John Donvan:

So at this moment, I would like to bring that gentleman to the stage. And please

welcome Mr. Robert Rosenkranz.

[applause]

John Donvan:

Hey, Bob.

Robert Rosenkranz:

Hi, John.

John Donvan:

Good to see you. So, Bob, I know this already that you are a son of Yale yourself.

Robert Rosenkranz:

That’s true.

John Donvan:

I noticed, walking around, that there was a building with the name “Rosenkranz” on it,

which I’m assuming is just a total coincidence.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 2 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

Robert Rosenkranz:

It is not a complete coincidence in all truth. But, yeah, I’m very proud of that

building. But I’m also proud of another thing that has my name on it at Yale, which is

something that my son and I did when we — together in the connection of the

renovation of Pearson College.

And it relates to tonight’s debate because it shows some of the insensitivity that was

present at Yale when we were there, and that was the rooms that I had were in what

Pearson then called “the slave quarters.” And I was very pleased that we could get rid

of that name and call it “Rosenkranz Court.”

John Donvan:

So you did change the name.

Robert Rosenkranz:

We did, indeed.

John Donvan:

So what was Yale like — you’re talking about the early 1960s.

Robert Rosenkranz:

Yeah. I graduated in the class of ’62.

John Donvan:

A little sense of what Yale was like and —

Robert Rosenkranz:

Well, again, in the context of this debate, dealing with, to some degree, diversity and

inclusion, Yale at that time was a very tricky place if you were Jewish. My class was 10

percent Jewish because there was a quota. Harvard, the same year, was about 40

percent Jewish because it was a little more meritocratic. And there were practically no

Jewish members of fraternities, practically no Jews in any of the senior societies.

It was a very sort of tricky place to navigate. But I would say that we felt that we were

not angry. We felt lucky to be there. The three most generous members of my class at

Yale were all — are all Jewish and were all scholarship students at Yale. So we just felt

like it was our job to adapt to Yale and not Yale’s job to adapt to us.

John Donvan:

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 3 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

So we’re obviously operating in a different context today. But tie that conversation into

the question of free speech.

Robert Rosenkranz:

Well, clearly, Yale has made huge strides and has enormous concerns with the idea of

inclusion and diversity. And in a recent statement that — quite extensive statement that

Peter Salovey issued, he started off with a — with a ringing endorsement of the

principles of free speech.

But it’s obvious that he felt he needed to do that because there’s a perception that

there is indeed some tension between the student protests that we’re having at

campuses around the country and the idea of freedom of speech. And where those two

valuable principles come into conflict, I think we have the makings of a debate.

John Donvan:

All right. And we want to make clear, and I’m going to make this clear once we actually

start the podcast. Tonight we are not debating what happened at Yale. We are not

examining the facts of what happened at Yale. That’s not the purpose of this

debate. We are talking about a conversation that’s taking place on campuses across the

nation. That doesn’t mean Yale’s name will not be mentioned, but this is not an

examination of the events of November 2015.

Robert Rosenkranz:

Exactly right.

John Donvan:

All right. Well, we are going to examine that tension that you just referred to. We’ve

got four great debaters who have been preparing for this, taking it very seriously and

attempting to persuade you to vote with them at the end of the debate. So let’s

welcome — thank Bob Rosenkranz and welcome our debaters to the stage.

[applause]

John Donvan:

One other thing I wanted to mention again, because of the broadcast, but seems like

you’re already getting it. There are moments in the evening when I’m going to ask you

to applaud spontaneously. And so it will be moments sort of when we come back from

breaks or when I introduce debaters. So let’s launch our program by having you all

applaud spontaneously now.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 4 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

[applause]

John Donvan:

A series of campus protests erupts across the United States. The University of Missouri,

Amherst, Dartmouth, Ithaca, Yale, and many other campuses, where the instigating

issue is protesters’ assertion that their schools are ignoring their complaints of

discrimination against minorities.

Before long, however, there is a backlash against the protesters themselves with critics

accusing them and their allies of seeking to silence those whose views and statements

they find offensive. This accusation is not exactly new. Like the charge of discrimination

itself, it has been raised many times over many years. But the recent protests have

brought this question back into the foreground. So we are going to test it, to argue it

out, to try to shed some light, because — some light on it, because we think it has the

makings of a debate. So let’s have that debate. Yes or no to this statement: Free

speech is threatened on campus, a debate from Intelligence Squared U.S. We are on

the campus of Yale University with four superbly qualified debaters who will argue for

and against this motion: Free speech is threatened on campus. As always, our debate

will go in three rounds. And then our live audience here at Yale will vote to choose the

winner. And only one side wins. We’re going to ask you to go now to vote your

preliminary position on this motion.

Please go to the keypads at your seat. Take a look at positions number one, two, and

three on the keypad. If you agree with the motion, push number one. That is your

position. Number one is, “Free Speech Is Threatened on Campus,” If you disagree, push

number two. That means that you oppose this motion. You disagree. And if you start

out undecided, push number three. Number three registers you as “undecided.” You

can ignore the other keys. They are not live. And if you push the wrong button, just

correct yourself. Push the right button and the system will lock in your last vote. Okay,

it looks like everybody’s done. Our motion, once again, “Free Speech Is Threatened on

Campus.” We are on the campus of Yale University. However, we are not debating the

events that took place in November 2015 at Yale.

We are talking about a debate that’s taking place on campuses across the country where

a tension has erupted that we are going to try to examine tonight. As always, our

debate goes in three rounds. We’re going to start shortly with round one. But, first,

please let’s meet our team, debating, the team arguing for the motion, “Free Speech Is

Threatened on Campus.” Please, let’s welcome, ladies and gentlemen, Wendy Kaminer.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 5 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

[applause]

And, Wendy Kaminer, you’re a writer. You’re a lawyer. You’re a civil libertarian. You’ve

published eight books. You’ve written a lot about this topic. But to give the audience an

idea of where you’re coming from on the issues, in response to the assertion that is

sometimes made that harassment really is about making someone uncomfortable, you

have declared yourself a harasser because you say, quote, “You strive to make at least a

few people uncomfortable every day.” Does that mean we’re going to be in for an

uncomfortable night with you?

Wendy Kaminer:

Well, I hope to make people a little bit uncomfortable because ideological comfort is not

so different from ideological complacency.

We are, however, on the radio, and that will keep me in bounds.

[laughter]

John Donvan:

Okay. So there are some limits. Ladies and gentlemen, Wendy Kaminer.

[applause]

And, Wendy, please tell us, who is your partner?

Wendy Kaminer:

My partner is the judicious Professor John McWhorter of Columbia University.

John Donvan:

Ladies and gentlemen, John McWhorter.

[applause]

John, you are a professor of linguistics at Columbia, also the author of several books

mostly focused on language, many focused on language, but you are also well known

over the years for your commentary on race and culture. That writing some have

described as quite controversial. But we want to ask you: Is there a shift in tone when

you’re writing about linguistics and when you’re writing about race and culture?

John McWhorter:

Not really, actually it doesn’t get around as much. But I am as unpopular in some

linguistic circles as I am in others. They do not let me join in their reindeer games.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 6 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

[laughter]

And so I guess I’m an equal opportunity controversialist.

John Donvan:

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, John McWhorter and the team arguing for the motion.

[applause]

And that motion, again, “Free Speech Is Threatened on Campus.” We have two

debaters arguing against it. Please welcome Shaun Harper.

[applause]

Shaun, you’re a professor in the Graduate School of Education and executive director of

the Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education at the University of

Pennsylvania. That center does interdisciplinary research on issues of race and

education. But it also acts as a consultant for other campuses. And considering recent

events, we’re wondering how often have other campuses recently reached out for your

consulting?

John McWhorter:

As you might imagine, there has been a significant increase in the demand for our

campus climate work since November. And this past December, we brought together

8,000 college presidents and other senior leaders who came to us for guidance on how

to respond to racism on their campuses.

John Donvan:

Eight thousand.

John McWhorter:

Eight thousand.

John Donvan:

All right, well, it certainly shows there’s interest in there. Ladies and gentlemen, Shaun

Harper.

[applause]

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 7 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

And, Shaun, your partner is?

Shaun Harper:

The brilliant Yale University professor, Jason Stanley.

John Donvan:

Ladies and gentlemen, Jason Stanley.

[applause]

Jason, you’re getting that hometown crowd applause. You’ve written four books, most

recently on — one on social and political philosophy called, “How Propaganda

Works.” And you do teach philosophy here at Yale where, as we’ve said, student

protests have captured the media — captivated the media. We are not going to be

debating the merits — the facts of what happened at Yale. But we do want to ask you at

the opening as a member of this community, what was one thing you think that the

media got wrong?

Jason Stanley:

Well, the media narrative is that our student movement was caused by an email. But to

me, that’s like saying that the French Revolution was caused by a comment by Marie

Antoinette.

John Donvan:

So, there’s more context, is what you’re telling us.

Jason Stanley:

Indeed.

John Donvan:

I think we get that. Ladies and gentlemen, the team arguing against the motion, Free

Speech is Threatened on Campus.

[applause]

Now, this is a contest. It’s a debate. These debaters are trying to persuade our live

audience here at Yale University to vote with their side. The way that we work this is we

have the audience vote twice — once before it has heard the arguments and once again

after the arguments have been made and the debate has wrapped up. And the way we

declare victory is the team whose numbers have changed the most between the first

and the second vote, the difference between the first and the second vote, in

percentage point terms, will be declared our winner. So, remember how you voted just

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 8 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

before the debate began. We’re going to have you vote again right after the debate.

And again, I want to emphasize that it’s the difference between the two votes that

determines who has won our debate. On to Round 1. Round 1 will be opening

statements by each debater in turn. They will be uninterrupted. Those statements will

be six minutes each.

And here to speak first for the motion, Free Speech is Threatened on Campus, I want to

welcome to the lectern Wendy Kaminer. She is a member of the Massachusetts State

Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and adviser to the Foundation

for Individual Rights in Education. Ladies and gentlemen, Wendy Kaminer.

[applause]

Wendy Kaminer:

Thank you. I’m very pleased to be here, and I want to acknowledge at the outset that we

are all here tonight debating free speech because it is still valued on campus. But it is

also true that we are debating free speech because its values are under siege. At the

University of South Carolina, students have been investigated for discrimination for

advocating free speech, for holding a small free speech event, displaying posters

describing recent campus censorship cases. They were investigated after a few students

complained that the posters were offensive and triggering.

At a California college, students had to go to court to vindicate their right to distribute

copies of the Constitution on Constitution Day. These are not anomalous cases. They are

typical. Speech policing of faculty, students, and speakers has become routine. You

could look it up at TheFire.org. For now, I’d like to review some of the ideas behind his

hostility toward free speech. And also, to note the role of government censorship on

private as well as public campuses. My partner, Professor McWhorter, will talk about

how we regard and respond to ideas. He will elaborate on the meaning of free speech.

Campus speech codes date back decades. This is not a new debate. But it has intensified

in recent years, partly in response to guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of

Education.

President Obama has criticized the clampdown on student speech, but his own

administration is responsible for some of it. The Education Department has declared

that Title IX requires all colleges and universities receiving federal funds — which is

basically all of them — to restrict verbal harassment, especially sexual harassment, in

allegedly hostile environments. The trouble is that the administration defined

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 9 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

harassment quite broadly, more broadly than it has been or should be defined under

the First Amendment — so broadly that it may consist of nothing more than speech of a

sexual nature considered unwelcome by some students. Title IX has been turned into an

ad hoc national campus speech code, as the investigation of Northwestern professor

Laura Kipnis has shown. Kipnis was investigated after publishing an article on sexual

politics in the Chronicle of Higher Ed.

She’s a tenured professor who vigorously challenged the investigation and debunked it

in a scathing expose. And she escaped punishment. But it’s easy to imagine the effect of

this on untenured junior faculty. Now, courts may yet decide the legality of these

contested Title IX guidelines, but in the meantime, the government is censoring campus

speech. How did this regime evolve? It is partly a response to concern about free

speech, and campuses struggling with diversity and the problem of sexual violence. It is

practically axiomatic on many campuses that speech considered hateful to

disadvantaged or vulnerable students is a form of discrimination or even violence.

Whenever people want to restrict speech, they call it “verbal conduct.” Free speech is

said to be an instrument of privilege used to silence the relatively powerless.

This means that equality requires the unequal distribution of speech rights, but also

means that the right of listeners not to be offended can be elevated over the right to

speak, which means that your right to speak may defend on the unpredictable,

subjective responses of your audience. But free speech can’t consist simply of what

people don’t mind hearing said. But words are weapons, advocates of restricting hate

speech like to say, and I agree, words are weapons. That’s precisely why we protect

them. Weaponized speech is the ideal form of nonviolent political combat. It is

especially important to people in positions of relative powerlessness. It has fueled

virtually every moment for social change and social justice, including today’s student

protest movements which you might point to as evidence that free speech is thriving on

campus.

The trouble is that so many of these movements aim to punish and suppress other

people’s speech by labeling them “micro aggressions,” “forms of discrimination.” Again,

it’s called “verbal conduct,” or even likening it to violence. But there are essential, it

seems to me, extremely obvious and important differences between the metaphoric

violence of the word and actual violence. And that’s a distinction that is often lost in

these debates. But when you confuse the metaphoric power of allegedly hateful speech

with actual violence — and I think this is important. When you confuse the metaphoric

power of hate speech with actual violence, you risk justifying the use of violence in

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 10 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

response to speech. So I urge you to vote yes on the motion, that free speech is

threatened on campus. And I hope you’ll agree that that is not a good thing. Thank you.

[applause]

John Donvan:

Thank you, Wendy Kaminer. The motion is Free speech is threatened on campus is

threatened on campus. And here to speak against the motion, Jason Stanley. He is the

Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy at Yale University, author of the book, “How

Propaganda Works.” Ladies and gentlemen, Jason Stanley.

[applause]

Jason Stanley:

Wendy, I’m afraid I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you. Free speech is

alive and well in America’s universities as you will see if you walk around this

campus. Debate and discourse in classrooms, dining halls, dormitories, and even drama

school stages, as our gathering tonight proves. Tonight may seem special with the lights

and cameras and a distinguished moderator. But what is truly special is that what we

are doing is what we are supposed to be doing on campus, thinking, arguing, speaking,

listening, agreeing, and disagreeing. And this happens in every imaginable way on

campuses across Connecticut and our nation.

I teach here as do David Brooks, Stan McChrystal and people of all different political

persuasions. We’re on a campus, after all, where one of the most popular courses sings

the praises of Henry Kissinger. I have debated the Yale Political Union in the past year,

so has John Ashcroft and Bob Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute. William F. Buckley’s

debate with Gore Vidal is a tradition to which Yale — we Yalees lay proud claim. I’m a

philosopher, so I’m going to begin where my tribe often begins, with Aristotle. In book

one of “The Politics,” Aristotle says that “the gift of speech is given to us to lay — to lay

out the expedient from the inexpedient, the just from the unjust.” And these lines are

extremely relevant to our current debate. Contemporary students stand accused by

some of violating the liberal idea — ideal of free speech.

In fact, many students are using the gift of speech as we western philosophers were

taught it was meant to lay out the inexpedient and unjust. As Mark Lamont Hill said on

ABC back in November, August 9th, 2014 started everything, right after Michael Brown

was killed in Ferguson. We see protests all around the country. And these young

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 11 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

people haven’t stopped protesting. They haven’t stopped talking, and so we’re raising

other issues. Police killings of unarmed black citizens began to get more media

attention, a catalyst for a social movement that swept the nation, and as always, swept

up our campus, campuses with it. We must consider that it is actually the ones who

criticize these students for being cry bullies who are the threats to free speech.

Some cast today’s campus climate as attention between antiracism and free

speech. This is a false dichotomy. We’ve seen this pattern before. Those guilty of

something often accuse others of the purported crime. We must consider the

possibility that what is really happening is that the language of free speech has been

coopted by dominant social groups, distorted to serve their interests, and used to

silence the marginalized. All too often when people cry for justice and represent that it

threats the free speech, what is really meant is just “be quiet.” A senior philosophy

major told me that my class was the first in which she had encountered any woman or

person of color on the syllabus.

And I’m wondering, what’s a coddled, safe space then? Is it one in which white men like

me are never exposed to the idea that women have minds? Exercising free speech to

urge someone not to say or do racist things is not the denial of the right to say racist

things. When I ask my mother to stop nagging me — which I do a lot — I am not denying

her the freedom of speech. Many of us believe racist statements are false. So when we

call a statement racist, what we’re doing is we’re putting into question a perceived

falsehood. And how could that be in tension with the mission of the university, which is

the pursuit of truth? The act of protesting is not the denial of free speech. It is the

exercise of free speech.

What’s happening on more — on campuses today is more speech, not less. Voices too

often unheard are kept at the margins, are finally being raised and being heard. A

central purpose of the university is to allow disputes that too often happen on the

battlefield to occur in campus — on campus and in classrooms instead. I for one am glad

that robust discourse, sometimes difficult, is taking place on our campuses. When I hear

that student protesters — protests are silencing and intimidating people, I scratch my

head. Students are advocating for open political discussion, sometimes heated, and

justice for all. That is what we philosophers were taught freedom of speech is. As a

philosopher, it is especially fitting that we debate this topic in a forum much like the one

envisages by Aristotle.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 12 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

The resolve is: free speech is threatened on campus. Our very gathering tonight proves

that it’s not. Thank you.

[applause]

John Donvan:

Thank you, Jason Stanley. And a reminder of where we are, we are halfway through the

opening round of this Intelligence Squared U.S. debate. I’m John Donvan. We have four

debaters, two teams of two, fighting it out over this motion: Free speech is threatened

on campus. You have heard the first two opening statements and now on to the

third. I’d like to welcome to the lectern John McWhorter. He is a professor of linguistics

at Columbia University, author of “The Language Hoax: Why the World Looks the Same

in Any Language.” Please welcome John McWhorter.

[applause]

John McWhorter:

Thank you very much. It’s often said, as Jason just reminded us, that students and

professors and administrators who are painting today’s college campuses as “hot beds”

of racism, sexism and other kinds of description, are just whining, are just crybabies.

That is definitely a highly flawed argument. In terms of the protests that we’re seeing,

there are many valuable points. If I had been an undergraduate at Princeton, I would

always have been appalled, whether or not anybody told me to be appalled, at

Woodrow Wilson being emblazoned on buildings. I completely get that. If there is a

culture that would allow someone to say that only white women are allowed at a

fraternity party, well, that should be shouted to the heavens most certainly. And

furthermore, the idea that we’re ever going to have perfectly free speech on a campus is

ridiculous. That is boilerplate for editorials because no college campus worth the name

would have completely free speech. We’re not going to have a debate about whether

or not genocide is okay.

We’re not going to have a debate about whether or not slavery is okay. Those things

are not subject to free speech. We’re going to let those things alone. They are things

that one must let pass. Our problem today is that we’re being taught by many people

that, that zone that genocide and slavery and women occupies is much more crowded

than it is. Many of the things that we’re being told we shouldn’t even discuss and that

the mere discussion of it constitutes a space becoming unsafe are really things which in

an intelligent and moral environment people will reasonably have discussions

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 13 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

about. So, for example, does affirmative action continue forever and for what

reason? One can debate the various places it might go. To bring it up, however, does

not make somebody an immoral person. What is cultural appropriation?

What is the line between cultural appropriation and cultural mixture? That’s a tough

one. It’s subtle. It’s worth debate. It’s not a matter of just shouting people down if a

certain subject comes up or if a certain action is performed. How perfect do we want

society to be in the sociological sense? Micro aggression is real. I’ve written about

it. How do we respond to it? What constitutes a micro aggression? What we’re dealing

with is a general argument which indeed has become higher pitched since Ferguson in

favor of a leftist position. And I am glad. However, what we’re too often being told is

that the leftist position is truth incarnate and that on that position, if on no other one,

there can be no further debate. And that’s problematic. It’s problematic on a campus,

for example, because it’s fundamentally anti-intellectual.

It simply does not involve what most of us would consider cogitation or constructive

thoughts. So, for example, too often language is being misused. Safe space is not an

argument simply because both words begin with S. Black body is not an argument

simply because both words begin with B. The word, “justice,” is not an

argument. Justice is very complicated, as Aristotle told us very well. We have to be

careful how we use language and understand that these things are not, as one might

say, “black and white,” or the idea that, that which offends me is wrong is antiintellectual.

It simply isn’t logically that simple. They give you one because we’re talking

about real things here, the idea that if you are black, which I think I am, and you are in a

classroom and you’re asked to represent the black experience, that, that’s racist, okay.

I remember how that felt. I didn’t like it either. But the idea that, that constitutes a

micro aggression, that, that’s racist, that’s up for debate, given that often affirmative

action is justified on the basis of we, black students, doing exactly that in

classrooms. That’s hard. It’s worth debate. It’s not as simple as we’re being

told. Instead I’m afraid that what we’re seeing on one campus after another is an idea

that shaming people and shutting them down via the ample use of buzzwords and

slogans and sonorous cadence is somehow okay when it comes to espousing a leftist

agenda. It’s as if we’re at the end of ideas. I don’t think that that’s appropriate, and I

highly suspect that a lot of people watching this and listening to this are not scratching

their heads at the idea that this shaming and shutting down is happening.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 14 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

Frankly, there is no possible disagreement. It is happening. The only question is

whether or not that’s justified. Many reasonable people would suppose that it’s not

justified. And for that reason, and only that reason, I think we can say, “Free Speech Is

Being Threatened on College Campuses.” I think you should think so as well. Thank you.

[applause]

John Donvan:

Thank you, John McWhorter. And that is our motion, “Free Speech Is Threatened on

Campus.” And here to make his opening statement against the motion, Shaun Harper, a

professor in the Graduate School of Education, Africana Studies and Gender Studies at

the University of Pennsylvania. Ladies and gentlemen, Shaun Harper.

[applause]

Shaun Harper:

I recently spoke at a large, predominantly white university, where I met Damien [spelled

phonetically], a black undergraduate man who shared with me a disturbing story.

Damien was the only non-white person in a large, 200-person lecture-style engineering

course. It was a very rigorous course, Damien said. At the beginning of one class session,

the professor told seven students who had received perfect scores on a previous test

that they were excused from class and exempt from the remaining exams in the

sequence, which is a really generous deal, right? As the seven students began to gather

their belongings, they walked down the stairs of the lecture hall, one by one. And

according to Damien, they had to walk past the professor’s podium to get out of the

classroom door. Six of them exited the lecture hall uninterrupted.

It was only the seventh, Damien, the only black student in the class, who was stopped

by the professor, who said to him, “Wait, you got 100 percent?” in a tone of shock and

disbelief. Some version of this happens over and over again to students of color on

predominantly white campuses. I repeatedly hear stories like this one at just about

every single institution where we go — the center that I direct at Penn, where we go to

assess the campus racial climate. Damien was embarrassed. He was hurt. But he said

nothing to his professor. Students who participate in our climate studies often tell us

that they say nothing to their professors, to administrators, to campus police officers,

and to their peers when they say hurtful things to them that contaminate their

experience on predominantly white campuses.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 15 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

Proponents of the motion we are debating tonight would likely argue that maybe

Damien was being too sensitive — or for sure, it would have been outrageous, had he

told the professor that what he did to him in that lecture hall that day felt racist to him.

My debate partner, Jason Stanley, and I intend to convince you that it was Damien’s —

not the professor’s — freedom of speech that was suppressed in that moment. What we

saw at the University of Missouri, here at Yale, and on dozens of other predominantly

white campuses across our nation last fall were students of color finally exercising their

freedom of speech.

Ryan Wilson, a Yale undergraduate who is my guest tonight, wrote a beautiful column in

the student newspaper here addressing the Halloween costume incident that occurred

here last semester. Ryan explains in his column that Yale’s InterCultural Affairs

Committee sent out an email encouraging students to consider the unintended

consequences that wearing certain costumes could have on their peers and on the

sense of community here on campus. Notice that Ryan did not say in his column that the

email forbade students from wearing racist or otherwise offensive costumes, but rather

encouraged them to consider the marginalizing effect of their choices on other

students. That’s all. There was no policy that said, “You can’t wear your racist costume.”

It’s just encouraging people to consider the effects of their actions. Jason and I invite our

opponents to present us more than a handful of written, institutional policies — where

it’s been put in writing that you can’t say certain things. You can’t wear certain

costumes. Sure, students would be encouraged to do or not do something. But I, as a

higher education scholar who studied thousands of colleges and universities, have never

seen a written institutional policy. Ryan goes on to say in his column, and I quote, “Many

welcomed the email, glad that Yale administrators were acknowledging the need for

sensitivity. To many students, including myself,” he says, “the email meant that the

voices of minority and marginalized students were finally being heard” end quote. Ryan,

like the now thousands of students of color who participated in my center’s campus

climate studies was not attempting to shut down conversation.

Instead, he wanted the voices of marginalized students like his — like himself, to finally

be heard. When a person of color says that “What you just said to me sounded or felt

racist,” we’re not attempting to shut down the conversation. In fact, it’s exactly the

opposite. We are inviting you to engage with us. We’re inviting you to learn, right? I

mean, it is a university after all. Should this not be the place where one learns that thing

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 16 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

that all Muslims are terrorists and all Mexicans are rapists is extremely

problematic? Surely, John and Wendy do not believe that we should send collegeeducated

persons into the world without some understanding of how their speech and

actions might unknowingly harm others.

John Donvan:

Shaun Harper, I’m sorry, your time is up. Thank you very much.

[applause]

And that concludes round one of this Intelligence Squared U.S. debate where our

motion is: Free speech is threatened on campus. Now we move on to round

two. Round two is a little bit more free form. It’s where the debaters take questions

from me, they address one another directly, and they will take questions from you and

our live audience here at Yale. Our motion is this: Free speech is threatened on

campus. The team arguing for the motion, Wendy Kaminer and John McWhorter, have

painted a picture of college campuses where they say speech policing is routine, where

only certain ideas are considered to have legitimacy. They do not dispute that some

issues are taboo for talking about, teaching about, but that the list has grown, they say

problematically wrong. They argue against making a conflation between speech and

verbal conduct. They say that weaponized speech is in fact the ideal form of nonviolent

combat and that there’s an atmosphere on campuses such that it’s threatening to junior

staff who are not tenured, and worried about what they’re saying getting them into

trouble in terms of their careers.

The team arguing against the motion that free speech is threatened on campus, Jason

Stanley and Shaun Harper, they dispute almost every assertion that their opponents

have made. They say that the episodes of actual censorship, institutional policy are

exceedingly rare. They also argue that the impulse to complain about offensive speech

is not an impulse to silence, but an attempt to improve the quality of conversation to lay

out, they say, the expedient and the unjust. And they suggest because somebody calls

you a racist does not mean that you don’t get to keep talking, that it’s not actually

something that absolutely has to silence you. And on the whole, they make the

argument that free speech has been advanced by the events that have taken place on

college campuses over the last several months. I want to — we have — several kinds of

arguments have been made, including just what are the facts about what is — what are

happening on campuses in terms of the material things that we can see and measure.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 17 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

We’ve heard about the fact that this event is taking place. This is an exercise in free

speech. It — we’ve looked at situations where people have been fired or punished for

things they have said. And I just want to examine some of that. And I want to go to

Wendy Kaminer first. And Jason Stanley laid out the fact that, for example, here at Yale,

he went through a long list of invited speakers whom he argues, quite persuasively,

represent in themselves a broad range of political diversity. And so his challenge to you

is, listen, if Yale or any other university were dedicated to putting forth one point of

view, those speakers would never be on campus. So what’s your response to that?

Wendy Kaminer:

We’re not here arguing absolutes. Neither John nor I are saying that there is no free

speech on campus. We’re saying that there is free speech on campus. There are also

threats to free speech on campus.

We’ve seen a lot of cases of speakers, for example, being disinvited, either under

pressure from students, disinvited by the administration. Shaun, I think, challenged us

to come up with —

John Donvan:

Right. He said you only have a handful of instances where it’s an institutional policy.

Wendy Kaminer:

There are about — about half of the colleges and universities in this country have speech

codes that prohibit some form of offensive speech. The terms are very vague. It’s

either “offensive, demeaning, derogatory,” sometimes the speech code refers to

“jokes.” Sometimes they just refer to “gestures.” You know, Shaun, I’m sorry that I

can’t name them all off now. There are hundreds of them. There are too many to

memorize.

John Donvan:

All right. Let’s let Shaun —

Wendy Kaminer:

But if you go to thefire.org and do a search for speech codes, you will find them.

John Donvan:

All right, so, Shaun, your opponent, Wendy Kaminer is saying that it’s far broader than a

handful.

Shaun Harper:

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 18 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

Sure. So codes are meant to guide, they’re not policies. And furthermore –

Wendy Kaminer:

No, they are policies.

Shaun Harper:

Okay, well, furthermore, then, so these policies, when they’re written, they’re often

intended to not cross the line to hate speech and to not cross the line of persistent

harassment. They’re not just little silly jokes that one could make about

someone. That’s not what these speech codes how.

Wendy Kaminer:

But that’s how they’re sometimes enforced. Can I give you one example?

John Donvan:

Sure, one example.

Wendy Kaminer:

A Brandeis professor, a tenured Brandies professor, been there for many years, was

subject to a secret investigation for racial harassment, found secretly guilty of racial

harassment because he uttered the term “wetback” in class in the course of explaining

its use as a pejorative. That’s not an unusual case. We see cases like this all the time.

John Donvan:

Okay, let me stop you there and ask Jason Stanley. Is it — your opponents are saying

that it’s not unusual. You’re making the argument these are outlier cases.

Jason Stanley:

These are outlier cases, clearly. There’s a huge literature in my discipline of philosophy

on slurs, and there’s two different theoretical positions that if you are using the slur,

then you — then — then you also aren’t — if you’re mentioning the slur, just, you know,

you’re talking about the word, then you’re still slurring, and the other view says, “No,

you’re not slurring.” So I have been at a million talks, discussions. I’ve taught classes

where I and others have used many slurs. I’ve taught at five different university

campuses, from state universities to Ivy League campuses. So I’m just not seeing the

point about slurring. And some of the other cases — can I address one case that Wendy

mentioned in her opening remarks?

John Donvan:

All right. And after that I want to get to John McWhorter.

Jason Stanley:

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 19 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

So the Laura Kipnis case, which I just think, having been connected to the philosophy

department at Northwestern University, the — which is a complicated sexual

harassment case that involved many people in my discipline, it’s been factually

misrepresented in the media.

Kipnis was asked to retract factual claims about a very sensitive, complex sexual

harassment case that involved members of my community. And I believe she shouldn’t –

– they shouldn’t have asked the administration to legally do this. But I think to take that

very complicated personal case and use it as some kind of example is wrong to —

John Donvan:

All right. Let me bring back — bring it back to John McWhorter. And this — this issue of

whether we’re talking about outlier cases or a general and powerful trend.

John McWhorter:

Jason and Shaun, I think we might be talking about different things, because it seems to

that, really, this debate should be about whether or not certain things that are

undeniably going on are justified or not.

And so, for example, if the president of Claremont McKenna has to resign because she

has been arguing in favor of bringing disadvantaged students in, but says we need to

bring students in who don’t fit the mold, and that’s determined to be hate speech,

clearly, whether or not there was any actual code that stipulated this, there’s something

going on. Now, the idea that that was just an exception seems rather odd when I’m just

assuming that our audience here, both physical and virtual, are here because we’ve

been reading the news for the past year —

John Donvan:

But John —

John McWhorter:

— and we’ve seen so many of these episodes, such that in addition to — very quickly. I

lost count of how many students in my office at Columbia I’ve had tell me that the

atmosphere chills them in terms of feeling they can talk about these things. And we

read about this in the newspaper all the time on campus —

John Donvan:

All right. Let me bring it back to Shaun Harper. So your opponents are arguing that the

cases they’re citing are tip of the iceberg. And we may reach an impasse on this, where

you simply say no.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 20 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

Shaun Harper:

Yeah, I couldn’t disagree more.

I mean, listen, there are over 5,000 colleges and universities in the country, and many of

their presidents say reckless things, and they are not being called to resign or demanded

to resign as was the case that you laid out at Claremont McKenna. So I agree with my

debate partner here that the examples that are being cited are — they’re outliers. And I

would love to know how the story concludes with the Brandis professor. Was the

person fired? So the person was apparently, secretly investigated for saying these

things. Well, you know, I met a student last week who told me that his professor, on the

first day of class, looked into the audience and said, “I want all of the pretty women to

sit in the first two rows of class.” That professor — somebody should probably pull him

aside and say that, you can’t say these kinds of things to women because not only is it

offensive to the women, it’s also instructive to everyone else in the audience, all of the

men. It says to the men that, yeah, it’s okay for you to leave from here and go off into

the world and become a Congress person or a CEO or something, and say these things

to women, without any sort of consequence. So —

John Donvan:

[inaudible]

Male Speaker:

— yeah.

[laughter]

John Donvan:

John McWhorter just said he feels he’s being mischaracterized.

Do you want to yield to your partner or do you want to take that, John?

Wendy Kaminer:

I will yield to him for a moment, and then I want to make a point.

[talking simultaneously]

John Donvan:

That means they get two in a row–

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 21 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

John McWhorter:

Shaun, I am all in favor of educating people about these sorts of things. The sorts of

things you’re talking about certainly should not go on. But the question here, the

analogy is somebody who trashes the kitchen every time they make a meal and then

somebody comes in and defends them, saying, “Well, they should be able to eat,” the

issue is degree. Yes, people should be taught not to say these disgusting sorts of

things. But the sorts of careers that are being wrecked, the people who are being

disinvited from campus after campus for wanting to say rather reasonable things,

there’s a new mood in the air. And I don’t think it does this debate any good to pretend

that that mood has been something created by NPR and the New York Times.

John Donvan:

Very briefly, Wendy.

Wendy Kaminer:

I just want to say quickly that —

[applause]

— I think in many ways we’re talking past each other.

You guys have suggested that we are somehow saying that student protests are

violations of free speech. I strongly defend the right of students to protest anything

they want to protest in however many uncivil terms they want to use. The problem is

that a lot of these protests are aimed not at trying to convince other people not to use

certain kinds of language but to try to get them punished for using language, to try to

get administrative sanctions, to — you know, that — to try to enforce these multiple

speech codes that prohibit this kind of language.

John Donvan:

Okay, any truth to that? Let me bring in Jason Stanley.

[applause]

Jason Stanley:

So it is true that campus codes did make the 13 list. If you look at all the student

demands across the country, in the top 13 campus codes, a demand for campus codes

was 12th, mentioned by a tiny fraction. But I just want to mention what I think is the

underlying issue here, and it’s hit by John in his opening remarks, leftism.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 22 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

As usual, leftism, the idea that leftism is a threat, that leftism is threatening free speech,

this is not a new point.

[laughter]

And the claim — as a leftist, I can tell you — I can tell you — Noam Chomsky told me he

has never been invited to a political science department to speak despite his many,

many books. It — sure, there’s a problem of leftism in physics departments that only

have 5 percent Republicans. But I think that it’s very telling what the issue is. It’s always

tough to be confronted with one’s political views. All of us on the right or the left, you

know, it’s tough. As a leftist, my students who are conservative confront me. And it’s

tough, and I’m embarrassed. And I’m saying — I say, “I’m sorry. I’m going to try to not

do that agenda,” and I go home.

And I get hate mail for my political views. That’s what happens in political debate.

John Donvan:

And you’re saying that hate mail does not silence you. Your point is that the criticism is

not — is not — does not have the effect of silencing.

Jason Stanley:

My family — my wife here would like me to back off some of my leftist speech. And so —

John Donvan:

Okay, but let me take that point then to John McWhorter, because you and Wendy have

made the argument that if a person is accused after making a statement of being racist,

that, that has an almost — it almost enforces silence, that, that person —

Wendy Kaminer:

No, no.

John Donvan:

You’re not saying that?

Wendy Kaminer:

No, no. I’m —

John Donvan:

Because you talked about shaming, you talked about the power of shaming.

Wendy Kaminer:

No, I — no, I didn’t talk about the power of shaming.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 23 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

John Donvan:

John?

[laughter]

Wendy Kaminer:

I — look, I’ve been accused of being a racist —

John Donvan:

I have the word, “shaming,” written down in my pretty good notes.

[laughter]

Wendy Kaminer:

I don’t think it was from me. I’ve been accused of being a racist. That’s fine. I mean, I

don’t really mind when people call me names because I think they’re mostly discrediting

themselves. What we’re saying is, is that when you ask that someone who you consider

has made a racist remark be officially punished for that remark, that’s a violation of free

speech —

John Donvan:

So you’re — so —

Wendy Kaminer:

— and that happens very often.

[applause]

John Donvan:

So you’re talking about administrative action — the request for administrative action,

you are not talking about a chilling atmosphere of just attitudes and —

Wendy Kaminer:

Well, I talked about the chilling atmosphere when I was talking about an official Title IX

investigation.

John Donvan:

Right. Okay.

Wendy Kaminer:

That’s a different issue.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 24 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

John Donvan:

All right. Somebody over here used the word, “shaming,” and the “power of

shaming.” I think it was you, John.

John McWhorter:

Yes.

John Donvan:

Thank you for confessing it.

John McWhorter:

Yeah.

[laughter]

Jason, I love the left. It’s not that the left is wrong. The problem is when the idea seems

to be that if you don’t agree with the leftist position, then you are ignorant at best and

immoral at worst. I’m claiming that that is the new environment. But more to the

point, when someone, Shaun, is told that they’re a racist — and I don’t know if we’re all

going to admit this or not — yes, I did write a piece saying that antiracism is America’s

new religion because it is. When someone is called a racist in America in 2016, it is

practically equivalent to calling them a pedophile.

Therefore, when you call someone a racist, you’re effectively silencing all but the

bravest people who most enjoy an argument. That’s just the point. Call somebody a

racist, you’ve shut them down. And it’s happening a lot.

John Donvan:

Shaun Harper.

[applause]

Shaun Harper:

I almost don’t know where to begin here. I have, way too much. So, I want to go to this

notion of people being punished for saying certain things.

John Donvan:

Before you do that, the — if you don’t mind —

Shaun Harper:

Yeah.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 25 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

John Donvan:

— there — John’s statement on the racist shaming issue is hanging out there and it’s

pretty powerful. If you can maybe — I think Jason would like to —

Shaun Harper:

No, I —

John Donvan:

— definitely would like to take — you know —

Shaun Harper:

I can take it.

Jason Stanley:

Okay.

Shaun Harper:

I’m ready for it. Right?

John Donvan:

Okay.

Shaun Harper:

The thing is, that when someone says what you are saying or doing feels racist, or sexist,

or homophobic, to me, the person who hears that shuts him or herself down. Right? No

one’s saying that, “Well, you can’t keep talking. Shut up.”

No — but the person who is being held accountable for saying something hurtful to

someone else shuts him or herself down, silences him or herself. Right? That’s what

happens.

Jason Stanley:

Could I just have one quick thing on this?

John Donvan:

Yes. They’re going to get two in a row. But go for it.

Jason Stanley:

I think the debate — I think it’s not clear what the debate is about. It’s not free speech.

It’s about racism and anti-racism. And free speech really doesn’t have anything to do

with it.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 26 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

John Donvan:

All right. Let’s go —

[applause]

— let’s let the other side respond. Wendy Kaminer.

Wendy Kaminer:

We’re focusing on racism tonight partly because so many of the recent protests have

been anti-racist protests. And I don’t think any of us would disagree with you, Shaun,

about the really bad climate on some campuses, and about the kind of bias that some

students experience. I don’t think any of us are saying that’s not real. I don’t think any of

us are saying that’s something that shouldn’t be protested. We’re simply saying

something very different.

We’re saying, when you effectively protest that, by saying that whatever we consider

“bias speech” should be outlawed, then you’re posing a threat to free speech. But I also

want to point out that when we talk about speech being restricted on campus, we’re

not just talking about speech that’s involved in these battles about racism. We’re talking

about students and faculty being punished for criticizing the administration. We’re

talking about, you know, people just making stupid jokes. I mean — and this goes back

20 years. We’re not talking about a recent phenomenon. So, I think we can get a little

sidetracked. If our subject is free speech, I think we can get a little sidetracked if we

focus too much on racism on campus, because that’s not the only place this comes up.

It’s coming up a lot in claims about sexual harassment and sexual violence as well.

John Donvan:

Okay. I was going to — John, do you want to yield to the other side, or would you like to

join in? Because I wanted to —

John McWhorter:

You know, John, actually, I think — to be constructive — I just want to throw something

in here, because I don’t want to be misinterpreted and I don’t want Wendy to be

misinterpreted.

I think it’s time for a brief anecdote. It is fall of 1984. I’m at Rutgers University. I walk

into an intermediate German class. First thing that the teacher says is, “I think you’ve

got the wrong class.” No. There could only have been one reason. It was quite clear —

that woman hated me for the whole semester. Now, this was straight up racism. Now,

to be honest, I didn’t walk around crying. I didn’t remember it for a very long time. I kind

of enjoyed how backwards she was, and now she’s dead and I’m sitting here. That —

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 27 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

[laughter]

[applause]

— that’s —

John Donvan:

You —

John McWhorter:

— a whole other thing, what’s — how do you respond to these things? But more to the

point. If that happened to my daughter today, I would hope she would complain. So, I’m

not saying that these sorts of things are not to be talked about, and where something

really nasty happens, it is not to be shouted to the heavens.

John Donvan:

Shaun Harper.

Shaun Harper:

Wendy, it could be that maybe we’re talking to completely different students and

hearing completely different things, because quite honestly, when we have students in

our studies who are talking with us about the realities of race on their campuses — by

the way, our studies also include white undergraduates. We want to hear white

students talk about the racial climate as well. But when we hear students of color

unpack these painful stories and these micro aggressions and stereotypes, and other

things that have happened to them, we ask them, “What is it that you want the

institution to do?” Never once — not once have I heard them say anything about a

speech code.

Wendy Kaminer:

Can I get —

Shaun Harper:

They want the curriculum to reflect their humanity. They want —

[applause]

— they want the consciousness of their professors and their peers to be raised so that

people don’t do this to future generations of students of color on their

campuses. That’s what they want. They don’t say a thing to me about speech codes.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 28 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

Wendy Kaminer:

Can I get a —

John Donvan:

Just one second.

I just want to say this. I want to remind you that we are in the question-and-answer

section of this Intelligence Squared U.S. debate. I’m John Donvan, your moderator. We

have four debaters two, teams of two, debating this motion: Free speech is threatened

on campus. Wendy Kaminer.

Wendy Kaminer:

Quick example. A protest at Amherst college fairly recently, students demanded that

other students who put up posters saying “All Lives Matter,” be punished. Let me — can

I just quickly read you a couple of examples? Duke University protesters demand that

fac — I’m paraphrasing — faculty staff, nonacademic employees be put in danger of

losing their jobs and nontenure track faculty will lose tenure status if they perpetuate

hate speech that threatens the safety of students of color.

John Donvan:

[unintelligible]

Wendy Kaminer:

You know, that’s — I’m talking about what students are demanding. And I’m — and we’re

talking about free speech.

We’re talking about students’ regard for free speech. When you ask that people be fired

because they’ve been statements that you considered hateful, you’re not showing a lot

of regard for free speech. You’re showing a threat to free speech on campus. When

you ask that —

John Donvan:

Okay.

Wendy Kaminer:

The University of California not long ago put out a list of micro aggressions, things that

people weren’t supposed to say.

John Donvan:

Let’s let Jason —

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 29 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

Jason Stanley:

Wendy, with all due respect, you’re not on a college campus. I’m at Yale, I know — our

conservative students our party of the right, our party of the left. I respect all of these

students deeply, and that they can’t engage in these debates, that they can’t stand up

for themselves, well, that’s — that’s a little bit patronizing. And our students, both from

our — the conservative students and our leftist students, I learn from them every day,

and I learn from their debates every day. And I just don’t think they should be taught —

John Donvan:

Okay. I want to go to —

Wendy Kaminer:

Sounds like you’re putting words in my mouth.

John Donvan:

I want to go to —

Wendy Kaminer:

I didn’t say they couldn’t stand up —

John Donvan:

I want to go to audience questions in just a moment. The way that will work again, if

you raise your hand, I’ll call on you.

I’m sorry if there’s not a — you don’t have a back light shining on your head. I can’t see

you, so it’s going to be sort of the front 80 percent of the audience that I can see. And

wait for a microphone to come to you. But while you’re getting ready to formulate your

question, I just want to go to one more area that was touched on in the opening

states. And that was the whole area of substance of what can be discussed, the actual

topics that can be discussed. And I want to go to Shaun Harper. Your opponent, John

McWhorter suggested that, yes, there are lists of — yes, you can put together a list of

topics that — that more or less would be considered taboo, and that everybody

agrees. But he says there’s a — there’s a whole area where he would want a

pushback. And he used the example of, can there be a discussion on campus of the

effectiveness of affirmative action and continuing affirmative action. He said that that’s

an off-limits topic in his view on campus today. Do you agree with that? Is there

something like — would that be considered off limits for discussion and debate?

Shaun Harper:

I disagree with that. There are students on hundreds of campuses who are talking

about affirmative action now.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 30 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

Like literally like right now, probably while we’re here at this debate, somebody is

talking about affirmative action on a campus somewhere. I — no. And, you know, when

John said that, I wrote in my notes here, “How do we determine which topics aren’t up

for debate? And who gets to determine?”

John Donvan:

Great question. John?

John McWhorter:

That is a agreeing with me. It is a question whereas you’re saying that affirmative action

is being talked about and, if I may, Shaun, you’re pretending that people are just sitting

and sipping tea and talking about it, whereas we both know — both of us live on college

campuses — that the major tone of the way it’s spoken about beyond a certain small and

beleaguered feeling rightist circle is that anybody who questions affirmative action in a

real way is either ignorant and they need to learn some facts, or if they learn the facts,

and they still disagree with somebody who is liberal or even further on the left, then

they’re immoral, then they want a kind of society that would frighten us, and words like

fascist are tossed around.

That’s the simple truth, there is a groaning bookshelf full of reports of this. There are

millions of articles. That is the way it’s constructed, and that’s what Wendy and I are

complaining about.

John Donvan:

Let’s let Jason respond.

Jason Stanley:

So as somebody who defends leftist positions and is called a communist, an extremist,

you know, irrational, I’m used to this. Anyone who takes a position on a political issue is

sensitive to the insults that are directed against this. This debate is not about free

speech. It’s about leftism because it’s being claimed that one side — that the slights

against conservative positions are somehow more damning and more felt. We all feel

them. Our —

[applause]

John McWhorter:

Jason, imagine the things I’ve been called.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 31 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

Jason Stanley:

Yeah.

John Donvan:

Let’s let — very briefly, we’re going to go to questions, and I want to let this side respond

if you want to, Wendy, or we can go to questions.

Wendy Kaminer:

Oh…

John Donvan:

You can resist.

Wendy Kaminer:

You know, I — we keep coming back to the same kind of disconnect. And we have — I

think the problem is that we have a very basic difference of fact. I mean —

John Donvan:

Okay, I’m going to interrupt you there because you have made that point, and I think

maybe that is what’s going on significantly. But let’s go to some questions now out

there, if you raised your hand. I see, in the third, fourth row, gentleman. And the mic’s

coming down the aisle to your left side. If you could stand up, tell us your name, and

get out a question, please.

Male Speaker:

Hi, I’m Matt. Thanks so much for being here tonight. Mr. Harper, I know there’s two

anecdotes stuck a lot with me. And I think a lot of people — pretty much everyone

would agree that the comments you made were asinine, it was wrong. But do you think

there’s a difference between speech made in a social setting without any academic

intent or where the cases that the pro side brought up were tenured professors being

censored for comments made in an academic setting. And can we censor or stop or

limit one type of speech without affecting the other type of speech?

Shaun Harper:

Thanks for your question, Matt. To be sure, I don’t want anyone’s speech to be

suppressed in any setting. So even at a fraternity party, if someone said something that

sounds a bit off color, I would want one of his fraternity brothers or someone at his

party or whatever, to engage him in a conversation about it, not with the goal of

shutting him down, but to actually — again, we’re on a college campus. And fraternities

are on college campuses, so I would want this to be a space where even peer teaching

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 32 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

and learning and engagement is happening. So I think that this should happen

everywhere. I’m not saying that, you know, again, we can’t talk about things like

affirmative action. What I am saying is that if you have a, perhaps, seemingly unpopular

view about affirmative action, don’t shut yourself down. Don’t just withdraw from the

conversation because you’re scared that no one is going to like your position.

You know, put your position in there. Continue to fiercely debate it.

John Donvan:

Would this side like to respond? John McWhorter.

John McWhorter:

We’re hearing tonight, ladies and gentlemen, that the left feels beleaguered on

America’s college campuses.

[laughter]

John McWhorter:

Just take that in.

John Donvan:

Another question, please. Right in the center. And if you could stand up, then they see

where the mic is. Thanks. And it’ll come to you. By the way, Matt, that was a great —

greatly shaped question. That was 27 seconds, and it had a question at the end.

[laughter]

Thank you.

Jason Stanley:

John, can I just respond quickly to the point about the left that he just made, just very

quickly? My point was that everyone feels beleaguered on college campuses.

Male Speaker:

But they don’t feel equally beleaguered.

Wendy Kaminer:

And they don’t necessarily look to sanction the people who are beleaguering them.

John Donvan:

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 33 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

You can sit down for a while. I think —

Female Speaker:

I’m feeling beleaguered, actually, at the moment.

[laughter]

Female Speaker:

Thank you. I — I mean, I’ve been front, but I do not have all the facts. But I’m wanting to

ask about the continuation of the Halloween episode from here at Yale and the

professor who responded to that email and then I think was very forcefully asked — you

said students haven’t been asking their professors to shut up.

John Donvan:

You know, I’m —

Female Speaker:

Sorry, anyway. So what — what is the story with that and —

John Donvan:

On that, too, I’m going to pass on the question, and here’s why. We would need to do a

whole half hour on the show. And throwing in a question would — the — our podcast

viewers would need so much background to make some sense of a 35 second answer.

Female Speaker:

To reshape that —

John Donvan:

Go for it.

Female Speaker:

I guess the end point is, do you as professors, all of you, honestly feel that there is

nothing that you could say, that students could then call for your resignation and that

might end up calling for you to resign.

John Donvan:

That’s a nice question. Is there a line — can we make that a little more — do you mind if I

rephrase it as — is there a line beyond which professors can be so offensive that it’s

actually justified for students to demand their resignation and if possible get their

demand satisfied? And does that scare you? Jason Stanley?

Jason Stanley:

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 34 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

I’m in a field where people argue there’s only one thing, so, you know, I’m used to

extreme views being debated. My colleague at — my former colleague at Rutgers

argued that we should extinguish all carnivorous animals. I mean, no. I’m not afraid and

never have been.

John Donvan:

Shaun Harper.

Shaun Harper:

I’ve taught at three universities now. And never did someone hand me a handbook that

said, “Here’s what you can and can’t say.” Honestly, unless something just like really

falls into the category of persistent hate speech and persistent harassment, I can’t even

imagine. I don’t know a colleague, I don’t know a person at any of the three places

where I’ve been a professor who’s been fired for saying things.

John Donvan:

Okay, Wendy Kaminer.

Wendy Kaminer:

FIRE has a recent case just out of Louisiana where a teacher —

John Donvan:

Just remind the podcast listeners what FIRE is because it sounds like you’re yelling

—

Wendy Kaminer:

Okay, I’m sorry, yes.

John Donvan:

— “fire” in a crowded theater and…

[laughter]

Wendy Kaminer:

The Foundation — yelling it falsely in a crowded theater.

John Donvan:

Yes, yeah, falsely.

Wendy Kaminer:

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which fights for speech rights and due

process rights on campus — has this — a case coming out of a Louisiana state college

involving a teacher of longstanding who — I think it’s a teachers’ college, she teaches

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 35 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

people how to be teachers — she’s been fired or denied promotion because a couple of

students in her class objected to what they thought was crude language. She is now

suing the State of Louisiana. Students have a right to demand anything they want to

demand.

But — and here’s where we have another problem that we haven’t discussed. Shaun has

mentioned hate speech a couple of times. I bet the four of us would have different

definitions of hate speech. I bet — I don’t know how many of you are out there, but I bet

there are almost as many definitions of hate speech as there are of you out there. And

that’s one of the problems with trying to restrict speech is that it’s very hard to come up

with objective narrow standards for speech that should and shouldn’t be

permitted. And what we’re seeing on campus now are some very expansive notions of

what constitutes something that should be just, you know, out of bounds racist speech

or sexist speech or homophobic speech. It’s what John was referring to in his opening

when he said that there are so many things now that are put in the category of

advocating genocide as things that should be beyond the pale. And that’s the problem

with a lot of these speech codes which are enforced.

John Donvan:

Okay. Let me bring Shaun in and then I want to go back to questions.

[applause]

Shaun Harper:

Wendy, for the first time tonight here’s where we may find agreement. I bet if we

brought together a group of women and a group of men and asked them to make us

lists of what characterizes sexism and misogyny, I bet those lists would look very

different. And that — you know, it —

Wendy Kaminer:

So what?

Shaun Harper:

— it would be wrong of us to say that —

[laughter]

— it would be wrong of us to say that the women are overreacting or that they don’t

have a right to suggest that —

[applause]

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 36 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

— men understand the boundaries of what qualifies as gender harassment and as

sexism.

John Donvan:

I need to go to more questions, Shaun. Can — thank you for that. I’d like to get a little

further up in the back because I’ve been short shifting. At the edge of the aisle, I’m —

yeah, yeah. You just looked over. You’re the person. Thanks.

Female Speaker:

All right. Hi. I work as a residential advisor in student dorms, and I feel like that’s one of

the places where free speech is most important.

In my role, I’ve been asked to take posters off students’ doors. I’ve also been asked to

report the speech of my residents to supervisors who would then be asked to go into a

meeting. I was wondering if all of you could comment on the role of free speech in

residential dorms at our universities.

John McWhorter:

I would only say that —

John Donvan:

John McWhorter.

John McWhorter:

— what you just described is yet another brick in the wall we’re building, showing that

the sorts of things Wendy’s referring to are not just one-offs, that we’re talking about a

general American climate that demands address. And the climate is one in which free

speech is not eliminated — that wasn’t the point — is free speech being

threatened? Once again, your question has suggested that the answer is, “Yes.”

John Donvan:

Jason Stanley.

Jason Stanley:

So I am not really super qualified to speak about residential dorms. I am in a field where

affirmative — I am shocked by some of the discussions — examples being used because

in my field affirmative action is regularly discussed in applied ethics classes.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 37 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

But when I — I mean, my view as a human being is that if I do go back to my kitchen or

something and someone still wants to argue with me or yell at me, you know, I can

reasonably ask them just, you know, “I want to play with my four-year-old.” But that’s

not an official position about residents — resident houses and what should be. I am

generally against any of that.

John Donvan:

Okay. Shaun, I’ll come back to you. Wendy Kaminer and then Shaun.

Wendy Kaminer:

I was interested in what you said because I think that you mentioned something about

being asked to report instances of offensive speech. That is a big problem. We’re

seeing increasing anonymous reporting. The case that I mentioned at Brandeis was a

case of anonymous reporting, a secret investigation. You know, we’re sort of at risk of

developing a society of student informants.

John Donvan:

Shaun Harper.

[applause]

Shaun Harper:

What we have to keep in mind is that there are tuition-paying, residence hall fee-paying

students who all live in the residence halls. So, we have to have some care for the full

community, not just a handful, right? And again, I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be

able to put whatever they want to put on their doors. But we at least need to talk about

the effects of putting those things on their doors or wherever on the other people who

live there, people who may come from marginalized and oppressed groups. You

certainly — I am sure of it — don’t want to move into a neighborhood when you leave

here from Yale — and have just some ridiculous flags flying from your house and not at

least know that it’s offensive to your neighbors. Now, no one may make you take your

flag down, but you probably at least want to have some awareness that you are about

to go into the world and put certain symbols on places where you live in community

with others that could offend them. That’s all.

[applause]

John Donvan:

Right down in front here. Gentleman, third in.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 38 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

Male Speaker:

Hi. Thank you. My name is Eli. I’m a senior here at Yale. This question is directed to

Professor Stanley. You mentioned John Ashcroft as one of the people with very diverse

views that was invited here. But actually, there was a Facebook group to protest his

speech, and saying he shouldn’t be allowed to speak at Yale because his views are so

controversial. So, is that an example of shining free speech or a threat on free speech?

John Donvan:

What a clever question?

Jason Stanley:

Yes.

John Donvan:

Well done.

[applause]

Jason Stanley:

The people — free speech allows us to protest people coming to campus. That’s part of

free speech. You know, if you restricted Facebook pages like that, you would be against

free speech.

[applause]

Shaun Harper:

Yes. Yes. What he just said. Exactly.

Wendy Kaminer:

But — you know —

Shaun Harper:

No, listen. I get invited to dozens of college campuses every year to give speeches.

Maybe there’s a Facebook group that doesn’t want me there, right? But it would be a

threat to free speech to say that those students couldn’t have that —

John McWhorter:

Guys, you really —

John Donvan:

John McWhorter.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 39 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

John McWhorter:

You’re really misunderstanding the point here. I hate to put it this way, but you’re being

a little ahistorical. If someone says, “John Ashcroft shouldn’t come,” that’s what we’re

talking about, because an alternate way of doing it — and the way it would have been

about 20 years ago — was John Ashcroft would have come, and either he would have

been heckled — and we can talk about that — or people would have listened to him to

get a sense of the devil — if they thought of it that way. They would have heard

somebody they disagreed with and seen how those arguments were made, and then

went back to their dorm, and did their work. The idea that he’s not supposed to come is

exactly the kind of threat we’re talking about. Whether or not it happened doesn’t

matter.

[applause]

John Donvan:

Do you — Wendy?

Wendy Kaminer:

No. It’s — of course students have a right to say he’s not allowed to come. But to do that

shows an intolerance for free speech. It suggests that — and you’ll hear this kind of

language, “He shouldn’t come because it violates our safe space.” “He shouldn’t come

because it’s harassing.” We had the example of a debate about rape culture at Brown

University between two feminists, which was protested as violating the safety of

survivors of sexual assault. And so, they established a separate room for people to go to

so that they could have some comfort while this debate was going on. You know, they

had a right to do that, but it shows an intolerance for free speech, you know —

John Donvan:

Let me stop you right there.

Wendy Kaminer:

— a desire not to hear —

John Donvan:

Let me —

Wendy Kaminer:

— opposing views.

John Donvan:

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 40 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

Let me stop you right there and ask the other side that question, which is why I like the

question. Does that position of the students, “Do not have John Ashcroft on our

campus” — does that reflect an intolerance of free speech?

Jason Stanley:

I —

John Donvan:

Jason Stanley.

Jason Stanley:

That specific position reflects an intolerance of free speech. And we don’t know how

many students were on the Facebook page. But I am a free speech absolutist. And

people are really coming dangerously close to asking that no such Facebook post pages

be made. And I really think, for any speaker, students have the right to protest that

speaker’s coming.

Wendy Kaminer:

Well, that is something we all agree upon.

John Donvan:

And that concludes Round 2 of this Intelligence Squared U.S. debate, where our motion

is: Free Speech is Threatened on Campus.

[applause]

Now, please remember how you voted. We’re about to move on to our brief closing

round. We’re going to have you vote immediately after this round. And again, we’ll have

the results quickly. And it’s the team whose numbers have changed the most in

percentage point terms between the first and second code will be declared our winner.

On to round three, closing statements from each debater in turn. They will be two

minutes each. Our motion is this: Free speech is threatened on campus. Here making

her closing statement supporting the motion, Wendy Kaminer, an author, lawyer, and

civil Libertarian.

Wendy Kaminer:

We have just been talking about an intolerance for speakers with dissenting views. A

few days ago, I spoke to Zachary Wood, who is a Williams College sophomore who runs

the controversial Uncomfortable Learning series. Recently, the president of Williams

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 41 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

summarily canceled an appearance by an Uncomfortable Learning speaker who was

charged with making racist remarks. Zachary is an African-American who identifies as a

liberal Democrat. He’s also a strong proponent of free speech. He wants to expose

himself and other students with dissenting, even obnoxious views. It’s a matter, he

says, of preparing students to articulate differences of opinion. Now people tend to

resort to name calling instead.

And in fact, some of the same students who protest the Uncomfortable Learning series

as harassing or threatening have vilified Zach as an Uncle Tom and targeted him with

implicit threats, he reports. Twice, he’s received notes under his door saying, “You will

see your blood in the leaves.” A Facebook posting said, “We need the oil and the switch

to deal with him at this midnight hour.” He says what’s most distressing about that are

the number of likes he sees posted by other black students. “They talk about me with

slave dialect,” he says. Zach says that he gets private expressions of support from other

students who say they don’t want to speak out publicly. This is what happens when you

demonize expression of unwelcome views. You create communities of frightened

conformists. Williams College is not an outlier. Zachary Wood is an outlier who

practices what many on campus only preach, a consistent commitment to free speech.

And so I ask you to recognize Zachary’s experience, to recognize the experiences of

other students like him and vote yes on the motion.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Wendy Kaminer.

[applause]

The motion is: Free speech is threatened on campus. And here making his close can

statement against this motion, Jason Stanley, professor of philosophy at Yale University.

Jason Stanley:

I want to again return to my view of what a university is. It’s a place where we replace

disputes that usually used to take place or usually do take place on the battlefield with

disputes that take place in the classroom. That means that those disputes are going to

hurt, and they’re going to wound, and they’re going to be personal. And that is what it

is to be a university. So when people talk of shaming, I mean, it’s tough, and we have to

have to have tolerance for each other, and we have to understand that this is what

political debate is about.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 42 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

College campuses are not where things are going wrong. I mean, diversity is being

discussed everywhere. The Oscars just happened. I mean — am I really understanding

what’s going on? The college campuses are the only place discussing diversity? Yet on

college campuses, there’s some specific problem? Free speech is not threatened by

students voicing their concerns about social justice issues, even in strongly emotional

terms. It’s threatened by calling those people bullies, representing them as

authoritarians and really frightening and like North Korea. It’s threatened by

representing claims of injustice as psychiatric problems and weaknesses. And it’s

threatened by belittling the students’ ability to tolerate debate, often emotional, often

tough, with each other.

And I think that’s what we see on college campuses today. I’ve learned from all my

students, from all different political perspectives, so I urge you to vote against the

motion.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Jason Stanley.

[applause]

John Donvan:

That motion again, Free speech is threatened on campus. Here making his closing

statement in support, John McWhorter. He’s a professor of linguistics at Columbia

University.

John McWhorter:

You know what this comes down to? This is a matter of fact that the format of this

debate is such that Wendy and I could not, within the time that we are allotted, give you

the crushing weight of episodes such that we could make it clear that there’s been a

change in atmosphere on college campuses that does threaten, not extinguish, threaten

free speech over the past 10 years. We can’t do it. But, frankly, you guys know most of

the data.

Now, I want us to watch out for a certain argumentational feint that one sees, the plural

of anecdotes isn’t data that, that really what you’ve just heard is a few outlying

circumstances. No. I want you to make a comparison. If you had heard tonight exactly

as many anecdotes about episodes of racism experienced by young black men at the

hands of the cops — and that’s something that happens. It’s real. I write about it all the

time. If you had heard about six and a half cases scattered across the country, I think

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 43 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

most people in this room would agree that that indicated that racism is alive and well

and a serious problem across the United States, which I would not dispute. Well, if

that’s how you would feel if I talked about Ferguson and Trayvon Martin and names that

we don’t even need to recite, then you can’t say that what’s happened here in terms of

free speech on campus has just been a smattering of anecdotes. That would be an

intolerable inconsistency. I think most of you know that what we’re saying is

true. We’ve made the case. It’s not that free speech has been extinguished. That’s a

straw man.

Free speech is threatened on today’s college campuses. The evidence is clear. You

should vote for us.

[applause]

John Donvan:

Thank you, John McWhorter. And our motion again, Free speech is threatened on

campus. And here to make his closing statement against this motion, Shaun Harper,

executive director of the Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education at the

University of Pennsylvania.

Shaun Harper:

Given the time and limitations of this debate format, I cannot give you the crushing

weight of evidence that I have heard from students, thousands of them, who have

participated in my studies about the experiences that they have on their campuses, not

just experiences in encounters with racism, but also with sexism, homophobia,

Islamophobia and other forms of harassment in this respect that target and undermine

their humanity and sense of belonging on the campus.

I don’t have enough time to do that. They’re not anecdotes, they’re data. They’re

people’s lived experiences and realities. And as it turns out, those people have had

enough. They’re standing up for themselves. They are finally exercising their freedom

of speech. For years and years and years, those people sat silent and did not say

anything to the professor who said, “You must be in the wrong classroom.” Now all of a

sudden, they’re saying, do you know what? What you’re saying feels racist to me. And

now, suddenly, that professor who probably — well, she’s dead now. But professors like

her are being held accountable. No one is saying to people that you cannot say

ridiculous things. What they are saying is that you are going to be held accountable for

them. We’re going to engage you in a conversation about them. And it is your choice to

withdraw yourself from that conversation because you’ve never been held accountable

for that perspective.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 44 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

No one’s ever called you out about it. That is what is happening, ladies and gentlemen,

on college and university campuses. People are finally standing up and using their free

speech. Therefore, I urge you to vote against the motion.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Shaun Harper.

John Donvan:

And that concludes our closing statements.

[applause]

John Donvan:

And now it’s time to learn which side you believe has argued the best. I want to ask you

again to go to the key pads at your seat and vote a second time. Same way as before,

push number one if you agree with the motion, Free speech is threatened on

campus. Push number two if you disagree. Push number three if you became or remain

undecided. And I’ll give you about 15 to 20 seconds to complete that. Okay, it looks like

everybody’s done.

We’re going to lock that out. Yep, we’re done? Good. I have a few announcements to

make, but before we do that, I want to say, as the moderator in the middle of this

process and watching how all four of you brought such terrific game tonight, it was

respectful, it was civil, it was informative, it was honest, it was gutsy. It’s what we aim

for at Intelligence Squared. I think the audience really got to hear your ideas interact

with one another. And I want to congratulate you for elevating the level of public

discourse right on this stage tonight. So thank you very much.

[applause]

John Donvan:

And also, to everybody who got up and asked a question, I didn’t have to throw out a

single question tonight, and I have to be honest, that’s very rare. And I also like the

pivot on the question that I was going to throw out was extremely fast and deft.

And I want to thank you for doing that. We also want to thank Yale University for

bringing us to campus. It’s been a pleasure. Thank you, Yale University.

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 45 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

[applause]

We also had sponsorship with the Adam Smith Society, so thank you also to the Adam

Smith Society for your sponsorship.

[applause]

Another thing I need to say at the end of all of these debates and I always do, we want

to thank our individual generous supporters. I don’t know if you know, but Intelligence

Squared U.S. is actually a nonprofit organization. We put this podcast out to the world

for free. It is really, really catching on. I happen to be on a book tour selling a book that

I won’t mention by name until later.

[laughter]

But it’s been remarkable to me, I — this week in Santa Fe, Jackson, Mississippi, Seattle,

where there was a 14-year-old — a teenager walked up to me, the numbers of people

who walked up to me and said, “Are you that guy doing Intelligence Squared?” We

really are getting out there, and we’re doing it as a nonprofit.

We’re also being used now by thousands of classrooms across the country as a learning

resource. We’re very proud of that. But we do it by — through generous support from

people who make donations to our organization. So if you are so moved after this

experience tonight, we really encourage you to go to our website and make a donation

so that we can continue doing this and continue growing, which is what we are

doing. Our next debate will be Wednesday, March 9th. We’re going to be back in New

York City. We’ll be at the 92nd Street Y, taking part in their Seven Days of Genius

Festival. Our debate will be on, “The Promise of Artificial Intelligence.” Among the

debaters, we are going to have computer scientist Jaron Lanier and Martine

Rothblatt. And Martine is one of the highest paid female CEOs in the country, who also

happens to have commissioned a robot clone of her wife. So that’s going to be an

interesting one. But we will be livestreaming that. Then we’re at the Kaufman Center

on April 6. Our motion — Jason, you might want to come for this one — the motion is,

“Eliminate Corporate Subsidies.”

So I think that will be up your alley. We’ll also be livestreaming that. On May 4th, we’ll

be also at the Kaufman Center, debating, “Hunters Conserve Wildlife.” Tickets for all of

our debates coming up are available at our website, iq2us.org. And as I’ve mentioned a

few times, we live stream. We’re live streaming now on fora.tv and through

Intelligence Squared U.S. – 46 – 3/2/2016

Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #1016

Arlington, VA 22203

iq2us.org. We also have an app, iq2us, that’s available in the Apple Store and through

Google Play. All of our debates are there, both as podcasts and the full video versions as

well and — as well as transcripts. So if you’re liking what you’re seeing and you want to

start listening in to our backlog of debates, they are spectacular. So thank you. It’s been

a pleasure to be here tonight at Yale. And now I want to say the results are in. We have

the final results. Our motion is this, “Free Speech Is Threatened on Campus.” We’ve

had you vote twice, once before you heard the arguments and once again after you

heard the arguments.

And the team whose numbers have moved the most between the two votes in

percentage point terms will be declared our winner. Let’s look at the first vote. On the

motion, “Free Speech Is Threatened on Campus,” before the vote, 49 percent agreed

with this motion, 27 percent were against, 24 percent were undecided. In the second

vote — in the second vote, the team arguing for the motion, their vote went from 49

percent to 66 percent. They picked up 17 percentage points. That is the number to

beat. The team against the motion, their first vote was 27 percent, their second vote

was 25 percent. They went down two percentage points. That means the team arguing

for the motion, “Free Speech Is Threatened on Campus,” are our winners. Our

congratulations to them. Thank you from me, John Donvan, and Intelligence Squared

U.S. We’ll see you next time.

[applause]

[end of transcript]