNC's program when it comes to race used in admissions.
00:23:08.000 The standoff that's happening between the president and Harvard University.
00:23:12.000 The Trump administration plans to ask all federal agencies to find ways to end their contracts with the Ivy League school.
00:23:18.000 I guess what I'm saying is your brief, and this is very explicit in your brief, is like it just doesn't matter if our institutions look like America.
00:23:28.000 And I guess what I'm asking you is.
00:23:31.000 Doesn't it?
00:23:31.000 Harvard and Columbia have just been named the worst colleges for free speech.
00:23:36.000 I am deeply disappointed by the intolerance for freedom of speech.
00:23:41.000 It's shocking to see that these schools are suddenly hiding behind the valence of free speech and claiming that this is happening because they value free speech so much on their campus, where historically that's just simply not been true.
00:23:52.000 What we are seeing from the Trump administration is a wholesale attack.
00:23:57.000 They should not be shaken down and told.
00:24:01.000 What to teach, what to say by our government.
00:24:04.000 That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
00:24:06.000 Jewish American students, or students of any faith, should not be illegally harassed and targeted on our nation's college campuses.
00:24:15.000 Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment?
00:24:19.000 Yes or no?
00:24:21.000 It can be, depending on the context.
00:24:25.000 You've been failed as students.
00:24:27.000 You've been failed.
00:24:29.000 It's time to go straight to the top to the people who failed you.
00:24:31.000 At the University of Texas, At Kansas University, UCLA, Cal Berkeley, Stanford, USC, Penn, Penn State, Columbia, NYU, Boston University, Harvard, any of their esteemed professors in these schools who are willing to have a debate with a college dropout comedian, they can name the time, the place, pick the moderator, and the rules.
00:24:55.000 It should be an easy day out.
00:24:58.000 Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy.
00:25:02.000 There is nothing more vital about our colleges and universities.
00:25:08.000 Than them being places where people can think and discuss and disagree.
00:25:14.000 No one is saying we shouldn't teach slavery.
00:25:17.000 We're saying that we shouldn't have entire course loads regarding the intersectionality of slavery and chicks with s.
00:25:28.000 A disinvitation is itself a form of expression.
00:25:33.000 Steven Crowder debate at Penn canceled after producers back out of contract.
00:25:38.000 No one backed.
00:25:38.000 Out of anything, we said we're coming, we're going to live stream as we agreed.
00:25:41.000 They changed the terms.
00:25:43.000 Nobody's sending you to the bourgeois.
00:25:45.000 Racial affirmative action is an attempt, sometimes flawed, but is at least an attempt to push us beyond the gravitational pull of our racist past.
00:25:59.000 If I ask the same question right now to an Asian student on campus, did you earn your spot here?
00:26:03.000 Do you deserve to be here?
00:26:04.000 They will be able to tell me beyond any shadow of a doubt, absolutely, you can't because of the policy in place.
00:26:12.000 I think that's immoral.
00:26:13.000 She ought not to have apologized.
00:26:15.000 She should have stood her ground.
00:26:17.000 The left wants you to believe that Harvard is necessary, that they help America.
00:26:20.000 They hurt America.
00:26:22.000 Say what again?
00:26:24.000 Say what?
00:26:35.000 Hello, everyone.
00:26:37.000 My name is Elliot.
00:26:39.000 Thank you.
00:26:39.000 Thank you for being here.
00:26:41.000 Let's give it up.
00:26:46.000 My name is Elliot Detchen, and I am the president of the Harvard Republican Club.
00:26:49.000 I want to begin by thanking all of you for being here tonight to support Professor Randall Kennedy and Stephen Crowder.
00:26:57.000 The Harvard Republican Club is the oldest college Republican club in the country.
00:27:01.000 Our mission is to help Harvard live up to its great history and as well to advance the America First agenda on campus.
00:27:08.000 Accordingly, our credo is the inscription above Dexter Gate depart to serve better thy country and thy kind.
00:27:15.000 The format for this evening will be a debate between Stephen and Professor Kennedy, followed by audience QA.
00:27:21.000 Our moderator for tonight will be our very own director of speakers, Eli Solomon.
00:27:33.000 And now, Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor at Harvard Law School.
00:27:39.000 He is also the author of several influential books and one of the few who has had the opportunity of clerking for Thurgood Marshall.
00:27:46.000 With degrees from Princeton, Yale, and Oxford, and a three decade long tenure at Harvard, Professor Kennedy is one of America's preeminent scholars.
00:27:54.000 Professor Kennedy.
00:28:14.000 And now, please welcome our favorite college dropout, Steven Crowder.
00:28:48.000 That was such a Boston sound.
00:28:50.000 We love you, Crowder.
00:28:59.000 It's okay, you can go.
00:29:02.000 Well, thank you guys all for coming out tonight.
00:29:05.000 My name is Eli Solomon, and I'll be the moderator for tonight.
00:29:09.000 So, just to give a brief run of show first, each participant is going to have the opportunity to give a brief opening statement.
00:29:17.000 Then, we're going to move into a more free flowing debate style.
00:29:20.000 And then, after about an hour, each participant is going to have the opportunity to give a closing statement, and then we'll move on to a brief intermission and QA.
00:29:30.000 So, with that being said, Stephen, if you'd like to give your opening statement.
00:29:33.000 Absolutely.
00:29:34.000 This is my first time ever doing an opening statement.
00:29:38.000 So, bear with me.
00:29:39.000 I had to write it down.
00:29:41.000 First of all, I would definitely like to thank the Republican Club here, the Harvard Republican Club, so I have to get the title right, for helping to organize this event.
00:29:49.000 Without them, none of this would have been possible.
00:29:51.000 This is about 10 years in the making, so please give them a round of applause.
00:30:01.000 And also, sorry to all the people who couldn't make it.
00:30:03.000 With subway lines?
00:30:04.000 They said the green, the red?
00:30:06.000 It's never reliable.
00:30:06.000 Red?
00:30:07.000 Oh my gosh.
00:30:08.000 Well, it's not a debate on your infrastructure, but we can do that next time.
00:30:12.000 I also really appreciate Professor Kennedy's time, his civility, his assistance in helping put this together.
00:30:19.000 This is not the first time we've tried to do it.
00:30:20.000 He's the one who showed up.
00:30:21.000 Please give him a round of applause.
00:30:22.000 I mean that.
00:30:31.000 I do.
00:30:32.000 I appreciate his civility.
00:30:33.000 I also appreciate his sense of humor, which is lost on quite a few people, because Professor Kennedy wrote a book titled Nigger, The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word, knowing full well that uptight white people would have to say that when citing his work.
00:30:47.000 So hats off to him.
00:30:50.000 He is a professor, but the best troll God's ever made.
00:30:53.000 I made that with the highest regards.
00:30:57.000 Now, he is a professor, and I should also note that above all, By the way, if you guys can turn down your mics, I'm hearing you guys, and someone's going to take a shot, they'll do it.
00:31:07.000 It should be noted that, unlike the faculty at UPenn, other professors at Harvard, or even the dozen or so institutions to whom I extended this offer, Professor Kennedy is a unicorn in that he did something no one else would.
00:31:20.000 He said yes to this debate.
00:31:22.000 He is, as Teddy Roosevelt described, the man in the arena, and I say this genuinely without a hint of ass shining that he has my utmost respect and undying admiration for that.
00:31:34.000 Unfortunately, yeah, there you go.
00:31:35.000 You can give it up for him.
00:31:36.000 He's a strong guy.
00:31:43.000 Unfortunately for him, he's never entered the arena with anyone opposite himself as unqualified as me.
00:31:53.000 I am by no means, nor should I be, an esteemed colleague.
00:31:58.000 No, and unlike the esteemed, I have no interest in the abstract, the nebulous.
00:32:05.000 Or even tenure.
00:32:08.000 Only real world ramifications, solutions, both for those in the halls of Harvard and Americans at large.
00:32:13.000 Truth, put simply, answers.
00:32:16.000 That's why it is my promise today that I will answer any of the questions asked of me in good faith, and I ask that the professor do the same.
00:32:23.000 Because debate is meant to help us filter, determine answers, solutions.
00:32:28.000 If it doesn't serve that objective, then debate serves nothing, nobody.
00:32:33.000 Everything else is superfluous.
00:32:34.000 So let's do this.
00:32:36.000 Let's find some common ground.
00:32:37.000 If we agree on eliminating systemic discrimination in academia today, the only question is systemic discrimination against whom?
00:32:46.000 Okay, this is why I have this written down.
00:32:47.000 A couple of facts.
00:32:49.000 Fact At America's leading colleges, for every one professor who donated to Republicans, 95 donated to Democrats.
00:32:56.000 Same for the whole education industry, and yes, Harvard.
00:33:00.000 95 to 1.
00:33:01.000 But it's organic.
00:33:03.000 Fact Harvard lost 118 professors, not one.
00:33:07.000 Gave to Trump's campaign in 23 or 24.
00:33:10.000 You don't find that in the bluest zip code of San Francisco, but it's organic.
00:33:17.000 Fact Harvard asked its own seniors whether they feel free to express their beliefs on campus on controversial topics.
00:33:26.000 Conservatives, less than 17%, but it's organic.
00:33:32.000 From 2000 to 2014, the left made nearly three times the disinvitation attempts.
00:33:38.000 Cancelings got nearly two times the actual disinvitations.
00:33:42.000 Cancelings.
00:33:43.000 Harvard had more attempts than any other school in the country, but it's organic.
00:33:49.000 Harvard, this doesn't exist in a vacuum, disinvited Devon Jane Buckley from a talk on British Romanticism because she doesn't believe in male women, but rolled out the welcome mat for an Angela Davis keynote.
00:34:01.000 To be fair, she was only a two time communist vice presidential candidate and spoke to and on behalf of the Castro regime while committing crimes against humanity.
00:34:12.000 Didn't run afoul of gender, though, but it's organic.
00:34:16.000 Speaking of keynotes, published Johnson and Zhang's study of 1,875 commencement speakers at 52 schools, Harvard included, showed that liberal speakers outnumbered conservatives for 36 years straight, averaging a ratio of more than 10 to 3, some years 15 to 1.
00:34:35.000 But it's organic.
00:34:36.000 In fact, when Roland Fryer of Harvard, noted professor, found no racial bias, In police shootings.
00:34:44.000 His colleagues here told him not to publish it.
00:34:46.000 He hired eight fresh research assistants, replicated it, got the same answer, published it anyway, and for his troubles, he lived under police protection for over a month, buying diapers for his seven day old daughter with an armed guard, while Harvard largely stood silent.
00:35:03.000 But it's organic.
00:35:04.000 Now, Professor Kennedy will grant most of this, to be fair.
00:35:08.000 He admits that the left has gone too far.
00:35:10.000 We find common ground on that.
00:35:11.000 He admits mob silencing corrodes academia, and he's decried specific instances.
00:35:16.000 Of conservative shout downs.
00:35:18.000 He calls them heckler's vetoes.
00:35:19.000 I know heckler's quite well.
00:35:22.000 But he did so while defending the practice of disinvitation itself as a form of expression.
00:35:28.000 He still stands up and unambiguously defends Harvard and academia at large, while conservatives who show up to speak get shouted down, threatened, vilified at campuses at large, and let's be honest, sometimes get shot.
00:35:43.000 That's the whole trick.
00:35:44.000 Condemn the loud kind of silencing, bless the quiet one.
00:35:48.000 Just call the difference principle.
00:35:50.000 That's not defending free speech.
00:35:52.000 That's not a proponent of free speech.
00:35:54.000 That's someone who points to the fire and tells you that your house is fine.
00:36:00.000 Now, why?
00:36:01.000 He'll say tonight that what matters primarily isn't the outcome, but the intent behind it, or at least to some degree.
00:36:07.000 If there's no invidious motive, it's not that big of a problem.
00:36:10.000 No one meant to build a monoculture at Harvard, but intent doesn't run a classroom, reality does.
00:36:19.000 And it's a reality for which academia and Harvard need to answer.
00:36:24.000 Should be easy for an elite institution.
00:36:26.000 Tonight, he will undoubtedly turn around, in some cases, rightfully so, call out conservative overreach to object to a funding condition or a curriculum standard as if refusing to subsidize discrimination with our tax dollars is the same as burning a book.
00:36:42.000 It isn't.
00:36:43.000 We know that it isn't.
00:36:44.000 Telling a university that it can't use your money to sort people by race is not censorship any more than telling a public school they can't hand a nine year old hardcore pornography.
00:36:54.000 I'm sorry, LGBT positive books.
00:36:58.000 Schools know the difference and so do we.
00:37:00.000 We know the difference between poetry and dicks.
00:37:07.000 And when you ask why you can excuse all of this, the only answer tonight will be the same one that Professor gives everywhere.
00:37:13.000 A greater good, he refuses to define, paid for by victims that are plain to quantify and see.
00:37:20.000 Ask him what the endpoint of Harvard's ideological monoculture is.
00:37:24.000 Ask him.
00:37:26.000 And I will.
00:37:27.000 What percentage would finally be too far?
00:37:29.000 You'll get the same answer that's given on race and affirmative action.
00:37:32.000 Claim benign intent with no clear end result.
00:37:35.000 That's the whole method.
00:37:38.000 Concede the harm, defend the institution anyway, and never draw the line that would require one to act on their principles.
00:37:47.000 Now, I may be a college dropout.
00:37:48.000 I am, not in May.
00:37:50.000 I don't need 40 years to find my line.
00:37:52.000 I don't need an Ivy League degree to provide sensible answers.
00:37:55.000 As childish and uninitiated as they may seem, let me present them tonight.
00:38:01.000 As simply and clearly as I can.
00:38:03.000 Speech stays free, funding follows the law, no one gets sorted by race, and no one is given a litmus test to be granted entry.
00:38:11.000 Students and faculty, one rule everyone.
00:38:15.000 Starting now.
00:38:17.000 Thank you.
00:38:28.000 Thank you, Stephen.
00:38:29.000 Professor Kennedy, your opening statement.
00:38:32.000 Thank you very much.
00:38:34.000 First, I'd like to thank the Harvard Republicans.
00:38:39.000 You've been gracious in your invitation.
00:38:42.000 I'd also like to thank Steve's production crew.
00:38:48.000 Everybody has treated me just fine, and I appreciate it.
00:38:58.000 Now, with respect to my opening remarks, I'm going to make two brief points.
00:39:08.000 Number one, the biggest danger to higher education in the United States today is our federal government, pursuant to the Reagan, excuse me, pursuant to the Trump administration.
00:39:28.000 The Trump administration has engaged in a campaign of extortion in which it has wrung various settlements out of the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, most notably.
00:39:49.000 It has attempted to extort my university, Harvard University, and in doing so, it has shown a complete Disregard for statutory law.
00:40:07.000 It has shown a complete disregard for constitutional law.
00:40:12.000 It has shown a complete disregard for sound, conservative, conservative principles like due process, like freedom of expression, like Concern for the prerogatives of private institutions like limited government.
00:40:41.000 These are conservative tenets that the present administration, the Trump administration, has shown no attentiveness for.
00:40:59.000 Second, I want to.
00:41:04.000 Express not only my defense of higher education in the United States, particularly my university, Harvard University, I don't want to simply defend it, though I do defend it.
00:41:21.000 I want to express my admiration for it.
00:41:25.000 If you think about institutions in American life, one always has to think, well, compared to what?
00:41:33.000 Do I think that there are problems that have, you know, in higher education in the United States?
00:41:38.000 Yes.
00:41:40.000 Do I think that colleges and universities have gone astray, gone awry?
00:41:46.000 Yes, sure.
00:41:50.000 But overall, day to day, the question is what has been the social contribution of universities like my own in terms of science, in terms of the
00:42:10.000 Creating young people who are able to think and think clearly, think well, of all sorts, of all different sorts.
00:42:21.000 I'm not just thinking of people, I'm not just thinking of liberals, I'm thinking of earnest, hardworking, insightful, smart, conservative students like I teach every day.
00:42:44.000 And these institutions of higher education have been subjected to all manner of vilification for a long time.
00:42:59.000 In light of that, it's no wonder that there has been a dip in public confidence in these institutions when they are constantly fed all sorts of misleading reports about what goes on.
00:43:15.000 So, those are my two things.
00:43:16.000 Number one, the threat that is being posed by the federal government.
00:43:23.000 Number two, my defense and, in fact, championing of higher education, particularly the higher education that is presented by Harvard University.
00:43:35.000 Thank you.
00:43:45.000 Stephen, you're free to respond.
00:43:47.000 All right.
00:43:47.000 Well, let me ask you a couple of things.
00:43:51.000 The Trump government, you said, is the greatest threat, and I know I talked about that in my opening statement.
00:43:56.000 They're shutting down Harvard?
00:43:59.000 They're attempting to.
00:44:01.000 How's that?
00:44:02.000 They're attempting to.
00:44:03.000 They.
00:44:04.000 How's that?
00:44:05.000 They withdrew funding billions, or at least attempted to.
00:44:12.000 If it hadn't been for the federal courts.
00:44:15.000 Sure.
00:44:16.000 Billions of dollars would, without due process, with no attentiveness to the law, have been withdrawn from Harvard University.
00:44:26.000 Okay, the only reason I ask is because I'm confused.
00:44:29.000 Because you also said private institution.
00:44:32.000 Harvard University is a private institution.
00:44:34.000 Okay, so how does the federal government withhold billions?
00:44:38.000 The federal government provides funding to private and public universities, especially research universities.
00:44:49.000 And by the way, at these research universities, we're talking the parts of the university that gets the most funding.
00:44:59.000 From the government.
00:45:00.000 From the federal government.
00:45:01.000 From the federal government.
00:45:02.000 Privately.
00:45:03.000 These are private institutions that compete.
00:45:09.000 They're not just given the money willy nilly.
00:45:12.000 The government says, we have a problem.
00:45:15.000 We would like to conquer disease.
00:45:19.000 We want to.
00:45:21.000 Provide funding to the scientists out there in America who we think will do the best job of helping, of conquering disease.
00:45:32.000 Harvard scientists, Harvard affiliates, compete for this money.
00:45:37.000 This money was allotted to them, and the federal government, the Trump administration, says because of putative deficiencies in other parts of the university, we are going to stop you.
00:45:55.000 Yeah, from getting this money, that's what I was so that's not so I very much appreciate that you answered it.
00:46:00.000 Yeah, so the general so it would put you guys like where Hillsdale is or Liberty, a university that doesn't receive public funding that actually is a private institution.
00:46:08.000 Also, that funding would be by the way allocated to other universities who would conduct the research and not have things like racially discriminatory admissions practices, not have litmus tests for faculty to guarantee that there's an ideological monolith.
00:46:24.000 So, I want to be clear.
00:46:26.000 A pause on taxpayer dollar funding is not censorship.
00:46:31.000 You pay, you decide, the taxpayer pays, they have a right to have a say, as this is the Supreme Court.
00:46:37.000 So that's the kind of reason that has led to 99%.
00:46:42.000 I'd like to ask you this.
00:46:43.000 Do you believe that that's organic?
00:46:44.000 99, the lowest you'll find is 95, 94, double, triple the disinvitations of conservatives, 36 years running as far as commencement speakers, conservatives less than 17% feeling free to speak out.
00:46:56.000 Do you think that maybe, for example, What the Trump administration has said you can't do anymore.
00:47:01.000 And I know that it ended before the Trump administration because you saw the writing on the wall.
00:47:04.000 But, like requiring all incoming faculty in an entire department or those who want to be promoted within the faculty to sign a DEI pledge.
00:47:13.000 Does the taxpayer, the ambassador of the taxpayer, have the right to say, well, if you want to do that, you pay your own way, reach into your $60 billion endowment?
00:47:20.000 Is that fair?
00:47:28.000 Steve, let me ask you a question.
00:47:30.000 Could you answer that question, though, first?
00:47:32.000 The question of your last point about, for instance, DEI statements.
00:47:38.000 I wrote an article in which I heavily criticized DEI statements.
00:47:41.000 No, you did.
00:47:42.000 I think the DEI statements were basically litmus tests, mandatory, you know, sort of allegiance to DEI.
00:47:50.000 I was against them.
00:47:51.000 But you support the practice?
00:47:53.000 No, I do not.
00:47:54.000 I said I'm against it.
00:47:56.000 And by the way, but in support of the practice of DEI and affirmative action, and racial criteria for admission.
00:48:02.000 It all depends on what you mean by DEI.
00:48:05.000 Okay.
00:48:06.000 How about how about.
00:48:06.000 So, for instance, let me just give you a for instance.
00:48:12.000 My.
00:48:18.000 Colleague Harvey Mansfield, conservative, long standing conservative, has said that there needs to be diversity, there needs to be affirmative action for conservative professors.
00:48:33.000 My view, okay, sounds okay to me.
00:48:37.000 I'm for that.
00:48:38.000 I don't now, you know.
00:48:40.000 I'd be against that.
00:48:41.000 Okay, fine.
00:48:42.000 I'd be against that for the same reason I'm against affirmative action in admissions.
00:48:45.000 We don't need affirmative action for conservative professors.
00:48:49.000 We need no litmus tests and blocking.
00:48:52.000 We need to stop the coercion and the intimidation.
00:48:54.000 We don't need it.
00:48:55.000 We could have it.
00:48:56.000 Hey, look, look, I mean, San Francisco, I mean, not one person in your department, not one donation to President Trump.
00:49:02.000 It's 99, 95, 93, depending on the year, 97 in the year 2022.
00:49:07.000 That doesn't take place anywhere else in nature.
00:49:10.000 It's a political litmus test.
00:49:11.000 So get rid of that at Harvard.
00:49:15.000 Listen, I'm a member of the faculty of Harvard Law School.
00:49:21.000 Harvard Law School.
00:49:23.000 Has a faculty that has a very wide ideological spectrum.
00:49:29.000 Incorrect.
00:49:32.000 The former dean of Harvard Law School, John Manning, the current provost of Harvard University, proud conservative, clerked for Judge Bork, clerked for Justice Scalia, long standing member of the Federal Society.
00:49:57.000 Pretty conservative.
00:49:59.000 Adrian Vermeule, pretty conservative.
00:50:02.000 I've got other colleagues, very conservative, esteemed members of my faculty.
00:50:10.000 Sure, but I know, but you work in law and you're a professor, so you would know this a lot more than a dummy like me.
00:50:14.000 You know numbers, and I have numbers.
00:50:16.000 Harvard faculty donors, 41 Democrats, zero Republicans.
00:50:19.000 Harvard registered faculty, 88 Democrats, one Republican.
00:50:22.000 Zero of 118 Harvard law professors gave to Trump's campaign in 2023, 2024.
00:50:28.000 Academia at large, 95 Democratic donors for every one conservative.
00:50:34.000 And that's not by accident because for five years at Harvard, and I know that you oppose this, for five years you were required to take a DEI pledge, to check a box if you wanted to be promoted, tenured, or hired.
00:50:49.000 You had to sign on to it.
00:50:50.000 I actually have the exact descriptions here.
00:50:53.000 Harvard's own hiring checklist required a statement describing efforts to encourage diversity, inclusion, belonging.
00:51:00.000 The hiring case statement must include a description of all efforts to identify candidates from diverse populations, including women and minorities.
00:51:08.000 For tenure, candidates had to show how the candidate has contributed to diversity, inclusion, belonging in all areas of their professional life.
00:51:15.000 Harvard's own 2023 search guide told chairs to consider reading the applicants of women and minorities first.
00:51:21.000 Should a public school teacher be allowed to teach that black people are inferior any more than white people are inherently guilty?
00:51:29.000 Can I ask you a question?
00:51:31.000 Does that policy exist at Harvard now?
00:51:34.000 No, it doesn't.
00:51:34.000 No.
00:51:34.000 It didn't get created in a vacuum, sir.
00:51:36.000 No.
00:51:37.000 Harvard had such a blind spot for so long.
00:51:40.000 This was the practice.
00:51:40.000 That's how you end up with an.
00:51:41.000 Theological model is critical.
00:51:42.000 That no one said, ooh, putting this in writing in public may be a bad idea.
00:51:47.000 It was criticized internally, it was deliberated, it was debated, and it was changed.
00:51:55.000 And so you're just left with an entire generation of professors and students, five years.
00:51:59.000 Let me ask you this does that speak well of the university or not?
00:52:02.000 It changed its policy.
00:52:04.000 Horribly.
00:52:05.000 It changed its policy.
00:52:08.000 In light of debate, it wasn't an echo chamber.
00:52:15.000 There was debate about it and it changed.
00:52:17.000 There was external pressure, and you saw an incoming administration who said that they would crack down on it, and that's why.
00:52:23.000 That's the federal government overreach here is hey, if you force people to sign pledges like this, and we think it's been going on for a while, we're going to look into your books and you're going to have to pay your own way, like reach into your 50 something billion dollar coffers.
00:52:36.000 Steve, I think that you need to be careful with your facts.
00:52:44.000 When was this changed?
00:52:47.000 This was changed before.
00:52:48.000 Changed 2024.
00:52:50.000 It was changed before the Trump administration.
00:52:52.000 I just said that.
00:52:53.000 Extortion.
00:52:54.000 Where do you stand with respect to the extortion that's being perpetrated by the Trump administration?
00:53:00.000 Here's the part where we redefine words, right?
00:53:02.000 It's not discrimination, it's preference.
00:53:05.000 It's not censorship, it's disinvitation.
00:53:08.000 It's not racism, it's diversity.
00:53:10.000 It's not a pause on taxpayer funding to a school that was such a monolith that they had a DEI pledge until they realized people were on to them.
00:53:19.000 Extortion.
00:53:20.000 Extortion typically isn't the person saying, actually, I'm not giving you more money.
00:53:27.000 Steve, let me answer another question.
00:53:29.000 Would you answer me that?
00:53:31.000 Is that a fair decision?
00:53:32.000 You mentioned books a while ago in your opening statement.
00:53:37.000 Where do you stand with respect to the action of the United States Navy?
00:53:41.000 Banning Mark Twain?
00:53:42.000 Taking books out of the United States Naval Academy.
00:53:46.000 Oh, wait, are you talking about the banning of Mark Twain and To Kill a Mockingbird, or genderqueer, where a boy fellates an older man?
00:53:52.000 I'm talking about.
00:53:54.000 You understand the difference.
00:53:55.000 I'm talking about my book that you mentioned, taken off the shelf of the Naval Academy because I take it that future officers can't handle that book.
00:54:09.000 Where do you stand with respect to that?
00:54:11.000 This should be an easy question.
00:54:12.000 No, I've read the book.
00:54:13.000 And actually, I actually love the book.
00:54:15.000 I love the title.
00:54:15.000 I love listening to old disc jockeys uncomfortably say, N word, N word, the storied career.
00:54:20.000 So I love it.
00:54:21.000 I would keep it there.
00:54:22.000 But let's be honest.
00:54:23.000 The books that are being banned.
00:54:24.000 Where are you on banning Twain?
00:54:26.000 You went that.
00:54:27.000 What?
00:54:27.000 Where are you on banning Twain to kill a monster?
00:54:29.000 I'm totally against that.
00:54:30.000 Would you support, though, the banning of, for example, in public libraries, genderqueer, where you see pornographic images?
00:54:35.000 That's what conservatives are talking about.
00:54:37.000 If we are speaking about higher education, I say let librarians make decisions about what should be available.
00:54:48.000 But we're not.
00:54:48.000 We're talking about grade school.
00:54:50.000 You're talking about, you know, elementary school, that's a whole different thing.
00:54:56.000 But it's not.
00:54:57.000 You went by very quickly.
00:54:59.000 Why is it that it was so difficult for you to say that you object to the United States government taking books out of the United States Naval Academy's library?
00:55:12.000 Well, I didn't.
00:55:13.000 It wasn't difficult.
00:55:13.000 If it's your book, fine.
00:55:15.000 I don't know all the books that were banned from the library.
00:55:17.000 Did it include things like genderqueer?
00:55:18.000 Over three years.
00:55:19.000 Did it include books that taught critical race theory?
00:55:22.000 Some of them.
00:55:22.000 Yeah, that should be banned.
00:55:24.000 Oh, let's stick with that.
00:55:26.000 No, What I would like is for you to answer my question first.
00:55:29.000 That should be banned?
00:55:31.000 Yeah.
00:55:31.000 At the United States Naval Academy, that should be banned?
00:55:34.000 Sure.
00:55:35.000 Yeah.
00:55:37.000 For the same reason, women shouldn't be in combat.
00:55:39.000 So, I take it that, I take it.
00:55:42.000 For the same reason, women shouldn't be in combat.
00:55:43.000 Karl Marx should be banned at the United States Naval Academy, too?
00:55:46.000 No, I don't think that Karl Marx should be banned if people know that the guy was an idiot.
00:55:50.000 I don't think that it should be banned if people are learning, for example, we should learn about Stalin, we should learn about Mao.
00:55:54.000 Critical race theory should be banned?
00:55:55.000 The critical race theory is part of a curriculum when you're talking about an academy, it is entirely inappropriate.
00:56:00.000 Let me read you the exact definition so we know exactly what it is we're talking about here.
00:56:04.000 The White House.
00:56:04.000 This is straight from them, it's not abstract.
00:56:07.000 You are not allowed to teach at these academic institutions, which would include the Naval Academy.
00:56:13.000 Anything, this is a quote, as treating people as preferred or disfavored groups based on sex, race, or origin instead of individuals, including claims that one race is inherently superior, that individuals are inherently racist or oppressive by their group, that moral character is determined by race or sex, promoting guilt over historical actions by group members, discriminating for diversity or equity, or saying virtues like merit and colorblindness are racist or that America is fundamentally racist.
00:56:41.000 Which part of continuing to teach that is worth losing the public funding?
00:56:45.000 Because it seems pretty clearly outlined.
00:56:47.000 And I wouldn't want to fund KKK University.
00:56:56.000 A decent institution of higher education would allow its library to include all sorts of books that would include all sorts of awful ideas from, you know, I don't, pick it, Mein Kampf.
00:57:20.000 Should Mein Kampf be taken out of a library of higher education?
00:57:27.000 No, of course not.
00:57:27.000 It's awful, but I would say no.
00:57:30.000 Oh, so Mein Kampf is okay to have in, but the books by people called critical race theorists, those are out?
00:57:39.000 So I noticed that you go straight to the Naval Academy Library.
00:57:42.000 Do you believe that critical race theory should be taught in the curriculum at Harvard?
00:57:45.000 Because that's what you're not allowed to do to teach that people are guilty by their group association.
00:57:50.000 We have people that.
00:57:51.000 Can you answer that question?
00:57:53.000 Are those books banned from the library in Harvard?
00:57:55.000 Or are they banned from teaching these?
00:57:59.000 They are absolutely not banned from the library, and they are absolutely not banned from being taught.
00:58:07.000 No.
00:58:08.000 It all depends.
00:58:10.000 First of all, critical race theory, this boogeyman, it all depends on what you mean by it.
00:58:15.000 I just described it.
00:58:17.000 It all depends on what you mean by it.
00:58:20.000 I have colleagues who teach courses.
00:58:25.000 On critical race theory.
00:58:27.000 Critical race theory was actually born at Harvard Law School.
00:58:34.000 That's right.
00:58:34.000 That's right.
00:58:35.000 Derek Bell, I know it quite well.
00:58:36.000 That's right.
00:58:37.000 As have many of the important influences in American jurisprudence been born at Harvard Law School.
00:58:44.000 Yeah.
00:58:45.000 No, Derek Bell, and obviously at one point Barack Obama referred to it as black liberation theology.
00:58:49.000 It morphed into critical race theory.
00:58:51.000 I think it was a load of shit then, and it is now too.
00:58:54.000 Might be.
00:58:54.000 And that's fine.
00:58:55.000 Some of it.
00:58:56.000 But the issue is with Harvard.
00:58:58.000 And with academia in tandem, affirmative action, accepting students with lower academic performances based on affirmative action, these ideas of DEI, you can lump it all in together if we need to here.
00:59:10.000 I was just clear in my description giving a spot to a black kid because, sorry, Andrew Pham, you have too many A's in your last name.
00:59:17.000 And again, this is all done in the name of a collective nebulous good, but when there's an individual named, you see the negative results.
00:59:25.000 And the litmus test that Harvard had, getting back to the idea of an ideological monolith, That is ensuring that no conservatives, that no people with my perspective or many of the people here work or are promoted at Harvard.
00:59:38.000 Do you acknowledge that that's a problem or do you still defend that institution?
00:59:42.000 Again, I said it from the beginning that I'm perfectly willing to accept, I do accept, that there are problems at my institution.
00:59:52.000 There are deficiencies in my institution.
00:59:54.000 I think my institution should have a wider ideological spectrum on the right as well as on the left, by the way.
01:00:03.000 Yeah, but we're only talking about when there's a problem.
01:00:04.000 Why isn't there?
01:00:05.000 Why do you think there's less than 1%, at most 5%, conservatives?
01:00:09.000 On campus with faculty.
01:00:10.000 People have been studying this.
01:00:11.000 I think it's a complicated thing.
01:00:14.000 Is it?
01:00:15.000 Yes, there are a lot.
01:00:17.000 Yes, people have been studying this, including conservatives who've been studying this.
01:00:21.000 Okay, so what's the answer?
01:00:22.000 It's still 95 to 1.
01:00:23.000 You know, it's not altogether clear what the answer is.
01:00:28.000 Here are some things that people say.
01:00:31.000 Okay.
01:00:31.000 Here are some things that people say.
01:00:33.000 Some people say that for various reasons, conservative.
01:00:42.000 Who might, given their background, be good candidates for academic positions, decide to go into other industries, other areas where they can, you know.
01:00:54.000 Not be discriminated against?
01:00:56.000 To some degree.
01:00:58.000 Absolutely, to some degree.
01:00:59.000 I appreciate your candidacy.
01:01:00.000 I'm not saying, I'm not saying, again, I repeat, I'm fully willing to accept that there are aspects of life in higher education.
01:01:13.000 That are really problematic.
01:01:15.000 I'm willing to accept that there are places that, yes, have discriminated against conservatives.
01:01:22.000 So, what are you willing to change?
01:01:24.000 That should be changed.
01:01:26.000 That should be changed.
01:01:27.000 But let me tell you, let me tell you why, let me tell you why I said at the beginning that I don't simply defend but actually admire higher education and particularly Harvard University.
01:01:45.000 I was born in 1954.
01:01:47.000 This is my 72nd year.
01:01:50.000 In 1954, in many.
01:01:55.000 There were no women at Harvard University.
01:01:59.000 There were no women at Harvard Law School.
01:02:02.000 Probably a lot quieter.
01:02:03.000 Uh huh.
01:02:04.000 Uh huh.
01:02:06.000 Well, I don't, you know, you can laugh about that.
01:02:09.000 I don't think it's a laughing matter.
01:02:10.000 I do.
01:02:11.000 Okay, fine.
01:02:12.000 It's just a joke.
01:02:12.000 I think it was terrible.
01:02:17.000 I think it was terrible.
01:02:19.000 That half the population was rendered ineligible to get an education at Harvard Law School.
01:02:28.000 That, fortunately, thank God, has been changed in a quite dramatic way.
01:02:36.000 That is a good thing.
01:02:39.000 In 1954, it was rare as could be to see a black person as a student at Harvard University and especially Harvard Law School.
01:02:51.000 That is not the case today.
01:02:53.000 That is a good thing.
01:02:55.000 It was.
01:02:55.000 Depends.
01:02:56.000 There were no black professors at Harvard Law School in 1954.
01:03:02.000 Sure.
01:03:02.000 That is not the case today.
01:03:04.000 That is a good thing.
01:03:06.000 And that speaks well of Harvard University.
01:03:08.000 See, I understand.
01:03:09.000 Did you disagree with that?
01:03:10.000 No, well, I don't disagree with that.
01:03:11.000 The problem is, I asked you a question, and you talked about 1954.
01:03:15.000 I'm talking about 2024.
01:03:17.000 I'm talking about Harvard today, where less than 17% of conservatives, and by the way, a small minority of your own professors feel.
01:03:25.000 Safe to speak out publicly on controversial issues.
01:03:28.000 99 to 1, 95 to 1, 93 to 1, 36 years in higher education, as far as by the way, I mentioned commencements because you guys choose it.
01:03:35.000 It doesn't require hundreds of thousands of dollars to make happen from a private group and institution.
01:03:39.000 We're talking about this today, where this litmus test that went on, we can just say it's a small, it happened for five years.
01:03:47.000 Do we actually believe that DEI, in forcing any internal staff and faculty and any incoming staff and faculty to sign that pledge, we believe that's the start of it?
01:03:58.000 Or do we believe that's a symptom of a place that has been such a political monolith for so long and so discriminatory that they were comfortable in executing it?
01:04:06.000 And Harvard argued that it wasn't a litmus test.
01:04:09.000 That's what Harvard argued.
01:04:10.000 Let me point to you exactly how you can know that that's a lie.
01:04:14.000 And you don't need an Ivy League education.
01:04:16.000 All right, let me ask people here just a show of hands, really quickly, a little exercise.
01:04:19.000 How many people identify as somewhat conservative, right wing, leaning?
01:04:23.000 Okay, broad strokes.
01:04:24.000 Okay.
01:04:24.000 How many people here identify as somewhat left leaning, moderate, left liberal?
01:04:28.000 Okay, very few.
01:04:30.000 Now, what if I said, hey, oh, by the way, I appreciate you coming out.
01:04:33.000 If you want to stay here, we're going to kick you out unless you sign this pledge.
01:04:39.000 To show what you're going to do for DEI and affirmative action.
01:04:43.000 And by the way, we're going to track you.
01:04:45.000 So you can't just sign it if you want to stay here, but next week, if you don't follow it to the letter, you're going to be fired.
01:04:50.000 Otherwise, you have to go.
01:04:51.000 How many people here would sign that?
01:04:54.000 But it's not a litmus test, it's organic.
01:04:57.000 That's an entire generation of students.
01:05:00.000 It's not that it's the problem, it's the boldness.
01:05:03.000 And Harvard doubled down, and Harvard has defended it, and that's why you'll face this specter of losing public funding for a private institution.
01:05:12.000 I think that's entirely reasonable.
01:05:14.000 It's not the same as shouting down or disinviting.
01:05:17.000 Is that fair?
01:05:19.000 Is that fair?
01:05:20.000 I'm sorry?
01:05:20.000 Is that a fair assessment that it's a litmus test that was a symptom?
01:05:24.000 It was a bad thing that has been changed.
01:05:28.000 Your overall portrayal of Harvard University is deeply misleading.
01:05:36.000 How so?
01:05:37.000 It's misleading, first of all, in your suggestion that students at Harvard University feel.
01:05:47.000 That's not mine, that's Harvard.
01:05:49.000 That's Harvard's own study of 1,600 of its own seniors.
01:05:53.000 You know, a couple things about Harvard's own studies, especially with this.
01:06:00.000 You've used this word safe a couple of times.
01:06:03.000 It's an interesting.
01:06:04.000 Felt free to speak is a study.
01:06:06.000 It's very interesting to see what's happened in the past decade, approximately.
01:06:12.000 Because for your conservative snowflakeism?
01:06:14.000 Yes, thank you very much.
01:06:16.000 But I know.
01:06:16.000 Thank you.
01:06:17.000 A decade ago, it was conservatives who rightly were right when they talked about, gosh, you know, it's this snowflakeism.
01:06:29.000 You're feeling unsafe as if you're going to be carted off to Siberia or something because people disagree with you.
01:06:38.000 No, just lose your spot job or be shot.
01:06:40.000 And now, conservatives, many, all too many, deep into this safetyism.
01:06:50.000 And people know what they're supposed to say.
01:06:52.000 So, for instance, you know, students, if they want to really make a point and criticize the university.
01:07:01.000 Quiet down, quiet down.
01:07:03.000 Well, hold on a second, though.
01:07:04.000 You said you were going to tell me about the Harvard studies and you went to conservative snowflakeism, which I'm very familiar with and, of course, is a bogus term.
01:07:10.000 What about your own professors?
01:07:12.000 What if you look at faculty?
01:07:13.000 They knew what to say.
01:07:14.000 88% of conservatives at academia at large say that shouting down the heckler's veto of speakers is wrong, is always wrong, compared to only about 30 something.
01:07:25.000 Of leftist faculty.
01:07:26.000 What if we look at the numbers of people who support political violence?
01:07:28.000 Is it they all knew what to say on these surveys?
01:07:30.000 That's snowflakeism.
01:07:32.000 Let's address the issue.
01:07:33.000 With respect to the shouting down, I think that's a very bad thing.
01:07:37.000 But your colleagues don't.
01:07:38.000 And by the way, and if your facts are true, and let's stipulate that they are.
01:07:44.000 Thank you.
01:07:46.000 If they are, that's very bad.
01:07:49.000 And there needs to be a critique of an ethos of shouting down.
01:07:56.000 I have no problem with saying that.
01:07:57.000 There was a critique.
01:07:58.000 Nothing was done.
01:07:59.000 Fine.
01:08:00.000 Nothing was done until the Trump administration said you can't do that because you keep silencing voices of dissent or you lose your public funding.
01:08:08.000 Who is doing the silencing?
01:08:10.000 Harvard, Cornell, Yale, Princeton, UT, UPenn.
01:08:13.000 Who is going around to the national parks of the United States erasing history?
01:08:24.000 Well, no, no one's saying that.
01:08:27.000 Who is telling.
01:08:28.000 No one's saying the park ranger from Yogi Bear is telling people at Yellowstone, ah, commies!
01:08:32.000 What we're saying is on campus, when it's campus funding and you're choosing speakers, it's a three, four, ten to one ratio.
01:08:39.000 Who is attempting.
01:08:41.000 To tell private institutions what they can teach and what they cannot teach.
01:08:47.000 No one.
01:08:48.000 You would be against that, wouldn't you?
01:08:50.000 I absolutely would if it was a private institution.
01:08:52.000 Well, that's why when you wrote an article about this, you had to pick a private Christian college that disinvited a pro abortion speaker.
01:09:01.000 That's not the same as Harvard.
01:09:03.000 You can't argue in the same breath that these are private institutions.
01:09:06.000 They can censor or allow whoever they want.
01:09:08.000 By the way, more money, please, more money, please.
01:09:11.000 Pick a lane.
01:09:11.000 The critique has already been issued.
01:09:13.000 Students and faculty live under it.
01:09:15.000 You guys didn't change it.
01:09:16.000 So the government said, hey, you have to be fair handed.
01:09:19.000 You can't follow the law.
01:09:21.000 You can't break the law.
01:09:22.000 Otherwise, if you refuse to follow it, no more public funding.
01:09:25.000 You're a private institution.
01:09:26.000 In your earlier remarks, in your opening remarks, you talked about my position on disinvitations.
01:09:36.000 Let's go back to that because it seemed to me that that was one of your critiques of me and my position.
01:09:41.000 Of the left in general, yes.
01:09:43.000 I stand by that.
01:09:45.000 Can you explain for the uninitiated people?
01:09:46.000 Oh, yes.
01:09:47.000 So what we're talking about is, let's suppose.
01:09:50.000 Suppose that a speaker has been invited to a campus, and then there are people in the university who object to that speaker being invited to the campus, and they speak up and they say to the people who invited them, We want you to disinvite that person.
01:10:14.000 And that has occurred, that has occurred at various institutions, and my position.
01:10:22.000 Is that the people who say, We want you to disinvite that person, they are expressing themselves just the same way as the people who made the invitation.
01:10:36.000 And one of the examples I give has to do with a Christian conservative institution in the South that at the inauguration of its new president.
01:10:55.000 Invited a scholar who had done various things for Planned Parenthood.
01:11:04.000 A student said, a group of students said, We want you to disinvite that speaker because that speaker's views run counter to our religious or ethical beliefs.
01:11:23.000 And the question was, were these students doing something wrong?
01:11:27.000 In my view, the answer was no.
01:11:29.000 Right.
01:11:29.000 I don't agree with them, but it seemed to me that they were doing nothing wrong.
01:11:34.000 They were expressing themselves just like the people who issued the first invitation were expressing themselves.
01:11:40.000 So, what does a private Christian.
01:11:41.000 Do you disagree with that?
01:11:42.000 No, what is a private Christian?
01:11:43.000 Yeah, I do disagree.
01:11:43.000 I think it's a very silly analogy.
01:11:45.000 I do disagree.
01:11:45.000 For example, they're not getting public funding, and certainly not to the degree that.
01:11:49.000 They are getting public funding.
01:11:52.000 Hold on a second.
01:11:53.000 Hold on a second.
01:11:53.000 Let me address your point.
01:11:54.000 Also, is this a school where students themselves can be kicked out because there's a code of conduct?
01:11:59.000 That's tied to theology, a private institution, for example, supporting abortion.
01:12:03.000 I know at Liberty University, an actual private institution, you can get kicked off for drinking.
01:12:07.000 That's not the same as Harvard rolling out the red carpet for a two time communist vice presidential candidate while banning people like, let's be honest, disinviting Ben Shapiro, myself.
01:12:20.000 Jordan Peterson lost his fellowship at Cambridge.
01:12:23.000 You say disinvitation is a form of expression when these people can't hear the perspectives of folks like me, of folks like half the country who elect presidents.
01:12:32.000 Tell me again about snowflakeism.
01:12:35.000 You said a couple of times, you mentioned, for instance, a while ago, an episode in which somebody from abroad, and you said, you know, Harvard disinvited them.
01:12:47.000 You know, Harvard University is a.
01:12:50.000 That's right, Devin Buckley, for saying that there are men and women.
01:12:53.000 Harvard University is a big institution.
01:12:55.000 Bad things happen.
01:12:56.000 A couple, at least 20,000 students, thousands of faculty.
01:13:04.000 Harvard didn't disinvite.
01:13:06.000 There was some person at Harvard who might have disinvited.
01:13:11.000 You say, Harvard disinvited.
01:13:12.000 Does anything that happens at Harvard attributable to Harvard University?
01:13:19.000 The answer is no.
01:13:20.000 Yes.
01:13:20.000 No.
01:13:21.000 Yes.
01:13:22.000 Yes.
01:13:23.000 And certainly, again, in case we've forgotten these numbers, as far as Harvard registered faculty, 88 Democrats, 1 Republican, donors, 41 Democrats, 0 Republicans, 0 of 118 Harvard law professors.
01:13:32.000 Do this.
01:13:34.000 Obviously, I've done some homework.
01:13:36.000 Steel man my argument.
01:13:38.000 Steel man to the perspective of people who you say are snowflakes, both faculty and students, who aren't free to speak out.
01:13:46.000 They think something should be done about it.
01:13:47.000 You said the critique, great.
01:13:48.000 But it shouldn't take 40 years for a critique and nothing to be done.
01:13:51.000 It's still a political monolith.
01:13:52.000 Perhaps those people might not be aware until there's external pressure.
01:13:56.000 That seems to be the only lever that's pulled that Harvard answers to.
01:13:59.000 Internally, yes, Harvard is responsible.
01:14:02.000 When they disinvite someone for saying man and woman while rolling out the red carpet for communists, Harvard has not disinvited anyone.
01:14:11.000 For saying man or woman.
01:14:14.000 You actually have two.
01:14:15.000 You have Devin Buckley, who was a speaker, and you have someone who I believe was in your physiology department.
01:14:19.000 The name will escape me, the references will be available and made publicly.
01:14:21.000 I'm thinking of Carol Hooven.
01:14:23.000 Carol Hooven.
01:14:23.000 Wonderful person.
01:14:24.000 Right.
01:14:24.000 Harvard University.
01:14:25.000 You'll say she resigned.
01:14:26.000 She said she was forced out.
01:14:27.000 She was not disinvited by Harvard University.
01:14:29.000 No, I didn't say so.
01:14:30.000 I said Devin Buckley was.
01:14:31.000 She was not ousted by Harvard University.
01:14:35.000 Really?
01:14:35.000 On the Zoom.
01:14:36.000 So she's a liar.
01:14:37.000 No, she's not a liar.
01:14:39.000 We're just not believing the women?
01:14:41.000 She may be.
01:14:43.000 She may be mistaken.
01:14:45.000 So I haven't given you, you take one answer.
01:14:47.000 By the way, the whole answer.
01:14:47.000 But the totality, you acknowledge there's a monolith.
01:14:49.000 On the zero.
01:14:50.000 What do you do about it?
01:14:51.000 Let's talk about the zero, because that's a very dramatic number.
01:14:54.000 You said that there were zero people listed at Harvard.
01:14:59.000 Harvard faculty donors, Harvard registered faculty, to be fair.
01:15:02.000 Yeah, exactly.
01:15:03.000 For the truck.
01:15:04.000 You know what?
01:15:05.000 That does not surprise me.
01:15:07.000 That does not surprise me, and it does not bother me at all.
01:15:11.000 It shouldn't.
01:15:11.000 It should disgust me.
01:15:12.000 Does not bother me at all because I would think people at Harvard Law School may have glimpsed something when they did not contribute to a person who, when he got in office, attempted to attack the legal institution and firms, telling firms, you can't even go into buildings, federal buildings.
01:15:41.000 What an attack!
01:15:43.000 That's what the Trump.
01:15:46.000 Well, your point here would have merit if I was only talking about that one election cycle.
01:15:50.000 It's all of them.
01:15:51.000 You're not going to find lower than 92 in the last several decades.
01:15:56.000 I'll make the references available.
01:15:57.000 Nowhere else does that occur in nature.
01:16:00.000 So I think you're agreeing with me, it's not organic.
01:16:02.000 So the question is, what is to be done about it?
01:16:05.000 Look, you take 10, take an 80 20 split.
01:16:08.000 It's not possible at Harvard.
01:16:10.000 And you say, well, there's one anecdotal example.
01:16:12.000 The totality is irrefutable.
01:16:14.000 You've acknowledged it.
01:16:15.000 So, what will Harvard do about it?
01:16:17.000 Because if you believe that a classroom benefits from more melanin, a black student, because of their lived experience, certainly you'd also say the same about faculty as it relates to half the country.
01:16:28.000 I did say that.
01:16:31.000 I did say.
01:16:32.000 Great, so how do we.
01:16:33.000 A while ago, I clearly said I'm okay with making special efforts to recruit, to bring in conservative academics.
01:16:48.000 In settings where there is an obvious paucity of conservative academics and in which their presence would be useful to the pedagogical mission of Harvard University. I'd be totally in favor of that.
01:16:59.000 Great.
01:17:00.000 So you wouldn't defend Harvard?
01:17:02.000 I'm sorry?
01:17:02.000 You wouldn't defend Harvard in their proactive approach?
01:17:05.000 I would, sir.
01:17:06.000 In eliminating and litmus test in blocking people from achieving said positions.
01:17:10.000 And I've already, you know, I criticized the pledge.
01:17:14.000 I know you criticized the pledge.
01:17:16.000 And I have said that I would be in favor.
01:17:21.000 Of special efforts, not simply non discrimination.
01:17:26.000 Clearly, I'd be against discrimination against conservative academics.
01:17:31.000 Which Harvard's done.
01:17:32.000 I would be in favor of making special efforts in light of the view that Harvard is discriminatory, even if it wasn't discriminatory.
01:17:44.000 Is it?
01:17:47.000 Even if it was not discriminatory and people hate it.
01:17:50.000 Is it and has it been?
01:17:51.000 Even if it was not discriminatory.
01:17:54.000 And people were laboring under a misimpression, if that dissuaded conservative academics from trying to get into positions, I would be in favor of Harvard making special efforts to recruit them.
01:18:09.000 Is it and did they?
01:18:12.000 First of all, let's take it.
01:18:15.000 Did they?
01:18:16.000 Is it discriminatory against people of one ideological perspective?
01:18:20.000 And did Harvard discriminate against them for a very long time?
01:18:24.000 I believe that there are pro.
01:18:29.000 I believe that it is probably the case that there have been conservative academics who have been discriminated against.
01:18:38.000 I believe that.
01:18:40.000 I believe that.
01:18:45.000 Not individuals.
01:18:46.000 I'm sorry.
01:18:46.000 Not individuals, but systemically, rampantly.
01:18:49.000 So that you end up with.
01:18:50.000 No, I don't believe that.
01:18:51.000 No.
01:18:52.000 No.
01:18:53.000 Absolutely not.
01:18:54.000 410881, 95 to 1.
01:18:57.000 No, no.
01:18:58.000 21 to 1 as far as Democratic donors for.
01:19:00.000 So, no.
01:19:00.000 That's not rampant.
01:19:01.000 No.
01:19:02.000 No, it's not.
01:19:04.000 Well, maybe if San Francisco, hold on a second, if San Francisco, which has far more political balance than Harvard, if San Francisco can be used as a punchline, and it is, Harvard can be villainized.
01:19:16.000 By the way, on this issue of baseline, you've mentioned this a number of times baseline.
01:19:22.000 Baseline.
01:19:23.000 I think we have to be really careful about this is a university.
01:19:30.000 We're not talking about the House of Representatives.
01:19:34.000 The Senate.
01:19:35.000 We're not talking about.
01:19:35.000 House of Representatives, we have Republicans.
01:19:37.000 We're not talking about an electoral institution.
01:19:41.000 No, they'd have Republicans.
01:19:42.000 Okay.
01:19:45.000 We are talking about an educational institution in which it's not a matter of does this look like America.
01:19:56.000 I'm not for that.
01:19:57.000 I'm not for judging Harvard University on the issue of does it look like America.
01:20:04.000 Okay.
01:20:04.000 So you're against affirmative action.
01:20:06.000 That won't work.
01:20:07.000 You're against affirmative action then?
01:20:09.000 It should be a meritocracy?
01:20:10.000 I have been, I, and you know what?
01:20:12.000 Harvard is much more a meritocracy now than when, oh, than when it was monopolized by white men?
01:20:22.000 I take it that you were against that, right?
01:20:25.000 Are you trying to talk about Jim Crow?
01:20:26.000 Are you going back to 1954?
01:20:28.000 Yes.
01:20:28.000 Where women weren't allowed to teach?
01:20:30.000 Are you talking about that?
01:20:30.000 Are we talking about the last several decades?
01:20:32.000 Were you against, were you against the regime?
01:20:37.000 In higher education in many parts of the United States, which until recently gave a basic monopoly to white men.
01:20:45.000 Yeah, it wasn't until recently.
01:20:46.000 So I will answer your question.
01:20:48.000 Unlike yourself, I will answer your questions.
01:20:50.000 It wasn't until recently, and of course, I was against blocking women, blocking blacks, for the same reason I'm against blocking Asians not so fast.
01:20:59.000 Welcome, black kid who's not as qualified, because it's just another form of discrimination, even if you call it preference.
01:21:08.000 Is that a fair answer?
01:21:12.000 Is that a fair answer?
01:21:13.000 I think that that is a fair answer.
01:21:17.000 And I also think that if it is, if you really mean that and work at that, and if you are truly against an anti discrimination regime.
01:21:32.000 Of course.
01:21:33.000 All of us are.
01:21:34.000 You know, fine.
01:21:36.000 And I grant you that.
01:21:38.000 I think that you're saying that in good faith.
01:21:41.000 Unfortunately, Oh boy.
01:21:43.000 Very unfortunately, there are millions of people who don't believe what you just said.
01:21:52.000 Where?
01:21:53.000 In the United States of America.
01:21:56.000 Oh, okay.
01:21:56.000 So you're saying Harvard has to discriminate against a political ideology and Asians who score too high and straight white males because somewhere off in the red states that aren't represented here, there's someone who married their cousin and has flippers' hands and thinks that blacks shouldn't be allowed?
01:22:10.000 That's absurd.
01:22:11.000 Is this the kind of logic we can expect from higher education?
01:22:15.000 I have stuck to facts.
01:22:17.000 I have answered your questions.
01:22:18.000 Of course, I am against blocking or discriminating or sorting people by race.
01:22:24.000 The only person here who supports it is yourself.
01:22:26.000 Do you think that there is prejudice against people of color that exists in the United States?
01:22:34.000 Of course.
01:22:35.000 Individually, of course.
01:22:37.000 Do you think that it's a big problem in the United States?
01:22:41.000 Not as big of a problem as a 99 to 1 ideological monolith at Harvard.
01:22:44.000 Okay, but do you think it's a big problem?
01:22:48.000 No.
01:22:48.000 Not in comparison to the conservative.
01:22:51.000 Students, faculty, hey, we don't care about your politics.
01:22:54.000 Sign this DEI pledge.
01:22:55.000 I have no idea how this happened.
01:22:58.000 You support sorting, both on immutable characteristics and chosen ones, chosen worldviews.
01:23:04.000 I don't support affirmative action for conservative professors or faculty any more than I do for the students.
01:23:11.000 I'm just saying you stop artificially trying to ensure equity while robbing people of equal opportunity.
01:23:18.000 That's all.
01:23:23.000 There are many people that I know and deeply respect. Who are against affirmative action.
01:23:35.000 I've been a defender of affirmative action.
01:23:37.000 By the way, I still am a defender of affirmative action.
01:23:39.000 But there are people who criticize affirmative action, are against affirmative action, and I think that there are, you know, they have reasonable grounds for what they say.
01:23:52.000 I also think, however, that there are many, many people who actually prefer the old regime.
01:24:04.000 And when I say the old regime, I mean the monopolization of coveted places in American life.
01:24:12.000 You mean sorting people by race, and in that case it was just sorting out blacks.
01:24:15.000 Now you want to sort them in and sort out Asians and whites.
01:24:17.000 Here's, and so my point is, my point is, and here's where I guess, you know, we just, you know, disagree.
01:24:28.000 I think that sexism remains a big problem in America.
01:24:33.000 I think that anti gay prejudice remains a big problem.
01:24:38.000 Problem in America.
01:24:39.000 Uh huh.
01:24:40.000 Okay, fine.
01:24:41.000 I think that anti black prejudice remains a big problem in America.
01:24:47.000 And in the universities, part of the resentment, part of the reason why universities have been on the receiving end of the vilification is because people are resentful of the progress that has been made and that has been shown.
01:25:08.000 You know what?
01:25:08.000 Institutions like ours.
01:25:10.000 Again, this is the collective nebulous good that I talked about.
01:25:13.000 Everything I said, you're doing to a T from my opening statements.
01:25:17.000 Okay, collective nebulous.
01:25:18.000 It's good.
01:25:19.000 There's progress.
01:25:20.000 Go ahead and tell that to Austin Choi, who's been studying for the SATs as a 4.0 GPA in the back of his dad's bodega.
01:25:27.000 Sorry, your sacrifice for someone who scored not a little bit, vastly lower academically, but has more melanin.
01:25:33.000 He gets your spot.
01:25:35.000 I hope it's worth it for progress.
01:25:36.000 When an individual is pointed to, We always see the harm.
01:25:41.000 Let me ask you this.
01:25:43.000 Since we're just, we disagree on freedom of speech, we disagree on the idea that we shouldn't have a political party.
01:25:48.000 I don't think we, what do you mean we disagree on freedom of speech?
01:25:50.000 Well, I think something needs to be done.
01:25:51.000 And I think Harvard should try the way that I'm suggesting going forward no litmus tests.
01:25:55.000 It should be a meritocracy.
01:25:56.000 There should be no sorting based on race.
01:25:58.000 There should be no sorting based, as far as professors, based on class.
01:26:01.000 And they should make a conscious effort when they're using taxpayer dollars to do so in balance.
01:26:06.000 They haven't done that yet.
01:26:07.000 But going to DEI or going to affirmative action, This is another one, right?
01:26:11.000 It would be immensely unpopular for professors here at Harvard to not support it.
01:26:17.000 Would you agree with that statement?
01:26:17.000 That most people would agree with you at Harvard?
01:26:19.000 There are many people at Harvard who have been extremely critical of DEI.
01:26:24.000 Well, affirmative action.
01:26:26.000 And affirmative action.
01:26:28.000 Okay.
01:26:29.000 It's not a big deal.
01:26:32.000 At Harvard University, you can have a perfectly contentious debate.
01:26:40.000 About affirmative action in any part of Harvard.
01:26:44.000 You can because you're tenured.
01:26:46.000 You can because you're tenured.
01:26:47.000 Let me ask you this.
01:26:48.000 You say you were against this pledge.
01:26:50.000 Yes.
01:26:51.000 That pledge would have negated you from tenure.
01:26:53.000 Would you have signed it?
01:27:00.000 This is relevant to the point.
01:27:04.000 I would have, as a junior professor, I would have felt no compunction at all about criticizing the university's position.
01:27:14.000 Would you have signed it?
01:27:15.000 Would you have checked the box?
01:27:17.000 And by the way, when I was an untenured professor, I was very critical of various aspects of.
01:27:27.000 Policies at Harvard and made no, it did not bother me at all.
01:27:32.000 Would you have provided the required statement describing your efforts to encourage diversity, inclusion, belonging, description of all efforts to identify candidates from diverse populations, including women or for tenure candidates, how the candidate specifically has contributed to diversity, inclusion?
01:27:51.000 I know because you said that this was gross, that this was awful, this pledge, and it shouldn't have been made so.
01:27:56.000 And I appreciate that you said that.
01:27:58.000 So I'm asking you, would you?
01:28:00.000 Have signed it.
01:28:07.000 You're now facing the dilemma that every other professor did.
01:28:11.000 And I don't think you would have.
01:28:12.000 No, no, no, hold on.
01:28:13.000 I don't think you would have.
01:28:13.000 Because I do believe, this is not just me, like I said, there's no ash hunting.
01:28:16.000 I do believe you're a principled person.
01:28:18.000 I do believe you critiqued it fairly.
01:28:19.000 And I don't believe that you would have signed it.
01:28:22.000 What does that say about all the people who did?
01:28:24.000 That's five years of Harvard professors and faculty.
01:28:27.000 Let's stipulate hold it.
01:28:30.000 I think that you have a very, I think you've just made a very nice point.
01:28:34.000 The point you've made is, didn't these DEI statements actually chill people?
01:28:43.000 Wasn't there something coercive about them?
01:28:47.000 Yes, yes, and that's why they were bad, and people spoke up about them, and that's why they don't exist at Harvard.
01:28:56.000 No, they don't exist anymore because you guys have to make sure that the public gravy train keeps rolling.
01:29:01.000 Let's be clear about it.
01:29:01.000 I know it ended before Donald Trump became president.
01:29:04.000 But you and I both know, everyone knows that the practice behind the scenes, the soft practice of making sure that people ideologically in line with DEI are only amongst the ranks, was there long before the public pledge.
01:29:18.000 You would have to grant that.
01:29:20.000 And my point is that atmosphere does not create.
01:29:23.000 You have a different worldview because you've been tenured since, I believe, '89?
01:29:27.000 Long time.
01:29:28.000 Long time.
01:29:29.000 And by the way, rightfully so, you have the cojones to step up when other professors here who are esteemed won't.
01:29:35.000 Won't!
01:29:36.000 They won't do it!
01:29:38.000 But on, so I ask you that because that sets the stage for the discussion regarding affirmative action.
01:29:46.000 And I don't think that you are actually discussing with professors.
01:29:49.000 I don't think that it's split.
01:29:50.000 I don't think it's representative of the country, the Supreme Court here at Harvard, because I've read the writings that are published here.
01:29:56.000 You are, I think that your impression of what's possible, what's available, what actually happens at Harvard University is way off.
01:30:10.000 Go to classrooms.
01:30:12.000 Why?
01:30:12.000 Because the way you're presenting it is empirical data, your own statements, your own policy.
01:30:18.000 You have a whole lot of people, according to you, students.
01:30:22.000 According to Harvard.
01:30:22.000 According to students, you have this view that.
01:30:25.000 According to Harvard.
01:30:26.000 You have this view that students feel all uptight, they can't express themselves, and professors.
01:30:34.000 There is a monoculture.
01:30:37.000 Yes.
01:30:38.000 That's not the way it is.
01:30:39.000 That's all I'm saying.
01:30:40.000 It is.
01:30:41.000 It is.
01:30:43.000 What's your methodology?
01:30:44.000 I've heard you ask this a lot.
01:30:45.000 What evidence do you have that it's not?
01:30:46.000 When I presented, I'd say about eight or nine references, including Harvard's own internal reviews to the opposite.
01:30:52.000 What evidence do you have that it's a diverse place of intellectual property?
01:30:58.000 Mostly my personal experience.
01:31:01.000 You don't use that when teaching students, do you?
01:31:03.000 Yes, I do.
01:31:04.000 In the absence of empirical, you'd use the anecdote.
01:31:09.000 Well, I mean, you asked me a question, and I gave you an honest, direct response.
01:31:15.000 I appreciate it.
01:31:16.000 What is the basis for me being up here?
01:31:19.000 My basis isn't that I've read, I do read a lot.
01:31:25.000 From various places.
01:31:28.000 But that's not really the central part of what I'm saying.
01:31:33.000 The central part of what I'm saying really is based on a long standing association with the university, talking with lots of people, having antenna up, and getting a sense of what's going on.
01:31:48.000 And what I'm saying is the portrait you're presenting is simply not what's going on, it's inaccurate.
01:31:58.000 And I would ask you, and I, you know, I would ask you tomorrow or the next day or this evening or whenever, get in touch with, you know, conservative students, talk with them, and get a sense of what they say.
01:32:18.000 At my institution, at my institution, you know, very liberal, to be sure, the most active.
01:32:32.000 Student group on campus, at least politically, the Federal Society, conservative group, highly esteemed within the university community, the law school community, have their speakers, they do all sorts of things.
01:32:52.000 This is not a group of people who are walking on eggshells and are feeling like they can't express themselves.
01:33:02.000 Yes, they are.
01:33:03.000 They are, and your own staff is, according to your own internal review.
01:33:06.000 And I would encourage you to ask these students.
01:33:09.000 I would encourage you to ask them.
01:33:10.000 Now, I would talk to them, but many times we have been blocked from even attending on campus.
01:33:16.000 For example, I wasn't shot for doing exactly what Charlie Kirk did, but just not allowed to do it at great cost to my own.
01:33:21.000 We will sit down and discuss these issues with anyone who will listen.
01:33:25.000 That apparently is too dangerous for Harvard, for Yale, for Princeton.
01:33:29.000 Take your pick.
01:33:30.000 And often, the reason that we're doing this is because we have sat down, this wasn't meant for students.
01:33:35.000 We always plan to sit down and talk with students and talk with at least one professor.
01:33:39.000 In every instance, it was the professors banning us from those discussions.
01:33:43.000 And one of the worst offenders, by all metrics available, is Harvard.
01:33:47.000 So if we do agree with the problem of it being slanted askew, I guess it's to varying degrees.
01:33:54.000 I say it occurs nowhere else in nature.
01:33:56.000 It would be an ideological monolith, if organic, that would need to be studied for centuries to come because you found it nowhere else, including the gayest, bluest areas of the country.
01:34:05.000 And that would discourage people from speaking out when they look at the policies.
01:34:10.000 The pledges, the sorting by ideology, by race here at Harvard, and you say it's not that big a deal because there's one group who's allowed to operate within these parameters.
01:34:19.000 We just disagree.
01:34:21.000 And I don't think that brings us any closer to a solution.
01:34:24.000 Would we like to talk about, because I know you're looking at, you keep looking at your clock, would we like to talk about affirmative action?
01:34:30.000 Yeah, I'm not looking, I haven't been working.
01:34:31.000 No, no, he is, sorry, he was, yeah.
01:34:33.000 We have around 10 minutes left in the hour, so I think, yeah, a brief discussion about affirmative action would be appropriate.
01:34:44.000 Okay, I'll give you the floor since we disagree on freedom of speech on campus.
01:34:55.000 Affirmative action, because you mentioned how much progress it's led to.
01:34:59.000 Please, I don't agree.
01:35:02.000 I named the individuals.
01:35:04.000 First off, let me ask you how do you take it to an end game?
01:35:08.000 Because I've read your works, and obviously you're an incredibly articulate writer and very, very well read.
01:35:14.000 I've never seen a solution.
01:35:16.000 I know that before the Supreme Court struck down that lawsuit when we're talking about affirmative action in Asian students, the representation was really high of black Americans here at Harvard.
01:35:26.000 And then it went down to, I believe, about 11%.
01:35:29.000 Asian representation went up.
01:35:32.000 And this was seen as something by many at Harvard as an injustice.
01:35:37.000 What's the end game?
01:35:38.000 What's the balance?
01:35:39.000 What's the percentage?
01:35:41.000 How do we sort people?
01:35:43.000 And how do you do it without violating individual rights?
01:35:45.000 Yeah.
01:35:47.000 All those are really good questions that people have been wrestling with.
01:35:52.000 My view is that, you know, I've never thought that affirmative action is the end all and be all.
01:36:00.000 And indeed, if somebody came to me and said, I tell you what, Kennedy, I propose the following deal you give up racial affirmative action in higher education in return for a guarantee.
01:36:22.000 Of excellent K through 12 education, I'd take that in a minute.
01:36:29.000 I'd take that in a minute.
01:36:32.000 Unfortunately, that deal is not on the table.
01:36:39.000 That deal is not on the table.
01:36:42.000 And if we're talking about affirmative action, another thing we have to take into account is the passage of time.
01:36:49.000 Affirmative action, in my view, 50 years.
01:36:55.000 I think it was a vehicle that did a lot of work.
01:36:58.000 You don't think that it did such good work.
01:37:00.000 I think it did a lot of very good work that has changed America for the better.
01:37:09.000 There is a change in American life that took place more quickly than it would have taken place without affirmative action.
01:37:20.000 Does affirmative action have downsides to it?
01:37:24.000 Yeah, it has downsides to it.
01:37:26.000 Like what?
01:37:27.000 Oh, it stigmatizes to some degree its beneficiaries.
01:37:36.000 It does, so if we're talking about the Harvard example, for instance, it does have the inadvertent effect, and I said inadvertent, not purposeful, but inadvertent effect.
01:37:47.000 Non invidious.
01:37:49.000 Non invidious, thank you, of decreasing the opportunities for others.
01:37:55.000 And to that extent, You know, people are going to feel resentful, and it seems to me that we always have to be on our P's and Q's.
01:38:04.000 Resentment is itself a social cost we have to be very attentive to.
01:38:09.000 I don't think that affirmative action is something that, you know, is here, has to be here, can't be reformed, can't be changed.
01:38:19.000 I'm all for being experimental.
01:38:23.000 What's working now?
01:38:24.000 So, what should it be?
01:38:25.000 Because you support it, I don't.
01:38:26.000 What should affirmative action look like?
01:38:28.000 I'm sorry?
01:38:28.000 We have higher representation, right?
01:38:30.000 We did, of black Americans.
01:38:31.000 And by your own admission, by the way, it didn't benefit those that it set out to benefit.
01:38:34.000 You said that often very privileged minorities were the ones benefiting from this.
01:38:38.000 You've conceded this many times as opposed to people from, let's say, the hood or impoverished areas.
01:38:42.000 Yeah, but.
01:38:43.000 Also ending up in the bottom quintile.
01:38:45.000 You've conceded this, as Thomas Sola stated, that we see people fall behind in affirmative action.
01:38:50.000 And I would like to go to resentment.
01:38:54.000 Collective nebulous good, but I don't hear a percentage or an answer.
01:38:57.000 We know the victim.
01:38:59.000 We know the victim is the kid who deserves to be there.
01:39:03.000 The Asian kid who was, and it's not just academia, and it's not a marginal difference, or the white straight male.
01:39:08.000 I don't think anyone, quote, deserves.
01:39:12.000 To be at Harvard University.
01:39:14.000 No, no, you earn it.
01:39:15.000 Just fewer black people earn it.
01:39:17.000 I don't think that anyone earns it.
01:39:21.000 No, I don't agree with you on the dessert.
01:39:24.000 How does one get into Harvard?
01:39:26.000 I think Harvard University makes decisions about what sort of student body it wants.
01:39:37.000 And in determining what sort of student body it wants, it disadvantages some people and advantages others.
01:39:44.000 Disadvantage over and over and over again.
01:39:48.000 So, for instance, if Harvard University decides that it wants more people from, let's say, the armed forces.
01:39:57.000 Let's not do the veterans example, let's talk about what it is that we're discussing.
01:40:01.000 You do that as a switch, right?
01:40:02.000 You go, I would change affirmative action if K through 12.
01:40:04.000 And I wanted to address that, by the way.
01:40:05.000 That deal has been on the table for a very long time, K through 12, since the 1970s, the Federal Department of Education.
01:40:11.000 You're talking about two and a half, two to three trillion dollars spent, and people are dumber.
01:40:17.000 It's why you have people coming into Harvard without basic arithmetic who can do long division, all in the name of equity.
01:40:23.000 More money, more money, throwing it at these schools.
01:40:26.000 Let's get back to affirmative action.
01:40:28.000 I asked you a question that was very specific.
01:40:30.000 Who is harmed?
01:40:31.000 Who is harmed?
01:40:32.000 Yes.
01:40:32.000 You said they may feel resentment.
01:40:35.000 Who is harmed by affirmative action as has been practiced at Harvard for at least several decades, and the Supreme Court said you can't do that anymore?
01:40:42.000 Who's harmed?
01:40:43.000 I said that affirmative action has some costs.
01:40:49.000 Like what?
01:40:50.000 One cause is the stigmatization for beneficiaries.
01:40:56.000 So, for instance, I'm talking about, you know, this is for me.
01:41:01.000 I know people go, did you really deserve that spot?
01:41:04.000 That's true.
01:41:04.000 Absolutely.
01:41:05.000 Yeah.
01:41:06.000 And that's a cost.
01:41:07.000 You just said what Charlie Kirk was shot for.
01:41:09.000 Did you know that?
01:41:10.000 No.
01:41:11.000 Yeah, people said he was a Nazi and a racist because he said, I don't like guttering on a plane and seeing a black female pilot and asking myself, does she deserve to be there?
01:41:19.000 Is it DEI?
01:41:21.000 And people, because folks like Charlie Kirk and myself are never allowed the platform to defend themselves here at places like Harvard, the portrait, the character was painted for them.
01:41:30.000 And that, what you just said, was portrayed as racial supremacy from Charlie Kirk.
01:41:35.000 Gentlemen, unfortunately.
01:41:37.000 And I agree with it.
01:41:38.000 I agree with you and I agree with Charlie.
01:41:39.000 But those aren't the only victims.
01:41:40.000 In my classrooms.
01:41:42.000 Unfortunately, we have run our time here, so.
01:41:48.000 Boo!
01:41:50.000 So.
01:41:51.000 In my classrooms, the statement that you just made has been our.
01:41:56.000 Many times, and we've had many discussions about it.
01:42:00.000 Good.
01:42:00.000 So, okay.
01:42:01.000 I'll be sure to write that down at Charlie's grave.
01:42:04.000 So, at this point, each participant is going to be given the opportunity to deliver a brief closing statement.
01:42:11.000 So, Professor Kennedy, would you like to go first?
01:42:14.000 Sure.
01:42:15.000 Number one, again, I'd like to express my appreciation to you and your colleagues.
01:42:26.000 Who organized this, put this on?
01:42:29.000 You have your own ideological position.
01:42:32.000 It's very different than mine.
01:42:34.000 You all were thoroughly gracious to me, and I appreciate it.
01:42:37.000 Thank you.
01:42:45.000 Second, we've had certain disagreements about things that have been voiced in the last hour.
01:42:54.000 I would, as we depart this, as we leave this, at least this part of the discussion, there were certain things about which we agreed, and I'd like to underline those.
01:43:07.000 We agreed that freedom of expression, freedom of learning, freedom to think, freedom of teaching is an imperative.
01:43:19.000 For a good society.
01:43:21.000 We agreed on that.
01:43:23.000 We also agreed that invidious discriminations against people, whether it be race, whether it be gender, whether it be sexual orientation, are also bad, and it seemed to me that we agreed on that.
01:43:43.000 Most of it.
01:43:45.000 Well, I hope we agreed on that because it seems to me that those two things are absolutely central.
01:43:54.000 To a decent society.
01:43:56.000 There are lots of things that reasonable people can disagree about, but I hope that we agree about those two things.
01:44:04.000 Thank you very much.
01:44:05.000 Thank you.
01:44:13.000 Stephen, your closing statement?
01:44:15.000 I think we agree on the premise.
01:44:17.000 I was saying that because I certainly wouldn't want to include jokes in being discriminatory towards any group.
01:44:26.000 The guy said it.
01:44:26.000 You have like half a face.
01:44:27.000 You want to be the better of these jokes?
01:44:29.000 This guy's walking in like he has a Civil War bandage around his jaw.
01:44:34.000 He's like, ah!
01:44:34.000 All right.
01:44:37.000 So, I think that tonight, I will say we've found some common ground.
01:44:41.000 I think the QA will be.
01:44:42.000 A lot of fun.
01:44:43.000 Hopefully, this has been respectful and reasonable enough that you would consider it worthwhile having these conversations.
01:44:50.000 Because Daniel Allen didn't.
01:44:53.000 Daniel Allen and it cost us a lot of money, right?
01:44:55.000 This is the thing they'll expend our resources, agree to it, and then change the terms.
01:44:59.000 Demanded to after this conversation when this was first set up, which we went to UPenn and they said you can't live stream it.
01:45:05.000 She demanded the right to retroactively remove consent and have it removed from our channel afterward, along with three days to clear what was meant to be a live stream.
01:45:13.000 For the same reason that we have to get individual permits and work with private groups on campus to simply present the perspective that, I don't know, biological male, female sorting by race is a bad thing.
01:45:24.000 One thing I think that is important is at a certain point you do have to look around.
01:45:30.000 You do have to go, okay, let's take stock of reality here.
01:45:35.000 Have you looked around at the student body at Harvard and academia?
01:45:40.000 Do we really actually want to sit here and say, well, you know, because the Trump administration and Grants, and we're talking about federal funding, DEI, it's just as bad.
01:45:48.000 Have you seen the protests and the screeching and the vandalism and the acts of violence, and then look at the polls as it relates to suppression of free speech?
01:45:57.000 The left always wants to make it about the response and not what elicited that response.
01:46:03.000 It is not even close.
01:46:06.000 And it's actually so prolific from the left, not just on Harvard, or not just here at Harvard, that I've written it down.
01:46:12.000 Okay, when we talk about systematic censorship and suppression of speech, Twitter accounts that tweeted Trump 2020 got suspended four and a half times as many as Biden accounts.
01:46:23.000 2022, Biden's Homeland Security launched a disinformation governance board, got paused, not because it was the right thing to do, but because of external pressure.
01:46:31.000 That was way too much.
01:46:32.000 Any of you looked up Nina Jankowicz lately?
01:46:33.000 The lady's a basic communist.
01:46:35.000 Federal judge who read the government's messages to the platforms, by the way, called it arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history in Missouri versus Biden.
01:46:45.000 The Fifth Circuit Court found the White House and FBI likely coerced or significantly encouraged the platforms.
01:46:50.000 Supreme Court Reversed on standing, not on the merits.
01:46:53.000 Zuckerberg himself wrote Congress that the Biden White House pressured Meta for months to censor COVID posts, including practicing doctors who were recommending intervention mechanisms when it was a novel virus.
01:47:05.000 He had 51 former intelligence officials signing a letter saying that the Hunter Biden laptop story, the laptop, by the way, which was shown by Rudy Giuliani on my show to the world for the very first time as Russian disinformation, and anyone who posted it was banned until they decided that could be allowed, but the original link wasn't restored.
01:47:22.000 Twitter blocked people from the New York Post story.
01:47:24.000 Facebook throttled it.
01:47:25.000 The Twitter files later showed that it was suppressed.
01:47:27.000 On COVID, the White House press secretary said out loud that they were flagging problematic posts for Facebook.
01:47:33.000 Twitter permanently banned a sitting president.
01:47:35.000 To be clear, in 2021, Jen Sack, he called for Joe Rogan to be banned from Spotify.
01:47:40.000 The Biden administration actually applied pressure to social media accounts to ban parody accounts.
01:47:45.000 And while we're talking about having a voice 2019, my YouTube channel, where this is being broadcasted, was demonetized despite them saying that no policies were violated because of the Disinvitation as a form of expression.
01:48:00.000 So when we look at that, and when we look at disinvitation as a form of expression, you have to ask what that is and who is most likely to apply it.
01:48:10.000 The same reason if we go, okay, libertarianism versus communism.
01:48:15.000 Who is most likely to use force?
01:48:19.000 Who is most likely to coerce you at the end of a gun to implement their worldview?
01:48:23.000 Of course, it's going to be communists.
01:48:26.000 I am not saying that Professor Randall Kennedy is a communist, just to be clear.
01:48:29.000 This is not McCarthy 2.0.
01:48:33.000 But we do see the same thing when you look at those on campus here at Harvard from their internal reviews who support the silencing, the shouting down.
01:48:39.000 It's not even close, it's a four to one, three to one ratio.
01:48:42.000 When you look at people today who support Violence against other political ideologies, it's the left, and they find safe refuge here on campus.
01:48:51.000 And so, like I said earlier, it'd be pretty simple to fix this problem.
01:48:57.000 No more sorting people by race, no more litmus tests, students get in based on merit, funding follows the law, both faculty and students, one rule now for everybody.
01:49:09.000 And let's stop with the wordplay.
01:49:12.000 Let's stop with saying it's not discrimination, it's preference.
01:49:15.000 It's not censorship, it's disinvitation.
01:49:20.000 It's not racism when we're looking at DEI or affirmative action, it's remedy, another word for reparations.
01:49:28.000 I'd like to see Harvard and academia, and by the way, all big tech platforms as far as users, the public town square, look like, I don't know, the NBA or the PGA, the NFL or World's Strongest Man, the STEM field where people are in aerospace engineering or nursing.
01:49:46.000 All I am suggesting is that you stop with the blockades, the coercion, the censorship, and allow a manifestation of organic representation which has been barred from all of these platforms and institutions for decades in the name of progress.
01:50:04.000 Thank you.
01:50:17.000 One more round of applause for Stephen and Professor Kennedy.
01:50:20.000 Thank you guys so much for coming out here tonight.
01:50:35.000 Thank you so much for a great debate.
01:50:37.000 I'm going to hand it off to our president, Elliot Detjen.
01:50:42.000 Thank you, Eli.
01:50:44.000 So, as they say, this is where the fun begins.
01:50:48.000 We're going to have a brief intermission of about five minutes, and then we're going to roll right into audience QA.
01:50:53.000 So, for those who are interested in asking questions, we ask that you gather over towards the door in the back on my left, on your right.
01:50:59.000 Lane is over there raising his hand, and then you'll be sorted accordingly.
01:51:03.000 Thank you.
01:51:15.000 Mediocrity is everywhere.
01:51:18.000 It's in the food you eat, in the workout routines you see on social media.
01:51:23.000 It's all around you.
01:51:25.000 Even now, in this very room, you can see it on that shelf over there.
01:51:33.000 It's the world of predatory supplements, proprietary blends, secret formulas, always hiding you from the truth.
01:51:43.000 What truth?
01:51:44.000 That there's a better way.
01:51:46.000 Like everyone else, you have options.
01:51:48.000 Fortunately, everyone can see what's best.
01:51:53.000 This is your last chance.
01:51:56.000 After this, there's no turning back.
01:52:02.000 You take the blue pill.
01:52:04.000 The story ends.
01:52:05.000 You wake up in your bed and believe whatever some Instagram ass influencer tells you.
01:52:11.000 You take Foundation.
01:52:12.000 You stay in reality, and I show you exactly what it is, how much, the benefits of each clinical ingredient with a certificate of analysis so you can confirm it yourself.
01:52:32.000 What happens now?
01:52:33.000 What do you mean what happens now?
01:52:36.000 You just took it.
01:52:37.000 I thought I'd feel.
01:52:38.000 Keep taking it.
01:52:40.000 Every day.
01:52:42.000 It's the world's best multivitamin.
01:52:43.000 You take it every day.
01:52:45.000 What you thought you'd feel stronger, superpowers.
01:52:48.000 You thought you'd take one pill and all of a sudden the fabric of your reality would crumble.
01:52:53.000 You'd free yourself from some sort of matrix.
01:52:56.000 It's a multivitamin.
01:52:57.000 As good as it is, that's all it does.
01:53:00.000 No, I just thought that.
01:53:02.000 You'll be fine.
01:53:03.000 Keep taking these each day and, uh.
01:53:05.000 After a week or so, you'll notice a little more pep in your step, you'll feel healthier, and at least you'll know you've covered your bases.
01:53:15.000 You're welcome.
01:53:18.000 I've got stuff I've got to do.
01:53:24.000 Why doesn't he have pants on?
01:53:26.000 It's too constricting.
01:53:28.000 He likes to keep it loose.
01:53:30.000 Here.
01:54:02.000 Have on YouTube now.
01:54:03.000 Steven Crowder, by the way, this is why it's on Rumble, not on YouTube.
01:54:06.000 We've always wanted to reach as many people as possible, but YouTube has gotten so bad that you can't even tell the truth.
01:54:14.000 Hey, what are you doing?
01:54:16.000 Hey, where's my YouTube?
01:54:17.000 That's what we watch here.
01:54:19.000 Hey, hush, I'm trying to watch this.
01:54:28.000 Why are you changing it?
01:54:31.000 We just watch YouTube.
01:54:33.000 YouTube is safe.
01:54:34.000 What is this bullshit?
01:54:35.000 That's all we want to do is watch YouTube because it's safe for us.
01:54:39.000 I only want my YouTube.
01:54:40.000 Turn it back now.
01:54:42.000 It's the second.
01:54:44.000 Now!
01:54:44.000 We all want YouTube.
01:54:46.000 Okay, I didn't come all the way from England to watch Dumble, Bumble, Bumble.
01:54:49.000 I'm gonna have to go to the bathroom in a minute.
01:54:50.000 YouTube!
01:54:52.000 YouTube!
01:54:53.000 YouTube!
01:54:54.000 Turn it back to YouTube right now!
01:54:55.000 Shh!
01:54:56.000 This is what we're watching now.
01:54:59.000 This moment that everyone realized YouTube is dead.
01:55:05.000 And Rumble did it.
01:55:23.000 Fell in president.
01:55:24.000 Self-inflicted.
01:55:26.000 This is what makes me feel beautiful.
01:55:28.000 We've got the big stream.
01:55:29.000 Largest stream on the planet for election night.
01:55:32.000 On Rumble each day.
01:55:35.000 Uh-oh.
01:55:35.000 Yeah.
01:55:55.000 Steven Crowder.
01:55:55.000 He's very offensive.
01:55:57.000 Very offensive.
01:55:58.000 They're offensive remarks that Trump has been making.
01:56:01.000 Now, YouTube canceled.
01:56:02.000 So let's celebrate all identities.
01:56:05.000 We stream to Rumble.
01:56:06.000 Deal with all of Trump's dumb stuff.
01:56:08.000 You've got a problem.
01:56:10.000 Tech platforms, access to accurate information.
01:56:12.000 Rumble's a problem.
01:57:00.000 Gentlemen, that was quite a debate.
01:57:02.000 I hear that we're still preparing our questions, so just give me a thumbs up when we're ready to go.
01:57:10.000 But just a little bit about questions.
01:57:13.000 First, when you're asking a question, please introduce yourself.
01:57:16.000 It's hard to see from up here, but just tell us your name, where you're from, maybe where you go to school.
01:57:23.000 Also, please specify to whom your question is addressed Stephen, Professor Kennedy, or both.
01:57:31.000 And third, we prefer questions, not statements.
01:57:34.000 So, are we ready for questions?
01:57:41.000 If not, tell us about you.
01:57:46.000 Well, I'm Eli, I'm a junior at Harvard on the board of the Harvard Republican Club.
01:57:52.000 Check us out, harvardrepublicanclub.org.
01:57:55.000 Should be pretty easy to find.
01:57:58.000 Yeah, glad to be here today.
01:58:00.000 Just making sure we're, seems to be a long line for questions, so.
01:58:06.000 Okay, here we go.
01:58:07.000 We're good?
01:58:08.000 Okay.
01:58:09.000 So, first question, please.
01:58:12.000 Yeah.
01:58:13.000 Oh, good evening, everybody.
01:58:15.000 So, you know, Charlie Kirk is what brought me here because I was Ed Abbott and always will be a diehard Charlie Kirk fan for the rest of my life.
01:58:26.000 And Charlie Kirk is what led me to learn about Steven Crowder and get it to you, so thank you.
01:58:32.000 To me, Charlie's most impressive thing was like his super intelligence.
01:58:35.000 Which most people don't have, super balls to go out there, which most people don't have.
01:58:40.000 You have both of those things, Stephen.
01:58:41.000 But also, the thing that impressed me the most about Charlie Kirk, that I see so few people have and that I'm working on, is grace.
01:58:49.000 I can't find a clip of him chewing somebody out, calling them F-bombs, anything.
01:58:54.000 He had love and grace.
01:58:56.000 And my question is actually for the esteemed professor, who certainly has balls, because I appreciate you walking in here to the heart of the Lion's Den.
01:59:05.000 And, you know, Another late great, Norm MacDonald, said the world is, the idiot sees the world as good versus evil.
01:59:14.000 The cynic sees the world as evil versus evil.
01:59:18.000 And the truth is and always will be that it is good versus good.
01:59:21.000 And I see this as good versus good.
01:59:24.000 And finally, to my question, I think it's easy for most on the right who have God to try to find grace in the face of these heated discussions, which America needs.
01:59:35.000 But my question, Professor, since you're on the inner left, How does the left, who I don't want to say is godless, because there are many people on the left who have God, but that's sort of a cheat sheet for the right to get to grace.
01:59:46.000 How would you suggest, Professor, that especially young people, but anyone, could find their way to grace in these discussions that are so difficult?
01:59:55.000 And apologize for my face, I was jumped by 11 Lindsey Clancy jurors on the way here.
02:00:01.000 One guy jumped in, though.
02:00:02.000 You should see the other guys, right?
02:00:10.000 Professor?
02:00:12.000 I was sitting on my own microphone.
02:00:14.000 I didn't realize I was here.
02:00:16.000 So, you ask about this matter of grace.
02:00:20.000 I think it's a very important thing that you're asking about.
02:00:25.000 And to tell you the truth, I don't think that I have a nice, pat, thoroughgoing answer.
02:00:37.000 I think that what you're searching for.
02:00:40.000 Is really important.
02:00:41.000 That's right, we have a terribly divided society, and we're not going to be able to make the sort of society that we want to have if we are constantly daily seeing one another as enemies.
02:00:59.000 And so the question is how do we proceed and disagree without becoming enemies?
02:01:10.000 And, you know, I think, at least initially, it's worth spending some effort, time, energy on making a distinction between being an enemy and being an adversary.
02:01:34.000 You looked at me when you said enemy.
02:01:36.000 No, I looked at you.
02:01:37.000 I looked at you because, actually, I mean, obviously, we are adversaries.
02:01:43.000 Right.
02:01:45.000 I get the sense that we are not enemies.
02:01:51.000 No.
02:01:52.000 And I think that that distinction is an important one and one that we need to dig into and dredge up.
02:02:00.000 What are the qualities that can enable us to be adversaries but prevent us from being enemies?
02:02:08.000 That's not such a good response, I realize, but that's the best I can do.
02:02:13.000 Thank you.
02:02:13.000 I think it is.
02:02:14.000 If I could add something to it, I think race is important.
02:02:20.000 I think truth is paramount.
02:02:23.000 And I think that grace in the absence of truth ends up being kind of a useless self help book.
02:02:29.000 And, you know, I've talked about it, it's funny that you mentioned grace.
02:02:32.000 Have you ever read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius?
02:02:33.000 Show of hands.
02:02:35.000 So, oh, there you go.
02:02:36.000 So I had this about it, now it's become kind of a trend stoicism.
02:02:39.000 But what I find so interesting about Marcus Aurelius is if you read this book, you could fit it under a door jamb.
02:02:43.000 It's incredible.
02:02:44.000 It's just his kind of basic writings on life, where he talks about doing the hardest thing first so you have the energy to do so, being grateful that you get to leave your bed, doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing.
02:02:54.000 Now, Marcus Aurelius wasn't super familiar, especially at the time of these writings, with Christianity.
02:02:59.000 Matter of fact, it was misperceived historically that he increased persecution of Christianity because he was often out in the battlefield.
02:03:06.000 And when you had, obviously, the legislators back home increasing the persecution, he didn't know until months afterward.
02:03:12.000 And he said, wait, wait, wait a second.
02:03:14.000 Let's not do that because I've spent time with these Judeans at that point in time.
02:03:18.000 But I saw all this and I go, this is very much prescriptive as to how we should live as Christians.
02:03:25.000 Only with the absence of grace.
02:03:27.000 So do the right thing for the right thing's sake and then die.
02:03:32.000 As opposed to do it because it's all about filthy rags, if not done for the glory of God, and that we all have grace shine upon us, especially as it relates to eternal salvation.
02:03:43.000 So I think that grace is something that's given to us and doesn't really change the practice so much in seeking truth.
02:03:50.000 If you are pursuing truth, grace will naturally come to varying degrees.
02:03:55.000 I can be a prick.
02:03:57.000 But I think that grace and the absence of truth, unfortunately, has been where we've counterbalanced too much and people are afraid to speak truth.
02:04:05.000 We need both.
02:04:11.000 I hope your face heals.
02:04:14.000 Change your face.
02:04:15.000 Yeah, I don't know.
02:04:16.000 Maybe I'd switch with you.
02:04:17.000 You'd be up here.
02:04:19.000 Is it possible for the next person to step up a little bit?
02:04:22.000 It's a little difficult to see without the light.
02:04:24.000 There we go.
02:04:24.000 Now that we've got a broken face there.
02:04:26.000 There we go.
02:04:28.000 I just want to thank both of you guys for coming out here today.
02:04:30.000 It's great.
02:04:30.000 To see these debates.
02:04:32.000 I have a question which is why should Americans be concerned about DEI when most Americans can't afford to attend college today?
02:04:39.000 Also, why does DEI policy look like getting rid of FAFSA and cutting ROTC programs that allow more Americans to attend college?
02:04:49.000 I think your first point in particular is a very strong point.
02:04:53.000 We spend a huge amount of time and attention on universities.
02:05:01.000 Half the population or more doesn't have the great privilege.
02:05:06.000 Of attending four year schools.
02:05:08.000 We even spend more time.
02:05:10.000 I mean, you think about the time we spent talking about the most selective universities in the United States that have an outside importance.
02:05:26.000 We're sort of obsessed by them.
02:05:29.000 And your point is shouldn't we be thinking about how to make education More accessible to more people.
02:05:39.000 And on that one, I'm totally in agreement with you.
02:05:43.000 I think that part of it has to do with institutions.
02:05:49.000 I might say, by the way, that at Harvard University, if you come from a family that makes less than $200,000 a year, and $200,000 is doing pretty good, if you make from a family that makes $200,000, you don't have to pay tuition.
02:06:05.000 I think that that's fairly recent.
02:06:07.000 I think that's a good thing.
02:06:09.000 I think that these schools could do more.
02:06:12.000 And I think that as a matter of public policy, we should be doing more to make education available to all who want it and can make good use of it.
02:06:23.000 So I applaud totally your first point.
02:06:28.000 As for your second point, with competing ways of bringing people into school, I'm for all sorts, I'm for all of them.
02:06:40.000 And you mentioned DEI.
02:06:42.000 Listen, you can have stupid DEI, and unfortunately, stupid DEI has been, you know, in existence.
02:06:54.000 It's there, and it ought to be criticized.
02:06:59.000 I think you can also, however, have smart DEI.
02:07:05.000 There's nothing magically wrong about diversity, there's nothing magically wrong about equity.
02:07:11.000 There's nothing magically wrong about inclusion.
02:07:15.000 A lot depends on how it's done.
02:07:17.000 It's been done badly in some places, and that's bad.
02:07:21.000 It ought to be criticized.
02:07:22.000 And if it's bad, it ought to be stopped.
02:07:25.000 When it's done intelligently, it can provide useful services to people who have historically been unwelcome at these places.
02:07:38.000 Again, thank you.
02:07:39.000 Thank you for the question.
02:07:40.000 A couple of them.
02:07:41.000 I would say, obviously, bad DEI is commonly referred to as.
02:07:45.000 D E I.
02:07:47.000 And I understand though, and I see this a lot.
02:07:50.000 People will say, hey, it's a distraction from what matters because school is unaffordable.
02:07:55.000 And of course, I will grant you that.
02:07:57.000 Oh, we just lost the light on him.
02:07:58.000 Can we give it?
02:07:59.000 He looks like the shadow man, it just went off on him.
02:08:01.000 I was looking him in the eyes, we were having a moment.
02:08:03.000 There you go.
02:08:05.000 So I would say it is though, it's not a distraction when it's central to a part of a worldview.
02:08:10.000 That's the reason for the litmus test at Harvard, they knew what they were doing.
02:08:13.000 Now, what he just said, he said there's a policy if your family makes less than $200,000, you don't pay for school.
02:08:19.000 So here's what's going to happen when you say, hey, we can't afford this, so let's get away from the distractions.
02:08:24.000 Your shackles will be brought to you, and you'll have open arms.
02:08:28.000 If you don't have to pay for that school, right, you make under $200,000.
02:08:31.000 Who pays for it?
02:08:33.000 And who guarantees that school is unaffordable?
02:08:35.000 If you look at the industries where we have seen hyperinflation, and Thomas Sowell is brilliant on this, by the way, nothing I'm saying is original health insurance, schools, banking, all industries that are incredibly subsidized and regulated.
02:08:47.000 I can tell you this because my brother went to SEGEP in Quebec, French Canadian.
02:08:51.000 They didn't know how to file him, so they filed him as a junior by the time he went to UT.
02:08:56.000 He got tens of thousands of dollars because he was a foreign student.
02:08:59.000 Born in the United States but raised in Canada.
02:09:02.000 There is an incentive for schools to make it unaffordable and out of reach so that they can get additional subsidization through the form of scholarships and grants.
02:09:10.000 In other words, if we have a free market with school, and you see it outpace inflation dramatically, hey, how much can you afford to go to school?
02:09:17.000 I don't know, $10,000?
02:09:19.000 Okay, let's see what we can do.
02:09:20.000 Wait, you can't afford it?
02:09:21.000 Uncle Sam makes up that gap.
02:09:22.000 Congratulations, we just found $30,000 for you.
02:09:26.000 That's why you see the hyperinflation because schools are leaving money on the table.
02:09:30.000 If not for things like DEI, affirmative action, class based admissions, and you don't see it the same way with community college.
02:09:37.000 And I think that bubble's about to burst because we just saw a study today that AI educated people right here at Harvard better than professors.
02:09:43.000 So I think that it'll become more affordable.
02:09:46.000 I think it's a great question, though.
02:09:50.000 I didn't quite understand, clarify this.
02:09:55.000 Are you saying that a person, let's imagine a really hard working, Student, very capable.
02:10:08.000 They could get in, you know, they could go to one of these fancy places.
02:10:13.000 The only problem is that they come from a family that just doesn't have the financial means to send them there.
02:10:21.000 Are you saying that it's a mistake to provide the financial resources for that student to go to that place?
02:10:28.000 I am saying that the increase in spending in the form of scholarships and Pell Grants and government assistance to the tune of trillions of dollars over the decades have led to the rampant inflation that we see at higher education.
02:10:39.000 There is an incentive for schools to make it unaffordable for people because the government makes up the gap.
02:10:45.000 It wouldn't happen if you were paying for your own school.
02:10:47.000 So it sounds good, again, to that individual because it's promising something.
02:10:52.000 Societally, that's why school is very expensive.
02:10:53.000 Thomas Sowell has written about this at great length, and yeah, we've experienced it firsthand.
02:10:58.000 Let's move on to the next question.
02:11:00.000 How's it going?
02:11:00.000 My name is Brian.
02:11:02.000 I am a 1L at Harvard Law School.
02:11:05.000 Professor Kennedy is actually my professor.
02:11:07.000 Section 5 is here supporting you.
02:11:09.000 Sorry.
02:11:11.000 Thanks.
02:11:13.000 I would consider myself very open minded.
02:11:15.000 I've watched your videos since, I don't know, about 2016, but like maybe a couple years after that.
02:11:21.000 Don't agree with most of what you say, but I've always watched.
02:11:24.000 My own parents feel the same way.
02:11:25.000 Right.
02:11:25.000 So I like to hear varying opinions.
02:11:29.000 I think that's really important.
02:11:30.000 And so on that point, I noticed that the topic of banning books came up.
02:11:35.000 Professor Kennedy said, I would obviously not agree with Mein Kampf, but I don't think it should be banned just because I disagree with it.
02:11:42.000 And he compared that same idea to.
02:11:45.000 Critical race theory and other topics like that.
02:11:47.000 And you said that you disagreed and that maybe they should be banned.
02:11:51.000 And that's never something I've heard you say before.
02:11:53.000 So I wanted to include.
02:11:53.000 No, I didn't say the book should be banned.
02:11:56.000 That's why I asked specifically, are we discussing in a library?
02:11:58.000 For example, I answered and said, I don't think that your book should be banned from the library.
02:12:01.000 Now, I think we know the Naval Academy is a little bit different with military standards.
02:12:04.000 We'd both agree to that when you're trying to create a combat unit.
02:12:08.000 I absolutely think that it should be banned from curriculum teaching people that any race is inherently guilty because of their forefathers.
02:12:16.000 But the books are good.
02:12:18.000 Yeah, if someone wants to grab a Derek Bell book, knock yourself out.
02:12:24.000 It doesn't include pornography, by the way.
02:12:26.000 I think we would both agree on that, but I appreciate it.
02:12:28.000 And I do think you have a good professor in your class.
02:12:30.000 I think, and I mean this, I think sometimes he and people like him are the victim of being reasonable because sometimes you assume that people are as reasonable as you, and it's not the case.
02:12:42.000 I think a lot of students would tell you that.
02:12:43.000 So it's both a compliment but also a blind spot.
02:12:46.000 Counselor Singleton, I'll see you in the morning.
02:12:54.000 And I want to send out a special shout out for Section 5.
02:12:58.000 Particularly the contracts class.
02:13:02.000 Just be thankful it's not Section 8.
02:13:08.000 All right, so, Professor, thank you for coming.
02:13:12.000 I think it was amazing that you showed up.
02:13:13.000 It was awesome because a lot of people have turned things down in the past.
02:13:18.000 But you said you wanted to give an opportunity to more students, and I think diversity in TEI in general actually excludes.
02:13:26.000 I actually think it's more along the lines of division, exclusion, and inequality.
02:13:31.000 And I have a personal experience from this through work.
02:13:35.000 Maybe it's not in education, but I was forced to watch a video by Verna Meyer as an activist video saying that because I was white, I had unconscious bias.
02:13:44.000 And that I needed to go out and reach out and make friends with someone who was a POC at my employer.
02:13:53.000 And that hurt me.
02:13:55.000 Honestly, that was insane to me that I was forced to watch this video.
02:14:00.000 And I kind of think that.
02:14:02.000 DEI is inherently racist because I think it might actually be class that you're speaking to, where you need to give opportunities to people that don't have the money to get that under $200,000 family income.
02:14:16.000 So I guess my question is is DEI inherently racist because it seems to be based on race and not income or capability of the family?
02:14:32.000 Sir, I've heard.
02:14:35.000 Stories like that, and I think that that's a bad thing.
02:14:44.000 It has generated a tremendous amount of resentment.
02:14:49.000 I think part of the resentment against DEI stems from being, you know, from people being told that they gotta do this, they gotta do that, they gotta watch this, they have to attest to that.
02:15:05.000 It stems from people saying something where, in which, you know, the context was obvious.
02:15:14.000 They didn't mean to say anything bad, but something came out a little bit sideways, and people take it in the worst possible light and try to make somebody's life miserable.
02:15:26.000 That has happened.
02:15:28.000 That's a bad thing.
02:15:29.000 I think, unfortunately, that has really tarred, in a sense, the DEI brand.
02:15:39.000 All I can say is, and so I, you know, bad.
02:15:44.000 Do I think it's inevitable?
02:15:46.000 Do I think it's, you know, sort of baked in?
02:15:49.000 And here's where I think you and I disagree.
02:15:51.000 Sure.
02:15:51.000 Because I think you think it's baked in.
02:15:53.000 Yeah.
02:15:53.000 I don't think it has to be baked in.
02:15:55.000 I know people who are in, you know, DEI offices, have been, you know, sort of officials, have been in charge of those things that used a lot of common sense, totally humane, and, you know, did good things at their institutions.
02:16:12.000 So I think we have to.
02:16:13.000 You know, sort of take things, you know, sort of, you know, be a bit more particular, singular, be hesitant to paint with big bright lines and saying that, you know, this whole thing is bad when, you know, well, some of it's bad.
02:16:36.000 Some of it has been administered in a bad way.
02:16:39.000 Does it necessarily have to be bad?
02:16:41.000 No.
02:16:45.000 If I could piggyback off that, I think all of it is bad.
02:16:49.000 And I also, the comedian in me, there you go.
02:16:53.000 The comedian in me, I'm most curious about that black guy.
02:16:58.000 This motherfucker looking like young Daniel Stern came up saying he won't be my friend.
02:17:03.000 And that sucks, because that's no longer an authentic connection or relationship.
02:17:08.000 What happened to you is unconscionable and should happen to no one and no group of people in the United States of America.
02:17:14.000 You should be judged by your group through no fault of your own.
02:17:18.000 Never.
02:17:18.000 I don't think it's a branding issue.
02:17:20.000 Thank you for your question.
02:17:28.000 How's it going, guys?
02:17:29.000 My name's Corey.
02:17:30.000 I just want to say, first of all, as a man of God, I consider myself extremely blessed to be here and listen to two great minds speak on such controversial topics.
02:17:38.000 I want you both to know I'll be praying for both of you.
02:17:41.000 I love you both very much.
02:17:42.000 I loved you when you played in corn.
02:17:45.000 We'll get to that.
02:17:46.000 We'll get to that.
02:17:48.000 My question goes back to sort of earlier, right after the opening statements, we were talking about book.
02:17:52.000 Banning.
02:17:54.000 And I used to be a libertarian.
02:17:55.000 That's where I got these dreadlocks.
02:17:57.000 Oh, okay.
02:17:59.000 It was Bitcoin and weed.
02:18:02.000 That's right.
02:18:04.000 But I've grown, and I was just curious.
02:18:07.000 This is my question, it's mostly for the professor.
02:18:09.000 When you were speaking of the book banning at the Naval Academy and stuff, you had spoken about how you were very pro free speech and pro all books, and you would even cite in Mein Kampf.
02:18:23.000 In your response to Stephen's question about it, I looked into it, and at the Kennedy School in Harvard, there's a course called The Power of DEI.
02:18:33.000 I'm just curious if at Harvard there was a course that was titled The Power of Mein Kampf that was arguing for the ideas espoused in Mein Kampf, if you would still be as adamant about your stance on free speech as you are.
02:18:50.000 When the ball's in your court, it's easy to say, Of course, I agree with everything, even the stuff that no one agrees with anymore.
02:18:57.000 If there were a course at Harvard that was preaching the power of Mein Kampf, would you still be as comfortable allowing Mein Kampf to be in places like our naval academies?
02:19:04.000 Mm hmm.
02:19:05.000 It's a very good question.
02:19:06.000 Great question, yeah.
02:19:10.000 Two things.
02:19:12.000 We have a very complicated.
02:19:14.000 Professor, I think you've got to talk to the top.
02:19:15.000 I don't think they can hear you.
02:19:17.000 Can you hear me now?
02:19:18.000 Yeah.
02:19:19.000 So, you know, we have a very complicated society, and different institutions are.
02:19:30.000 Govern differently.
02:19:32.000 So if we're talking about the United States Naval Academy, if we're talking about other public institutions, there is a set of laws that govern them.
02:19:45.000 Most importantly, the First Amendment.
02:19:49.000 The government could not say to Professor so and so, you can't teach that course.
02:19:59.000 Even if the professor said, I want to teach a course in which I'm championing communism, you know, and, you know, and, or.
02:20:12.000 I'm, well, I'm.
02:20:16.000 That's not what I'm saying, though.
02:20:18.000 Champion, you.
02:20:19.000 At least according to.
02:20:21.000 You do get that, though, in Ivy League.
02:20:22.000 Current doctrine.
02:20:23.000 No, no.
02:20:24.000 According to current doctrine.
02:20:26.000 According to current doctrine.
02:20:28.000 Not allowed.
02:20:30.000 That's why, for instance, that's why, for instance, when there were these people who would go to the funerals of service members who had been killed and would shout the most hateful things.
02:20:46.000 In Westboro Baptist?
02:20:47.000 Yes.
02:20:48.000 Yeah.
02:20:49.000 And the question was could these families sue these people for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
02:20:57.000 The Supreme Court said no, you can't.
02:21:02.000 Fund the university.
02:21:03.000 Right, it's a church with 12 people who are family members and they have like flipper toes.
02:21:08.000 The point was that if you sue someone for intentional infliction of emotional distress, that is the government acting against people, and the Supreme Court said, no, as terrible as that is, we're not going to let the government act, even though what these people are saying really just, you know, singes the sensibilities of people.
02:21:31.000 So to go back to your hypothetical, To go back to your hypothetical, if we're talking about a public institution, no, I don't think that a public institution would be allowed to say, no, you can't do that.
02:21:44.000 If you're talking about a private institution, so if you're talking about my institution, there it gets really complicated too, because my institution has said that it voluntarily will act as if it was a public institution.
02:22:03.000 And so at Harvard University, as things currently stand, No, that wouldn't, you know, if Harvard is sticking by what it says, it would not prohibit the teacher from doing exactly what you're saying.
02:22:18.000 Now, I think there's a good argument that Harvard should not allow that on the grounds that it's a private institution.
02:22:27.000 It should be allowed to create the sort of intellectual landscape that it wants to create.
02:22:36.000 But that's just my view.
02:22:37.000 That's not the way that Harvard currently operates.
02:22:40.000 I hate to go back.
02:22:42.000 To tit for tat or debate here, but I do because I think, I mean, this guy, by the way, he looks like a communist.
02:22:47.000 I mean, you look like he just came straight from a commune, so it's like I feel like he probably has some first-hand experience.
02:22:53.000 Would you support any federal funding subsidies going to an institute, research or otherwise, for Mein Fuhrer University?
02:23:03.000 I think the answer is no.
02:23:05.000 No, no, no, You know, one of the cases that's been bulked, that's sort of come back to public attention, is the Bob Jones case.
02:23:26.000 So, Bob Jones University had a policy in which it did not allow interracial dating.
02:23:36.000 For a long time, it didn't allow black people to come to Bob Jones, but it changed that, said black people can come, but we're not going to allow interracial dating.
02:23:45.000 And the issue then arose as to whether Bob Jones University Should be able to have tax exempt status.
02:23:53.000 And the IRS took away the tax exempt status of Bob Jones University, and that was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States 8 to 1.
02:24:04.000 Partly because of what's happened in the past few years, that has prompted me actually to change my mind with respect to Bob Jones.
02:24:16.000 I think that the dissenter in that case, very conservative justice, William Winkus, I think that he was actually correct.
02:24:25.000 That actually, this is a big country, people think all sorts of different things, and in pursuit of pluralism, let's truly let a thousand flowers bloom.
02:24:42.000 Nobody is making people go to Bob Jones University.
02:24:47.000 Should there be room for the Nation of Islam having its university?
02:24:53.000 My view, yeah.
02:24:54.000 Does that mean that the KKK should have its university?
02:24:58.000 My response would be yes.
02:24:59.000 But that's not the question.
02:25:00.000 It's should they receive any public funding?
02:25:03.000 You know what?
02:25:05.000 Let's push that a little bit.
02:25:08.000 Let's push that a little bit.
02:25:09.000 I would say no.
02:25:10.000 I understand that.
02:25:12.000 Because Hitler bad, just to be clear.
02:25:15.000 I understand that.
02:25:17.000 On the other hand, imagine a university.
02:25:20.000 Imagine the university that you mentioned.
02:25:25.000 You don't even want to say it.
02:25:26.000 I said the title of your book.
02:25:27.000 You can't say Mein Führer University.
02:25:29.000 That's awful.
02:25:30.000 You caught me.
02:25:31.000 I don't want to say it.
02:25:32.000 All right.
02:25:32.000 You caught.
02:25:33.000 Himmler community.
02:25:36.000 Let's imagine that that university catches on fire.
02:25:42.000 There's no other buildings around, so there's nothing that, you know, sort of nobody else is in danger, but it's just that university.
02:25:51.000 Okay.
02:25:52.000 Should we allow the public that we pay for fire engines and fire people, should we allow them to put out the fire?
02:26:04.000 My answer is, yeah, we should allow the.
02:26:06.000 Yeah, yeah, so I would allow.
02:26:07.000 Even though it's awful.
02:26:09.000 I do want to answer that.
02:26:11.000 We're just going to be going along with the questions.
02:26:12.000 You've got to accept it, brother.
02:26:14.000 I will say.
02:26:15.000 You see my point.
02:26:16.000 Yeah, but that's different.
02:26:17.000 We're talking about a fire department, right?
02:26:18.000 We get into public roads.
02:26:19.000 And I know as a conservative, people say, are you a socialist?
02:26:21.000 Do you support public roads?
02:26:22.000 No, there should be no funding going to Mein Kampf, to Mein Führer University, any more than there should be.
02:26:27.000 And I think your point is that DEI is definitively racist because it's exclusionary based on race.
02:26:32.000 If you pay, you decide.
02:26:33.000 Taxpayer pays, they have the right to decide.
02:26:36.000 And yes, of course, we well know that Harvard has, they rolled out the welcome mat for a keynote of commencement from Angela Davis, and there are multiple people here who praise Maoist China and have praised socialist communist regimes that have led to the deaths of tens of millions of people.
02:26:49.000 I think that there should be no public funding to these institutions.
02:26:52.000 That's how you end up with spending $10 million for shrimp running on a treadmill.
02:26:56.000 I think it's ridiculous.
02:26:57.000 I think we know it's appropriate as far as a measure of public funding and what's not.
02:27:00.000 And I would say that America has the right to decide what America looks like and what we are teaching our children.
02:27:05.000 And if it's a distinctly anti American idea, the ideas that we would agree on as far as Freedom, equality, right?
02:27:12.000 All men being created equal, First Amendment, Second Amendment.
02:27:14.000 I don't think that communism fits that within that parameter, and I don't think fascism, as it's known from the National Socialist, does either.
02:27:21.000 The government has the right to say, that's anti American, so we're not going to fund it.
02:27:24.000 Go create your own.
02:27:25.000 What happened to freedom of thought?
02:27:27.000 Freedom of speech is not freedom of subsidization.
02:27:30.000 That's, I think, our big disagreement.
02:27:32.000 But I do appreciate the question.
02:27:35.000 Let's move on to the next question now.
02:27:37.000 Thank you both, and thank you.
02:27:39.000 And seriously, I do appreciate that.
02:27:40.000 That's a bold move.
02:27:43.000 Hi, first off, thank you guys for coming out.
02:27:45.000 It's been a thought provoking night.
02:27:47.000 My question comes from how Professor Kennedy seemed to dismiss the internal surveys that Stephen brought up from Harvard either as flawed or as unimportant.
02:27:57.000 So, my question is if you believe that the surveys and information that an organization uses to guide their future and make their decisions, if you believe that information is flawed or not unimportant, how can you then defend that organization and the decisions it makes?
02:28:20.000 You mean Harvard?
02:28:22.000 Any organization?
02:28:24.000 Yeah.
02:28:27.000 I wasn't saying that all of the information.
02:28:31.000 I mean, Harvard's constantly examining itself.
02:28:37.000 That's one of the things that I admire about it.
02:28:40.000 It is constantly asking what are we doing wrong?
02:28:44.000 What are we doing right?
02:28:45.000 How can we be better?
02:28:47.000 It's constantly examining itself, and some of what comes up.
02:28:54.000 I, you know, I persuade me and I believe in.
02:28:59.000 But some of what it comes up with, nah, you know, I'm not persuaded.
02:29:06.000 I think that it has asked leading questions.
02:29:09.000 I think that it, you know, it has predetermined the answer that it wants to get.
02:29:15.000 I'd say that about, you know, Harvard, and I've already expressed my admiration for it.
02:29:20.000 But I do think that some of the, you know, some of what it comes up with, no, I'm not persuaded.
02:29:26.000 And by the way, one of the things, In the past few years, there's a wonderful organization, FIRE, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
02:29:39.000 It's a wonderful organization.
02:29:41.000 But over the past few years, FIRE has put Harvard University at the bottom of its list of universities.
02:29:49.000 That's not true, you made it up 70 something spots.
02:29:51.000 This year we did.
02:29:52.000 So Harvard's made it to D.
02:29:56.000 And I, you know, my view of that is I respect FIRE.
02:30:03.000 But I'm totally unpersuaded by its claim that Harvard University is at the bottom of the barrel in terms of freedom of expression, et cetera.
02:30:16.000 I think it's a publicity gimmick.
02:30:18.000 I'm not persuaded by it.
02:30:20.000 I've heard you say that, and that's specifically why I didn't cite FIRE, but I cited Open Secrets as far as funding and cited that Johnson and Zhang study that was published over the course of 36 years and cited Harvard themselves.
02:30:33.000 Fire study, the studies that are conducted, their methodology is pretty sound.
02:30:36.000 You can look at the crosstabs, it's compared to 250 schools.
02:30:38.000 But I specifically didn't cite it because I've heard the professor say this.
02:30:42.000 This is Harvard's own internal review, and they even issued a statement saying that they need to do something about it, but they haven't actually discovered the measures or been able to implement them yet.
02:30:52.000 So I do think that, especially when we're talking about funding for research, which I think is close to $700 million, somewhere between $600, $700 million annually with Harvard, if we can't trust their own internal research to be conducted.
02:31:05.000 Just on political persuasion and free speech at Harvard, well, maybe we should re examine that funding because I think that Harvard actually graded themselves pretty fairly.
02:31:13.000 But I appreciate your question.
02:31:15.000 I know we do have to probably clip along because we have a big line.
02:31:18.000 Yeah.
02:31:19.000 Thank you, sir.
02:31:20.000 Thank you.
02:31:21.000 Next question.
02:31:27.000 Good evening.
02:31:27.000 Thank you both for being here and taking the time to do this.
02:31:31.000 This is a question for the professor.
02:31:33.000 I am a research scientist in what is lovingly referred to as the People's Republic of Cambridge.
02:31:42.000 I actually worry in my workplace, based off of commentary around me, that I will be passed up for promotions, that I will be looked at differently because of my views.
02:31:52.000 I got a new job within this company recently, and one of the first things I think I was six days into the job was, but you didn't vote for Trump, right?
02:32:01.000 I was a graduate recently at the University of Southern California, very similar to Harvard in a lot of ways.
02:32:08.000 I had to lie on papers in order to graduate because professors would grade me lower because of my opinion.
02:32:14.000 With all of that, and you saying how you think diversity in ideology, in creed, in opinion is so important on campus, what experiences do you have that you can stand on this stage and still tell us that you think that we don't get discriminated against in academic settings,
02:32:34.000 in private universities that have a monopoly of a lot of higher education that is mimicked with a lot of the Corporate world, a lot of the research world, because we have graduates and professors from these universities working in these same fields and giving us that same experience.
02:32:50.000 I'm worried that people might even see this.
02:33:05.000 If a teacher marked you down, if a professor marked you down because of their belief that you're a conservative or voted for Donald Trump or whatever, anything of that ilk, that was wrong, that was bad.
02:33:25.000 Do I think that that happens?
02:33:27.000 Unfortunately, in your case, yeah, I think that happens.
02:33:32.000 And to the extent that that happens, That ought to be condemned, and we ought to be on guard about it.
02:33:39.000 And, you know, that's a bad thing.
02:33:42.000 I mean, that's my response to you.
02:33:44.000 And I think, I'm sorry?
02:33:45.000 I'm not the only one.
02:33:46.000 I have friends at Harvard that experience the same thing.
02:33:50.000 No, this is your lived experience, and this is the thing, this is why I want to say.
02:33:53.000 To the extent that that happens, I mean, I want to be very clear about it to the extent that that happens, that's a bad thing.
02:34:01.000 I condemn it.
02:34:04.000 I obviously agree with them.
02:34:05.000 First off, before we get, because I know you were nervous about being seen, when I made the joke earlier about how without ladies, Harvard was a quieter place, did you laugh?
02:34:12.000 Yes.
02:34:12.000 Oh, okay, good.
02:34:15.000 And I don't just ask that for no reason, because the left has made that joke more offensive than the practice that you're describing.
02:34:24.000 The joke about women are chatty doesn't mean we hate you, it's a biological difference.
02:34:30.000 It's like saying boys are violent, right?
02:34:32.000 It's silly.
02:34:32.000 That is a third rail for which people can be fired, the same reason that you could be.
02:34:38.000 Discriminated against and not hired because of your political persuasion.
02:34:42.000 And it's even worse for you because when you're looking at a lot of HR, right, you have people combing through right now seeing if you think, my God, Lindsey Clancy was guilty.
02:34:49.000 I don't think that it's a small thing.
02:34:51.000 I think it happens a lot.
02:34:52.000 I think that's the reason so many people are here.
02:34:55.000 And I think something needs to be done about it.
02:34:57.000 Like I said, no more litmus tests.
02:34:59.000 It shouldn't come up.
02:35:00.000 And if we look at a place, an institution, especially one that's publicly funded, and we see an imbalance that occurs nowhere else in nature, not artificially enforce equity like DEI or affirmative action.
02:35:13.000 But go with, okay, what blockades, what discrimination is taking place here that we have no one of this political persuasion?
02:35:21.000 I get it.
02:35:22.000 And I get that you're afraid because you know what?
02:35:23.000 Before I did this for a living, I lost my manager, I lost my agent, persona non grata.
02:35:28.000 It's a real thing.
02:35:28.000 That's why Andrew Breitbart was kind of my mentor, he was the only person who would run any of my stuff.
02:35:33.000 So at this point, what I will say, if this helps, they're going to figure it out no matter what.
02:35:37.000 If you have any social media, if you've written anything, if you've talked at the salon, so let your freak flag fly and let the chips fall where they may because.
02:35:45.000 You got to be yourself, even if the left tells you you can't.
02:35:51.000 I appreciate the bravery in standing up, too.
02:35:53.000 I know that that's a real thing.
02:35:56.000 Good evening.
02:35:57.000 I'm a sophomore at MIT.
02:35:58.000 Stephen, this question's for you.
02:36:00.000 Obviously, college admissions were a big part of my life recently, and so I want to ask your.
02:36:03.000 Sorry, I didn't hear that.
02:36:04.000 What was that?
02:36:05.000 Obviously, college.
02:36:05.000 Basically, my question is about college admissions and affirmative action.
02:36:09.000 I want you to expand on what seems to me to be a one dimensional view of the socioeconomic influence in college admissions.
02:36:15.000 That is to say, You say DEI unfairly preferences one category of people over another, though we see this consistently throughout college admissions, even in standards that you would particularly call out, such as the SAT.
02:36:27.000 Wealthy people can afford to pay for SAT tutoring.
02:36:29.000 Wealthy people don't have to take care of their families.
02:36:34.000 They can do after school programs that look better on resumes.
02:36:37.000 Furthermore, we're talking about Harvard University.
02:36:39.000 We can say that the hockey team, which is almost all white, obviously receives a preference in admissions.
02:36:44.000 My point is What do you mean they receive a preference in admissions?
02:36:46.000 Being white?
02:36:47.000 No, no, athletes receive preferred admissions at Harvard University.
02:36:50.000 Okay.
02:36:50.000 You don't have a basketball team?
02:36:52.000 The basketball, I mean, I would suggest that you look at the team roster because it's not as.
02:36:58.000 It's all white.
02:36:59.000 It's more white than not.
02:37:00.000 But the point is, even that contributes to my point.
02:37:03.000 There's a lot of ways that socioeconomic backgrounds contribute to admissions.
02:37:07.000 Yeah.
02:37:08.000 And I think that you like to hone in on one rather than accounting for the plethora that exists.
02:37:13.000 And so I'm curious how you would recommend that.
02:37:15.000 So, to answer your question, did you hear me say SATs once?
02:37:19.000 You did.
02:37:19.000 You said higher test scores, yeah.
02:37:21.000 Did I say SATs?
02:37:22.000 Okay.
02:37:23.000 Test scores in general holds true.
02:37:23.000 Because I was very specific to not say SATs.
02:37:25.000 And let me explain to you why.
02:37:26.000 What you just said, and I know, by the way, that Professor Randall Kennedy would probably be more amenable to it.
02:37:30.000 He proposes affirmative action plus plus, meaning a class component, which he thinks should be.
02:37:35.000 A holistic approach, right, which I think is more reasonable than what I think has been largely racially based.
02:37:40.000 The way it exists now, it's actually not taken into account.
02:37:43.000 Now, what I said was overall merit.
02:37:47.000 Academic performance should be the primary metric I think used when admitting people to an elite academic institution.
02:37:53.000 Are you aware of the disparity?
02:37:55.000 Like, this was Harvard's own records at the Supreme Court.
02:37:58.000 Harvard has an academic index that they create.
02:38:01.000 Are you aware of this?
02:38:02.000 Not.
02:38:03.000 So it includes SATs, GPAs, Other components, extracurriculars, right, where they placed in their class, relatively speaking.
02:38:10.000 It's a pretty complex metric.
02:38:13.000 And they separate it up into deciles, 10 categories.
02:38:16.000 A black applicant in the fifth decile is multiple times more likely to be admitted into Harvard than an Asian applicant in the tenth, regardless of economic status.
02:38:28.000 And if you actually take the Asian applying in the fifth decile, which really shouldn't be at Harvard, black students are about 12 to 20 times more likely to be admitted.
02:38:37.000 Even if that Asian student, like I said, is studying in the back of his dad's bodega, I think, and this is the problem with DEI, this is the problem with affirmative action.
02:38:45.000 You say I'm making assumptions, but support a policy that is entirely based exclusively on them.
02:38:54.000 Next question, please.
02:38:55.000 Thank you. Thank you.
02:39:03.000 Stephen, this question is for you.
02:39:05.000 Thanks again for coming and for everybody willing to be at least a little bit open minded.
02:39:10.000 I think everyone here was very open minded.
02:39:13.000 Partly.
02:39:15.000 When you were talking about these DEI practices, affirmative action, and the like, you used the terminology ideological monoliths and kind of sneering at the claims that it might be inorganic.
02:39:28.000 So, with that framing, what would you say to practices conducted in Let's say childcare or special courses and pathways through pre K and 12 education or moving forward to namely corporate America and past that social clubs and health institutions and the like.
02:39:52.000 Are you suggesting that the extent to which you would claim Harvard practices are inorganic, they are not modeled in those scenarios as well?
02:40:02.000 I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
02:40:03.000 They are not what in those?
02:40:05.000 They are not similarly modeled to an extent of inorganicness that you're suggesting.
02:40:11.000 Are you suggesting that these other industries that you've named or other venues have the same 95 to 1 monolith across the board?
02:40:19.000 Well, given that you're picking out a group of schools, it would be reasonable for me to think that you could go somewhere, let's say Des Moines, Iowa, and pick a similar group of, let's say, childcare institutions that have similar practices.
02:40:34.000 What do you mean with similar practices?
02:40:36.000 I don't understand the question.
02:40:37.000 About exclusion.
02:40:38.000 Excluding, so you mean in those places you might find racist exclusion?
02:40:41.000 99% conservative.
02:40:42.000 Are you saying that it happens nowhere?
02:40:44.000 I mean, you're making an exhaustive argument.
02:40:46.000 No, I'm trying to ask as to what the question is.
02:40:48.000 Are you asking me if Iowa is exclusive on race?
02:40:51.000 Sure, I'm questioning your terminology about being a monolith, ideological monolith, yeah.
02:40:58.000 Which is exhaustive.
02:40:59.000 With a litmus test, which is absolute.
02:41:01.000 Yeah, the DEI test.
02:41:03.000 And organic, which is also absolute.
02:41:06.000 And I'm asking you to talk about the other institutions.
02:41:10.000 In the America that you seem to love, can you name one?
02:41:14.000 Again, special courses in pre K through 12, corporate America.
02:41:18.000 What are the stats as far as representation?
02:41:20.000 I mean, I'm asking you.
02:41:22.000 Is it 99 1?
02:41:23.000 95 1?
02:41:23.000 I'm sure you could find one.
02:41:25.000 Well, I can't answer if I don't know.
02:41:26.000 If I were to find one and I say, wait a second, this seems to have nothing to do with politics, and it's 99 1 exclusively conservative, outside of a think tank, I'd go, something's going on here.
02:41:35.000 I just haven't seen it.
02:41:36.000 So that's my question would you approach them with the same ferocity as you are the higher education institutions?
02:41:43.000 Which would suggest that your issue is a matter of ethics and morality and not following the money and the education.
02:41:50.000 Yeah, sure.
02:41:50.000 If you're asking me if there are institutions that exist in education or publicly funded where you're seeing a 99 to 1, 95 to 1, right, a censorship, a litmus test to block out liberals, I would be against that.
02:42:06.000 Yeah.
02:42:06.000 Corporate America doesn't block out black people, if that's what you're asking.
02:42:08.000 They don't block out liberals.
02:42:10.000 Well, there are similar rates.
02:42:12.000 No, they're not similar rates.
02:42:14.000 Could you cite them?
02:42:15.000 Are you suggesting that there isn't a single institution that has to be monolithic?
02:42:19.000 No, I'm suggesting that you're saying corporate America is comparable to the ideological monolith of Harvard and the Ivy Leagues.
02:42:25.000 So I'd like to hear a number.
02:42:26.000 I want to be clear, right?
02:42:28.000 Because you're making an absolute argument.
02:42:34.000 So I'm questioning your absolute argument, which is suggesting by saying that it's monolithic that there is no other institution in corporate America or child care or health or whatever that practices the same.
02:42:48.000 Similar rates.
02:42:50.000 That's your argument if it's absolute.
02:42:51.000 That's actually not my argument.
02:42:53.000 How could you say that if your argument is absolute?
02:42:55.000 If there were other places where you saw a 99 to 1, 95 to 1, 3 to 1, 10 to 1 across the board, according to their own internal reviews, that were predicated with litmus tests exclusively on race and excluding people or ideological perspective, of course I would look at it and say this is inorganic.
02:43:11.000 So there you go.
02:43:12.000 Thank you.
02:43:12.000 I'd like to have someone else.
02:43:13.000 We're going to move on to the next question.
02:43:15.000 Thank you.
02:43:17.000 We're talking about Harvard, which is 95.
02:43:23.000 Hello, guys.
02:43:24.000 I'm currently a sophomore at Harvard.
02:43:26.000 So, I just like to preface this by saying that from my personal experience, professor, that I have had, I guess, the understanding is that most people around you are liberal, and that's kind of the common starting ground from which people operate.
02:43:39.000 And on top of that, I think one of the reviews at Harvard did a survey of the different courses, curriculum.
02:43:45.000 It's overwhelmingly, the books we read, the canon is overwhelmingly liberal.
02:43:49.000 There's very few classes that teach on Burke or any conservative thinkers.
02:43:53.000 And on top of that, if you look at some publications, I believe they surveyed sociologists in 2012, and they found that one sixth of them.
02:44:00.000 Would not invite a conservative to a conference, one third of them would refuse to hire a conservative for their job.
02:44:05.000 And so, if we talk about science, it isn't created in a vacuum, it's created by people who are existing in spaces and coming from backgrounds.
02:44:13.000 And if that background is overwhelmingly liberal, how can you expect that to not further propagate?
02:44:18.000 And my question for both of you then is you both seem to want to go back to a classical liberal idea of just let a thousand flowers blossom, but given that if we just let the system continue to go, it's not going to auto regulate.
02:44:31.000 To ensure some kind of balance, it's just going to keep going this one direction.
02:44:35.000 We're kind of in a similar place vis a vis this as maybe we were with systemic racism.
02:44:40.000 So, how can you not say that we should have some kind of substantive notion of fairness, not just a procedural one of, well, we're just going to let whatever goes, but whatever goes is just a mainstream liberal bias and paradigm?
02:44:56.000 I think I said earlier in my comments that I am.
02:45:03.000 Opposed to the sort of landscape that you just described.
02:45:10.000 I think, by the way, that what you've described certainly fits with my impression.
02:45:17.000 I think that there are parts of the university that, you know, are, you know, where the spectrum of what's taught, the spectrum of the teachers, the spectrum of books, all too narrow.
02:45:35.000 And I think that it does inculcate a certain sort of conformity, and to that extent, you know, that's bad.
02:45:44.000 I also agree to you that it's not just enough against that backdrop to, you know, sort of say, well, let's just see what happens.
02:45:53.000 No, I would agree with you.
02:45:54.000 I think that there need to be steps taken to change that, to have a wider, you know, ideological, methodological spectrum.
02:46:07.000 Now, that doesn't just mean.
02:46:09.000 I said earlier, I'm okay with let's get conservatives in this.
02:46:18.000 If it's a sociology department that's overwhelmingly left liberal, no conservatives, let's get some conservatives.
02:46:27.000 If some smart conservatives, let's get them.
02:46:29.000 I would also say, by the way, however, oh, I would also say, you know, there are people in certain departments, certain departments, you know, know people on the left.
02:46:46.000 And I'd say for those, hey, maybe we need to take special steps to make sure that students get a good sense of the wide variety of thought that's out there.
02:46:59.000 So, you know, to the description that you gave, That hit with me.
02:47:04.000 It seems to me, from what I've seen, yeah, unfortunately, that sounds realistic to me.
02:47:12.000 And I think that steps need to be taken to reform that.
02:47:17.000 Yeah.
02:47:19.000 I would answer your question.
02:47:20.000 I appreciate that.
02:47:21.000 I would answer your question and say what you are living right now is the artificially enforced and manipulated, right?
02:47:27.000 The fist, I think, is a term used on the scales of justice here as far as admissions ideologically.
02:47:33.000 So you're living that.
02:47:33.000 What I'm suggesting is we don't necessarily need affirmative action for.
02:47:36.000 Faculty or staff, we simply need to remove the blocks and the litmus tests.
02:47:42.000 And here's, this is sort of a holistic view.
02:47:45.000 So, what's your name, sir?
02:47:47.000 Alex.
02:47:47.000 What's your last name?
02:47:48.000 Wong.
02:47:49.000 Wong.
02:47:53.000 I say this, this is gonna make some people uncomfortable.
02:47:55.000 You mentioned affirmative action, some of the victims being people who would be under more suspicion as to whether they had warranted their spot, I believe.
02:48:04.000 Okay.
02:48:05.000 Mr. Wong, you and I both know no one is suspecting you of that.
02:48:09.000 Every person who sees you here is going, that bastard earned his spots and probably had an SAT score, probably had a GPA quite a few points higher.
02:48:17.000 No one's going, did you get in because your last name's Wong?
02:48:22.000 And like Professor, we can't say the same for Harvard students who are black, who are walking up and asking questions.
02:48:28.000 So that is something where you look at the collateral damage across the board, which is just an un American way for people to view each other.
02:48:35.000 For people to look and go, did he earn his spot?
02:48:37.000 Should he be here because he's best?
02:48:39.000 Or is it because there was a quota?
02:48:40.000 We shouldn't racially sort people.
02:48:42.000 Any more than we should ideologically sort people.
02:48:45.000 Harvard does both.
02:48:46.000 I'm suggesting we stop both.
02:48:47.000 Thank you so much.
02:48:49.000 On the question of collateral damage, I said a couple of times that affirmative action has real costs, and you just mentioned one.
02:49:02.000 I think what you said is true.
02:49:08.000 I think what you just said, the description is true.
02:49:11.000 I would say that every social policy.
02:49:16.000 Is going to have some benefits, and every social policy is going to have some detriments.
02:49:21.000 You have to have, you know, with complex society, you have to have a tax system.
02:49:27.000 There's going to be some aspects of the tax system that we screw up, we get wrong, we're always fiddling with it.
02:49:34.000 I'd say with respect to affirmative action, yeah, there were downsides to it.
02:49:39.000 Do I think there were some good sides to it?
02:49:41.000 Yeah, I think there were some real good sides to it as well.
02:49:45.000 Sorry, I wasn't, not unless you, I could see, we have to end it there, do you think?
02:49:48.000 They're asking for two more questions.
02:49:49.000 We have time for one more question.
02:49:51.000 Okay, Lane, do you want to grab one more?
02:49:52.000 Sorry, I just didn't want to.
02:50:01.000 I don't know.
02:50:02.000 Gerald's probably tasting some wine just south of San Francisco.
02:50:12.000 Well, we only have time for one more question, so I don't know if we wanted to.
02:50:17.000 Who's got a really good one?
02:50:18.000 Let's get them up here.
02:50:27.000 There we go.
02:50:28.000 Hi, ma'am.
02:50:29.000 Hi.
02:50:30.000 My name is Carol.
02:50:31.000 Thank you very much for being here tonight.
02:50:34.000 During the evening, we've talked about racism, gender, discrimination.
02:50:43.000 We've talked about women and men.
02:50:46.000 We've talked about left and right.
02:50:48.000 But there's another student that we haven't discussed tonight, and I'd like a few words from you about them.
02:50:56.000 Not only has this particular student been Reluctant to have any free speech, but they also have to look out for how they appear, and that's the Jewish student.
02:51:10.000 That I think has been a problem in not only Harvard, but a lot of the elite colleges.
02:51:17.000 I know that other religions, although college tends to be a little more secular, people who are more religious have to kind of throttle it back.
02:51:30.000 But Harvard has had a problem with the Jewish student in that even with menorahs on Hanukkah, they have lit the menorah, they sing a couple songs, they acknowledge it, and they take it down for fear of having it being destroyed.
02:51:49.000 Just a few words for the Jewish student.
02:51:57.000 Two things.
02:52:01.000 Anti Jewish prejudice is abhorrent, terrible, unfortunately, long standing, worldwide, awful.
02:52:12.000 We are still, we are still in the shadow of the Holocaust.
02:52:19.000 There are people who have tattoos on their arms who are survivors of the death camps.
02:52:33.000 Okay, and there are people who are, you know, the sons and daughters of that atrocity.
02:52:41.000 And so we always have to be very, very attentive to that, as far as I'm concerned, not a joking matter, to be extremely attentive to that.
02:52:51.000 That's point number one.
02:52:53.000 Point number two, and here I'm going to go back to Harvard University.
02:52:58.000 Harvard University has been, Harvard University was the subject of a number of lawsuits recently.
02:53:07.000 The Brandeis Center sued Harvard.
02:53:10.000 There was a student group, Students Against Antisemitism, that sued Harvard.
02:53:15.000 They said in their suits that Harvard, you know, that antisemitism was rampant at Harvard and that Harvard University had been deliberately indifferent to the problem of antisemitism.
02:53:28.000 In my view, that was way off.
02:53:33.000 Harvard University has definitely had an antisemitism problem.
02:53:38.000 In its history, no two ways about that, including fairly recently.
02:53:47.000 It's also the case that if one takes a look at Harvard University over, let's say, the past 30 years, if one asks, you know, so who is the current president of Harvard University?
02:54:01.000 Alan Garber, wonderful person, Jewish.
02:54:05.000 Who was the president before him?
02:54:06.000 The president before him was, you know, Claudine Gay.
02:54:10.000 Who was the president before her?
02:54:12.000 Larry Bacow, wonderful educator, Jewish.
02:54:16.000 The president before that was Drew Faust, but the president before that was Larry Summers, Jewish.
02:54:26.000 The provost of the university, John Manning, Jewish.
02:54:31.000 The dean of my law school, John Goldberg, Jewish.
02:54:37.000 The previous dean of Harvard Law School, John Manning, Jewish.
02:54:42.000 The dean previous to that was Martha Minow, Jewish.
02:54:51.000 All through Harvard University, one sees esteemed members of that community who are Jewish.
02:55:02.000 Am I saying that there's no anti Semitism at Harvard University?
02:55:06.000 No, I'm not saying that.
02:55:08.000 Harvard University is a big place, tens of thousands of people.
02:55:13.000 Yes, there's going to be some anti Semitism.
02:55:16.000 Is the claim that Harvard University is institutionally anti Semitic true?
02:55:21.000 No, it is not.
02:55:26.000 I think that this is one of those old things where people say, Oh, it sounds like you have a lot of Jewish friends, right?
02:55:30.000 A white guy, I got this black guy, like, you got black friends, it's racist.
02:55:34.000 But I think it's an entirely valid answer.
02:55:36.000 It's a response, because typically if someone is prejudiced, they don't have Jewish friends or family in some cases.
02:55:42.000 I would say this they sort of bleed together, so I'm not sure which cases you cited versus Columbia, where it got pretty bad, where students were blocked.
02:55:50.000 I think we would both agree.
02:55:52.000 Of course, In the same way, DEI, in the same way, affirmative action, in the same way, anti conservative discrimination, actual discrimination and abuse of anyone based on their heritage, their ethnicity, or their worldview, provided it's not something subversive like communism, is wrong.
02:56:09.000 Jewish people shouldn't be discriminated against any more than someone who's black, someone who's Asian.
02:56:15.000 I think this issue, by the way, has been very muddy, the water's been muddied, because criticism of the government of Israel, I think, is perfectly legitimate.
02:56:22.000 I think students have the right to protest those actions.
02:56:25.000 It seems to me that you would agree.
02:56:26.000 They have the right to have their public protests and displays.
02:56:30.000 Often, when people lobby the same criticism against the Trump administration, they go, they're trying to enforce speech codes by saying we can't insert whatever here.
02:56:38.000 No, they're saying that you can't block Jewish kids from going to school while yelling from the river to the sea, which means no Jews here.
02:56:45.000 I think that is reasonable when vandalism and acts of criminality are being committed.
02:56:50.000 I also think that right now the waters have been muddied because you see this on sort of the Marxist right people who are, frankly, Israel has an optics problem, and that's a legitimate issue to address.
02:57:00.000 But because Harvard, for the same reason they teach CRT, it's rooted in anti colonialism, very simplistic colonialism bad, therefore Israel bad, you are going to see a disproportionate anti Semitic worldview here.
02:57:11.000 That needs to be separated from people who harass, block, insult, denigrate Jewish students because it has happened, and that's where the government stepping and saying, you just can't do that, they got to get to their classes, is appropriate.
02:57:23.000 Telling people they can't criticize the nation or government of Israel would be entirely inappropriate.
02:57:28.000 And it sounds to me like you and I agree.
02:57:29.000 Unfortunately, That's not the conversation online.
02:57:32.000 It's Jew bad, Jew great, you know, Jawa from whatever it is, any racist term here when talking about Israel and the conflict right now.
02:57:40.000 I would also say for it to be a genocide, there need to be less people than when you started.
02:57:44.000 Thank you for your question.
02:57:45.000 I was just told that we could take one or two more.
02:57:48.000 That's why they were running around.
02:57:49.000 Okay.
02:57:49.000 They came up.
02:57:50.000 He's like, we could take one or two more.
02:57:54.000 We'll take one more.
02:57:56.000 Jews?
02:57:56.000 We'll take two more.
02:57:57.000 I'm sorry.
02:58:00.000 Hi.
02:58:00.000 This question is for Professor Kennedy.
02:58:03.000 My name is James.
02:58:04.000 I'm from Jamaica Plain, Boston.
02:58:08.000 I have two young children, and the high school.
02:58:13.000 Well, you made a comment earlier about how you would be willing to get rid of affirmative action if you fix the K 12 schools.
02:58:19.000 And Boston public schools are considered one of the best public school systems in blue cities in America, or for big cities in America.
02:58:26.000 And English High School in Jamaica Plain, where my children will attend, they spend $37,000 per student, and they have an 8 to 1 faculty to student ratio, I believe, last I checked.
02:58:36.000 However, They have abysmal test rankings.
02:58:40.000 They're about the worst in the entire state.
02:58:43.000 And last year they sentenced their dean of gang violence for executing a kid that he had recruited to sell drugs in the school for him.
02:58:52.000 So I can't send my kids to the school.
02:58:54.000 Wait, the dean of the school?
02:58:55.000 Of gang violence.
02:58:56.000 They had a dean of gang violence, which is also kind of.
02:58:57.000 There's a dean of gang violence at the school?
02:59:00.000 Everyone can Google English High School and learn all about drama right now in Jamaica Plain.
02:59:03.000 It almost seems like you'd expect it.
02:59:04.000 It's baked into the name dean of gang violence.
02:59:07.000 I think they called it of peace.
02:59:09.000 Oh, okay.
02:59:10.000 But yeah, so I have my own terminology here.
02:59:12.000 The problem is that, so I have to send my kids to private school.
02:59:17.000 I have to.
02:59:17.000 I couldn't in my, you know, I can afford it.
02:59:19.000 I have to send them.
02:59:20.000 So I have to spend $30,000 a year on private school in addition to losing out on the $74,000 a year of my tax dollars that I would have paid.
02:59:28.000 And then what you say is now they can't come to Harvard because they went to private schools and we need to, you know, somehow there's some disconnect between, you know, how are we going to, we have to have affirmative action because we can't fix the public schools.
02:59:43.000 The public schools are run by the left that was trained at Harvard.
02:59:46.000 So I don't know.
02:59:46.000 Maybe you can expound on this whole thing.
02:59:51.000 Do you mean that simply throwing more money at it wouldn't fix it?
02:59:55.000 Imagine my shock.
03:00:00.000 I think that it's a terrible thing that our public schools don't do a better job of educating the citizenry.
03:00:11.000 And so, you know, that's.
03:00:14.000 A terrible thing.
03:00:15.000 It puts people like you in a very bad position to have to make a choice.
03:00:20.000 Why can't you, with confidence, send your kid to public school thinking that the kid will be educated in a good way?
03:00:32.000 That's the way it should be.
03:00:34.000 That is not so is really very bad, and we should hold public officials accountable to try to make things better.
03:00:45.000 On that, I don't think that we.
03:00:46.000 Is there any disagreement?
03:00:47.000 No, not just public officials, but I would say teachers, teachers' unions, rubber rooms.
03:00:52.000 I also think that this is one of the unforeseen consequences.
03:00:54.000 I would imagine, I mean, you don't look like the monopoly guy.
03:00:57.000 I'm sure you do okay, but you're probably not Mr. Moneybags.
03:01:00.000 I would imagine it's a pretty significant cost to send your kids to private school, right?
03:01:03.000 It's certainly a sacrifice at this time.
03:01:06.000 Certainly a sacrifice.
03:01:07.000 And I would imagine that you have to make sacrifices elsewhere so that you can put your children in a safer school than the one that your tax dollars already go to fund.
03:01:15.000 That wouldn't be taken into account on affirmative action.
03:01:18.000 Because of white privilege.
03:01:20.000 And that's why I say the best person deserves to get the spot.
03:01:24.000 And I think that, yes, you can take it holistically, but certainly academic merit should be the primary metric, not just SATs.
03:01:30.000 And when looking at public schools, you said $30 something thousand per pupil.
03:01:33.000 More money doesn't help it.
03:01:34.000 This is where we would talk about school choice, school vouchers.
03:01:37.000 The left is vehemently opposed to it.
03:01:39.000 I have had an open invitation for decades and never once, never once heard a legitimate argument against it, but that's not something we have enough time for right now.
03:01:48.000 So, hey, all of this should be performance based, including our public schools.
03:01:51.000 Congratulations, we just said school choice, you're a charter school.
03:01:55.000 Thank you, sir.
03:01:56.000 Thank you for your sacrifice.
03:01:57.000 This is going to be our final question for the evening, so thank you so much.
03:02:02.000 Professor Kennedy, Stephen, thank you guys both for coming out.
03:02:05.000 Professor Kennedy, you mentioned that you're a fan of affirmative action in DEI.
03:02:11.000 I believe you said that you achieved your tenure in 1989.
03:02:14.000 Does it bother you that there's a possibility you achieved your tenure status based on the color of your skin in the name of diversity rather than based on your merits?
03:02:23.000 Yeah, I've written about this.
03:02:26.000 Am I a beneficiary of affirmative action?
03:02:29.000 Yes, I am a beneficiary of affirmative action.
03:02:33.000 Does that make me feel ashamed?
03:02:35.000 Am I embarrassed?
03:02:37.000 No, no, I don't feel ashamed by that.
03:02:40.000 And by the way, when I say that I'm a beneficiary of affirmative action, does that mean that I just sort of showed up?
03:02:51.000 And because I showed up, the various places, and I've been the beneficiary of selective institutions, the best school I've ever attended was my high school, St. Albans School for Boys, very selective school, excellent school.
03:03:11.000 Princeton University.
03:03:12.000 But no girls were there.
03:03:13.000 Wonderful, wonderful, that's true.
03:03:17.000 Princeton University, wonderful school.
03:03:21.000 Yale Law School, wonderful school.
03:03:25.000 Was I the beneficiary?
03:03:26.000 Have I been the beneficiary of affirmative action?
03:03:28.000 I think I have by those institutions.
03:03:30.000 And not only by those institutions, not only by those institutions.
03:03:35.000 I have benefited from teachers at those institutions who they never said it, they never said this to me.
03:03:43.000 But my sense is that I have been directly the beneficiary of teachers, and the teachers that I'm thinking about are white teachers.
03:03:53.000 I think I've been the beneficiary of white teachers who felt really badly that for so long hardworking, promising black students had gotten.
03:04:13.000 The bottom of the barrel, had been dissuaded in various ways, had been discouraged in various ways, and had not been allowed to blossom.
03:04:25.000 My sense is that some of those teachers spent extra time with me, devoted something special extra with me, in part because of the color of my skin.
03:04:39.000 Do I think that they were acting in any sort of bad way?
03:04:44.000 No, I do not.
03:04:46.000 And, and I hope this doesn't sound vain, but I'm going to say it anyway I think that what I have been able to do and people I've been able to help of all different complexions, of all different political persuasions, has substantiated the special help that was accorded to me.
03:05:12.000 I am an affirmative action beneficiary and make no bones about it.
03:05:16.000 Thank you.
03:05:16.000 I thought when you said this is going to sound vain, I thought you were going to say you look damn good in a turtleneck.
03:05:21.000 And I was like, well, okay, the shoe fits.
03:05:23.000 All right, before I answer the question, I'm going to play a game of guess the ethnicity.
03:05:28.000 Okay, are you Hispanic, Latino, or are we talking like Persian?
03:05:31.000 What's closer?
03:05:32.000 Hispanic.
03:05:32.000 Hispanic, okay, Cuban?
03:05:34.000 No.
03:05:35.000 All right.
03:05:36.000 Puerto Rican.
03:05:37.000 Puerto Rican, okay, all right, I was close.
03:05:38.000 Just won't say that to a Cuban because they don't like each other.
03:05:41.000 You know, it doesn't really apply.
03:05:45.000 Now, my lady, My woman, which offended someone who changed my mind, is she's not really Hispanic.
03:05:51.000 She's Brazilian, but was raised by an adoptive Cuban mom.
03:05:56.000 Really rough story, actually.
03:05:59.000 And very much like me, they thought she was learning disabled when she was young because they put her in school in America.
03:06:05.000 She didn't speak English, she spoke Portuguese.
03:06:07.000 They said, kind of brown, we gave her a translator, they gave her a Spanish translator.
03:06:11.000 So she's hearing English, Spanish that she doesn't speak, and trying to learn in Portuguese.
03:06:16.000 She made up for it in the summer.
03:06:17.000 I had the same thing being raised in Quebec, where I was forced because of the law, and it's actually enforced by the Ligue des Langues, the term meaning language police, it's not the official term.
03:06:26.000 If you have one parent born in Quebec, whether they're English or French, you have to go to French school.
03:06:31.000 And they thought I was basically retarded through the third grade until they said, you know what, maybe let's let them try doing long division in geography and English.
03:06:37.000 And then, you know, I was like a B plus, A minus student.
03:06:41.000 But she, when applying at school and for a job, will tell me, she's basically Italian.
03:06:48.000 We did a 23andMe, you know, that's when all the Mussolini expats went over.
03:06:51.000 But her friend said, check down Hispanic.
03:06:53.000 She's like, I am basically white.
03:06:54.000 He's like, it doesn't matter.
03:06:56.000 Write it down.
03:06:56.000 Trust me, they want a Hispanic woman here.
03:07:00.000 But she said that was the first time she had heard of it.
03:07:02.000 Because her adoptive mom came from Cuba, where you work all month for a bar of soap.
03:07:07.000 Cuban Americans, a lot of people who come from these countries, they're incredibly grateful, they're very industrious, and they don't often play identity politics.
03:07:15.000 That's why they rejected Latinx.
03:07:17.000 So let's say, I don't know if you're a student here at Harvard, let's say you were, just like I mentioned this with Wong, Mr. Wong.
03:07:26.000 I don't think people would really think twice because they know a lot of Hispanic people who work really hard and who have parents who really crack the whip.
03:07:33.000 And I would say this, Professor Randall Kennedy, obviously I've done my homework, and not only did he just mention it, I mean, he went to Cornell, I believe, was it Cornell, or sorry, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, do I have that right?
03:07:44.000 And clerked for Thurgood Marshall.
03:07:46.000 As qualified as a human being can possibly be.
03:07:49.000 That being said, so when I look at him and I go, no, no, he's not the beneficiary of affirmative action, he deserves to be here.
03:07:55.000 But the truth is, objectively, I can never know.
03:07:59.000 And that's the problem with all of it, and I think that's sad, and I don't want us to continue down that path.
03:08:04.000 Thank you guys so much, I appreciate you taking the time.
03:08:13.000 Thank you all for coming out.
03:08:14.000 Thank you for an incredible debate.
03:08:16.000 Thank you.
03:08:17.000 Thank you so much.
03:08:18.000 Absolutely.
03:08:19.000 Thank you.
03:08:19.000 Stephen, Professor Kennedy, thank you.
03:08:21.000 One more round of applause for everybody.
03:08:23.000 Thank you, guys.