WEBVTT - FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Suzanne Nossel 0:00:15.356 --> 0:00:21.796 Pushkin from Pushkin Industries. This is Deep Background, the show 0:00:21.836 --> 0:00:24.916 where we explore the stories behind the stories in the news. 0:00:25.436 --> 0:00:29.916 I'm Noah Feldman. Freedom of speech is a basic constitutional 0:00:29.996 --> 0:00:33.236 right in the United States. It's a human right recognized 0:00:33.276 --> 0:00:37.116 by international human rights declarations all over the world. It's 0:00:37.116 --> 0:00:40.396 also a cultural value, an ideal that says that, under 0:00:40.396 --> 0:00:43.276 certain circumstances, we should be able to speak our minds 0:00:43.316 --> 0:00:48.356 in order to facilitate a meaningful public conversation. And yet, 0:00:48.436 --> 0:00:51.596 at the same time, many people in our society have 0:00:51.796 --> 0:00:55.596 the feeling, the intuition, the view that free speech may 0:00:55.636 --> 0:00:58.796 have gone a little bit too far, that speech can 0:00:58.836 --> 0:01:02.716 sometimes be abused and used as a forum or mechanism 0:01:02.796 --> 0:01:07.036 for suppressing people, subordinating them, and expressing views that have 0:01:07.236 --> 0:01:11.316 real world bad effects on the equality of other human beings, 0:01:11.716 --> 0:01:15.636 whether because of their race, their sex, their sexual orientation, 0:01:16.076 --> 0:01:21.476 their gender orientation, or a host of other potentially vulnerable characteristics. 0:01:22.716 --> 0:01:25.956 How should we think about the difficult questions that arise 0:01:26.076 --> 0:01:31.116 at the intersection of speech, liberty and equality of all people. 0:01:31.916 --> 0:01:34.476 This is one of the most profound questions of our time, 0:01:34.636 --> 0:01:37.476 or of any time. And here on Deep Background, we're 0:01:37.516 --> 0:01:40.876 going to be thinking seriously about this question over the 0:01:40.916 --> 0:01:45.396 course of the summer. Kicking off our series of conversations 0:01:45.436 --> 0:01:49.476 about freedom of speech, today, I'm joined by Susanne Knossel. 0:01:49.996 --> 0:01:54.276 Susanne is the CEO of pen America, the organization devoted 0:01:54.316 --> 0:01:57.036 to protecting the free expression of writers in the United 0:01:57.076 --> 0:02:01.076 States and around the world. Before joining pan America, Susanne 0:02:01.236 --> 0:02:04.796 was COO of Human Rights Watch. She was executive director 0:02:04.836 --> 0:02:07.796 of Amnesty International USA, and she worked in both the 0:02:07.876 --> 0:02:12.476 Obama and administrations as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State 0:02:12.516 --> 0:02:16.276 for International Organizations and as Deputy to the US Ambassador 0:02:16.316 --> 0:02:19.676 for United Nations Management and Reform at the United States 0:02:19.676 --> 0:02:22.876 Mission to the United Nations. She's the author of a 0:02:22.956 --> 0:02:27.156 brand new book, Dare to Speak, Defending Free Speech for All, 0:02:27.476 --> 0:02:31.436 in which she explores the full panoply of free expression 0:02:31.476 --> 0:02:36.356 issues that exist today. Suzanne, thank you for joining me. 0:02:36.916 --> 0:02:39.996 Let's start with why you decided to write a book 0:02:40.036 --> 0:02:43.276 about free speech. You're the CEO of pan America, so 0:02:43.316 --> 0:02:46.316 you have free speeches one of the aspects of your 0:02:46.436 --> 0:02:48.916 day job. But you know this is a topic that 0:02:49.796 --> 0:02:53.116 enormous amounts have been written about, and lots of people 0:02:53.196 --> 0:02:55.796 have thought about and you know, there are reams and 0:02:55.836 --> 0:02:59.756 reams of legal materials on it and arguments, and you know, 0:02:59.796 --> 0:03:02.596 every philosopher from Milton to mill has weighed in on 0:03:02.596 --> 0:03:05.556 the topic. Why did we need a new book and 0:03:05.596 --> 0:03:08.516 why did you want to write one? Well, it really 0:03:08.556 --> 0:03:12.836 grew out of a couple of different experiences I had had. 0:03:12.876 --> 0:03:16.556 The first was when I was at the State Department 0:03:16.836 --> 0:03:21.156 and I was working on representing the United States at 0:03:21.236 --> 0:03:25.436 the UN's Human Rights Council in Geneva and the UN 0:03:25.516 --> 0:03:27.596 General Assembly in New York. And one of the contentious 0:03:27.596 --> 0:03:32.516 issues there wasn't debate over the so called defamation of religion, 0:03:32.676 --> 0:03:37.476 and it was a concept that Islamic delegations from around 0:03:37.556 --> 0:03:40.156 the world had brought forward in the wake of if 0:03:40.156 --> 0:03:43.476 you remember the Danish cartoon controversy, where there had been 0:03:43.516 --> 0:03:47.796 these images of the Muslim prophet Muhammad that had been 0:03:47.796 --> 0:03:51.196 published in a Danish newspaper, and in the wake of that, 0:03:51.276 --> 0:03:53.996 there was a very harsh reaction and there were protests 0:03:53.996 --> 0:03:57.596 outside of Danish diplomatic installations around the world, and people 0:03:57.636 --> 0:04:00.516 lost their lives, and there was a sense that Mohammad's 0:04:00.556 --> 0:04:03.596 reputation had been sullied, and it was an insult to 0:04:03.876 --> 0:04:08.636 Muslims everywhere, and so Islamic countries kind came forward in 0:04:08.676 --> 0:04:11.676 the wake of that and wanted to get a UN resolution, 0:04:11.796 --> 0:04:14.436 and ultimately they sought a binding treaty that would have 0:04:14.476 --> 0:04:18.596 banned the defamation of religion. When I arrived at the 0:04:18.596 --> 0:04:20.916 State Department during the first term of the Obama administration, 0:04:20.996 --> 0:04:23.476 I sort of got read into this issue. And you 0:04:23.556 --> 0:04:27.076 know what struck me was that these Islamic delegations were 0:04:27.076 --> 0:04:32.356 really concerned about religious intolerance and hostility toward Muslims that 0:04:32.636 --> 0:04:36.276 was running pretty rampant in the years after nine to eleven, 0:04:36.316 --> 0:04:39.036 and that that was a legitimate concern on the part 0:04:39.076 --> 0:04:41.796 of the United States and our European allies and countries 0:04:41.796 --> 0:04:45.076 like Canada and Australia. There was a grave concern that 0:04:45.676 --> 0:04:48.476 banning or punishing the defamation of religion would be an 0:04:48.516 --> 0:04:52.516 infringement on freedom of speech. And so twice a year, 0:04:52.676 --> 0:04:54.876 once into New York, once in Geneva, we would go 0:04:54.956 --> 0:04:58.436 to battle over this resolution and be marshaling votes and 0:04:59.076 --> 0:05:02.036 getting our embassies and capitals to go in and beg 0:05:02.116 --> 0:05:04.596 countries to vote with us. And it struck me as 0:05:04.636 --> 0:05:07.476 just a very pointless exercise. It seemed to me that 0:05:07.556 --> 0:05:11.156 at the heart of it, we're legitimate concerns on both sides, 0:05:11.236 --> 0:05:15.396 that we were against religious intolerance as well, and I 0:05:15.436 --> 0:05:19.196 wasn't so sure the Islamic countries weren't entirely indifferent to 0:05:19.436 --> 0:05:22.676 free speech concerns that are embedded in international law, and 0:05:22.756 --> 0:05:24.836 so what we decided to do was kind of take 0:05:24.836 --> 0:05:28.356 a different tack, and we approached the organization of the 0:05:28.396 --> 0:05:32.516 Islamic Conference at the time and asked whether they would 0:05:32.516 --> 0:05:37.196 consider an approach to tackling the issue of religious intolerance 0:05:37.276 --> 0:05:41.076 through means other than restrictions on speech, and we proposed 0:05:41.156 --> 0:05:46.196 things like dialogue between experts, taking prosecutors from the Justice 0:05:46.196 --> 0:05:49.996 Department who knew how to go after hate crimes and 0:05:50.156 --> 0:05:54.116 bringing them to seminars with international counterparts where they could 0:05:54.116 --> 0:05:57.636 share best practices and educate one another and really look 0:05:57.716 --> 0:06:01.956 into what works in practice in terms of eradicating hostility 0:06:01.956 --> 0:06:05.076 on the basis of religion. And look, it didn't happen overnight, 0:06:05.116 --> 0:06:09.596 but gradually we brought them around, the Islamic delegation around 0:06:09.636 --> 0:06:12.716 to the idea that this would be a more constructive approach, 0:06:12.716 --> 0:06:17.036 and ultimately we came to a consensus resolution that replaced 0:06:17.076 --> 0:06:19.996 this kind of notorious resolution on the defamation of religion. 0:06:20.076 --> 0:06:23.356 And you know, for me, what that underscored was the 0:06:23.436 --> 0:06:26.196 idea that in debates over free speech, there can be 0:06:26.236 --> 0:06:28.916 a propensity for the two sides to talk past one 0:06:28.916 --> 0:06:33.796 another and for considerations of how to create a more just, 0:06:34.036 --> 0:06:37.836 equal and inclusive society to be pitted against robust protections 0:06:37.836 --> 0:06:41.956 for free speech. And years later at Pan America, a 0:06:42.076 --> 0:06:45.796 similar phenomenon in certain respects reared its head around the 0:06:45.916 --> 0:06:49.596 controversies on college campuses over free speech. And you know 0:06:49.636 --> 0:06:52.756 what occurred to me in the context of those controversies 0:06:52.756 --> 0:06:56.156 and many that would follow, is that it really hinged 0:06:56.196 --> 0:07:01.596 pretty centrally on questions of race and inclusion and equality 0:07:01.596 --> 0:07:05.156 and the unfinished business on these campuses of making them 0:07:05.196 --> 0:07:10.676 into places that were truly hospitable to people from all backgrounds, 0:07:10.796 --> 0:07:16.436 and that was sometimes manifesting as calls to suppress or 0:07:16.476 --> 0:07:18.476 punish speech, but that you know, at the heart of 0:07:18.516 --> 0:07:21.716 it was really a drive for greater equality, and that 0:07:22.956 --> 0:07:27.396 push was necessary and essential and could be accomplished without 0:07:27.476 --> 0:07:32.076 compromising robust protections for free speech and academic freedom. But Susan, 0:07:32.156 --> 0:07:33.876 can I push back there? I mean, because now you're 0:07:33.916 --> 0:07:37.036 getting to what, to me at least is the heart 0:07:37.076 --> 0:07:39.716 of the matter for some of these debates, and that 0:07:39.836 --> 0:07:42.836 is the situation where there is a real tension and 0:07:42.916 --> 0:07:47.956 maybe even a conflict between ideas about equality and ideas 0:07:47.996 --> 0:07:51.436 about free expression. And in the abstract, most people in 0:07:51.476 --> 0:07:54.796 a liberal democracy like the United States are committed to equality, 0:07:54.876 --> 0:07:58.356 and most people are committed to the idea of free speech. 0:07:58.836 --> 0:08:01.196 But then when they directly come into conflict, we often 0:08:01.236 --> 0:08:05.356 have pretty different intuitions. And so when there's speech that 0:08:05.476 --> 0:08:09.396 some people perceive as impinging on their equality, and the 0:08:09.436 --> 0:08:11.716 speaker says, well, I didn't mean to impinge on your equality, 0:08:11.956 --> 0:08:14.636 and then the listener says, well you did, then we 0:08:14.716 --> 0:08:17.956 often get one of the versions of controversy that you're describing, 0:08:17.956 --> 0:08:21.276 where one side says, listen, free speech is about words. 0:08:21.476 --> 0:08:23.636 It doesn't reduce your equality to hear an opinion you 0:08:23.756 --> 0:08:27.196 fundamentally disagree with. We're for free speech. And then the 0:08:27.196 --> 0:08:29.356 other side says, no, you got it wrong. You know 0:08:29.436 --> 0:08:32.396 that speech does impinge on my equality, and that ought 0:08:32.436 --> 0:08:34.756 to trump your ability to speak. Not that we're saying 0:08:34.756 --> 0:08:36.676 you ought to be arrested, but we think that you 0:08:36.956 --> 0:08:38.916 within the context of this institution, let's say it's a 0:08:38.916 --> 0:08:41.516 private university, ought not to have said that, Or if 0:08:41.556 --> 0:08:44.396 you're in a position of responsibility or importance where you 0:08:44.436 --> 0:08:46.436 are in charge of me in some way, I don't 0:08:46.476 --> 0:08:48.076 want you to say these kinds of things, and I 0:08:48.076 --> 0:08:50.676 really think you shouldn't. How can it be to say 0:08:50.796 --> 0:08:55.236 that those are like resolvable within some creative alternative framework. 0:08:55.276 --> 0:08:59.156 Those seemed like genuine conflicts to me between liberty and equality. Yeah, 0:08:59.196 --> 0:09:02.036 I think there are some instances where you have a 0:09:02.116 --> 0:09:05.236 fundamental clash, but that a lot of the time what 0:09:05.476 --> 0:09:10.356 manifests says that is actually something different, and that, for example, 0:09:10.556 --> 0:09:14.356 if the speech is looked at in context and if 0:09:14.356 --> 0:09:18.436 people understand what the intent is, that they recognize that 0:09:18.516 --> 0:09:22.236 it's not necessarily racist or sexist, and that, you know, 0:09:22.356 --> 0:09:25.676 censoring it or punishing it isn't the only answer. So 0:09:25.716 --> 0:09:27.676 I think a certain number of the cases that can 0:09:27.716 --> 0:09:30.396 be resolved that way. There are other instances where someone 0:09:30.476 --> 0:09:34.036 says something that comes off to others as let's say, 0:09:34.156 --> 0:09:37.516 racist or sexist, and you know they didn't mean it 0:09:37.556 --> 0:09:39.676 that way, but you know the interpretation of others is 0:09:39.716 --> 0:09:43.476 quite legitimate. You know, it reflects changing morais, or you know, 0:09:43.516 --> 0:09:47.116 a term that used to be considered acceptable but now isn't. 0:09:47.116 --> 0:09:48.556 I might I use the example in the Book of 0:09:48.636 --> 0:09:53.036 My Mother and the term Oriental to refer to Asian Americans, 0:09:53.076 --> 0:09:55.756 you know, which for many years was commonly used, and 0:09:55.756 --> 0:09:58.876 then at a certain point it really fell into disfavor 0:09:59.036 --> 0:10:03.396 and it carried certain connotations, and not everybody cottoned onto that. 0:10:03.476 --> 0:10:06.076 At the same moment, you know, where something like that happens, 0:10:06.196 --> 0:10:08.636 I think we need to have some room for apology 0:10:08.716 --> 0:10:11.516 at a you an apology and willingness to hear out 0:10:11.596 --> 0:10:14.836 why something you've said your whole life that never seemed 0:10:14.876 --> 0:10:17.756 objectionable you know now maybe objectionable, and you've got to 0:10:17.796 --> 0:10:20.716 listen to the other person and understand why that's the case. 0:10:20.876 --> 0:10:23.436 You know. On the flip side, forgiveness, you know, if 0:10:23.436 --> 0:10:26.756 this is a person who genuinely didn't know, you wouldn't 0:10:26.956 --> 0:10:30.756 have necessarily expected would know, given their own background of 0:10:30.796 --> 0:10:33.556 the malia that they operate in, have some space and 0:10:33.636 --> 0:10:36.876 some willingness to consider whether forgiveness is appropriate. So I 0:10:36.916 --> 0:10:40.476 don't argue that there is no clash. I just argue 0:10:40.556 --> 0:10:44.116 that we can manage these clashes much more constructively. Let 0:10:44.156 --> 0:10:46.756 me ask you, Suzanne, about a chapter in your book. 0:10:46.796 --> 0:10:51.036 It's chapter twelve, which has a fascinating and perhaps provocative title. 0:10:51.436 --> 0:10:54.916 The title is don't Equate Speech with Violence? And in 0:10:54.956 --> 0:10:58.636 the chapter you start by quoting a Northwestern University psychologist, 0:10:58.796 --> 0:11:02.436 Lisa Feldmanbarratt nor relation to me, who's argue that biological 0:11:02.436 --> 0:11:06.876 stress induced by menacing speech renders that speech literally a 0:11:06.956 --> 0:11:11.316 form of violence, and then go on to disagree with 0:11:11.356 --> 0:11:15.436 this argument pretty vociferously. So why do you find this 0:11:15.516 --> 0:11:18.596 argument unconvincing? You know, I have another chapter in the 0:11:18.636 --> 0:11:21.396 book that is about the harms of speech, and that 0:11:21.596 --> 0:11:23.916 argument is that we have to acknowledge and come to 0:11:23.956 --> 0:11:27.156 grips with those harms. We can't fall back on the 0:11:27.196 --> 0:11:30.396 idea that sticks and stones may break my bones, but 0:11:30.476 --> 0:11:33.396 words can never hurt me. We know that's not true, 0:11:33.436 --> 0:11:36.596 and that there especially as research on certain kinds of 0:11:36.636 --> 0:11:42.636 speech that genuinely can cause psychological damage, can undercut people's 0:11:42.796 --> 0:11:47.956 opportunity for a equal education, can constitute harassment. So the 0:11:47.996 --> 0:11:50.876 harms are real. But I do think it is a 0:11:50.916 --> 0:11:54.436 mistake to equate speech with violence. I think the call 0:11:54.556 --> 0:11:57.996 to equate speech and violence really comes from is born 0:11:58.076 --> 0:12:02.156 of a sense that those harms are underacknowledge and that 0:12:02.196 --> 0:12:06.156 the right answer is to fully recognize the harms that 0:12:06.196 --> 0:12:09.476 certain kinds of speech can cause, but reject this equation 0:12:09.796 --> 0:12:11.956 with physical violence. And you know that's for a couple 0:12:11.956 --> 0:12:14.716 of reasons. I mean, one, if if my speech is 0:12:14.756 --> 0:12:17.956 the equivalent of physical violence, how are you not then 0:12:18.316 --> 0:12:21.156 justified and responding by punching me in the nose? If 0:12:21.196 --> 0:12:23.996 I've committed an act of violence, your violence and response 0:12:24.316 --> 0:12:28.556 is justifiable, And that's an invitation to violence and to escalation. 0:12:28.676 --> 0:12:32.156 I think that's dangerous. You know. Another reason is that 0:12:32.636 --> 0:12:35.636 you know, in most societies, the state, of course has 0:12:35.676 --> 0:12:38.236 a monopoly on the use of force. And so if 0:12:38.236 --> 0:12:42.676 you underwrite and accept this argument that speech can be 0:12:42.756 --> 0:12:46.276 a form of violence, that protesting in the streets peacefully 0:12:46.356 --> 0:12:49.076 can itself be a form of violence because of the 0:12:49.076 --> 0:12:52.676 words use, the chance that are said, the posters that 0:12:52.716 --> 0:12:56.636 are displayed, then you're justifying the state clamping down on 0:12:56.676 --> 0:13:02.156 that speech through violence, through harsh policing, arrests, tear gas, 0:13:02.236 --> 0:13:05.476 and worse. And so I think it's just a dangerous 0:13:05.516 --> 0:13:09.316 false equivalency to draw. That doesn't mean even necessarily that 0:13:10.196 --> 0:13:13.836 there aren't categories of speech that cause harm that you know, 0:13:13.916 --> 0:13:18.036 in some jurisdictions are less protected than they are here 0:13:18.076 --> 0:13:19.916 in the United States. I think that's a discussion you 0:13:19.956 --> 0:13:23.076 can have, you know, should we be more restrictive in 0:13:23.116 --> 0:13:25.676 certain times of certain kinds of hateful speech? You know, 0:13:25.796 --> 0:13:28.636 I tend to think not, and that the downsides outweigh 0:13:28.636 --> 0:13:30.836 the plus sides. But I think that's a discussion you 0:13:30.836 --> 0:13:33.596 can have. But I don't think it's helpful in any 0:13:33.636 --> 0:13:39.076 instance to draw this equivalency between pure speech and physical violence. 0:13:39.916 --> 0:13:41.876 I have many, many things to say and response to 0:13:41.916 --> 0:13:43.356 this line of argument, but let me just say one 0:13:43.436 --> 0:13:46.436 narrow one here. It's not the case in the law 0:13:46.476 --> 0:13:48.956 that it's always justified for me to respond to your 0:13:49.036 --> 0:13:52.516 violence with violence. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it just isn't. 0:13:52.996 --> 0:13:55.916 So I don't think that could be the argument against it. 0:13:55.956 --> 0:13:58.036 And you know, there are circumstances when I think we 0:13:58.036 --> 0:14:00.716 would all acknowledge that words can be much more harmful 0:14:00.716 --> 0:14:04.436 than physical violence. So two kids are playing in the 0:14:04.716 --> 0:14:09.236 playground and one pushes the other. That's physical violence, and 0:14:09.316 --> 0:14:11.276 the adult wants to step in and say you shouldn't 0:14:11.276 --> 0:14:14.236 do that, and maybe some punishment or time out is appropriate. 0:14:14.556 --> 0:14:16.436 Now the same two kids are playing, and instead of 0:14:16.476 --> 0:14:19.756 one pushing the other, one bullies the other with some 0:14:20.036 --> 0:14:23.396 verbal epithet that we think is terribly offensive, a racial 0:14:23.476 --> 0:14:27.916 slur or a slur associated with sexual orientation. There, I 0:14:27.956 --> 0:14:29.956 think we have the intuition, at least I have the 0:14:29.996 --> 0:14:33.676 intuition that the amount of adult intervention and punishment is 0:14:33.716 --> 0:14:38.196 appropriately greater than in the case of a mild push, 0:14:38.236 --> 0:14:41.596 And that to me is because of the moral wrongfulness 0:14:41.596 --> 0:14:44.276 of the statement, but also because of the damage that 0:14:44.356 --> 0:14:47.436 it's capable of doing through bullying to the child who's 0:14:47.476 --> 0:14:50.476 being bullied, which seems to me potentially much greater than 0:14:50.836 --> 0:14:53.316 being pushed again, depending on how hard the push was. 0:14:53.876 --> 0:14:58.436 So doesn't that suggest that there are circumstances where admittedly 0:14:58.676 --> 0:15:00.996 a word is not the literal same thing as a push, 0:15:01.076 --> 0:15:02.876 but it could be much worse than the push under 0:15:02.956 --> 0:15:05.596 some circumstances. I don't disagree with that. I just think 0:15:05.636 --> 0:15:09.436 they're categorically distinct, and that it's important to hold that 0:15:09.476 --> 0:15:14.516 distinction because I hear the equation of words and violence 0:15:14.876 --> 0:15:19.956 used pretty loosely, that expressions or comments that really fall 0:15:20.076 --> 0:15:24.076 far short of a slur that may be inadvertent that 0:15:24.196 --> 0:15:28.476 may reflect a reasonable difference of opinion on an issue 0:15:28.516 --> 0:15:32.676 that should be a legitimate subject of debate, sometimes labeled 0:15:32.716 --> 0:15:35.636 as violence, and it's a real conversation ender. You know, 0:15:35.676 --> 0:15:39.556 if something you said is labeled as violent, how do 0:15:39.556 --> 0:15:42.436 you come back against that? It sort of shuts down 0:15:42.476 --> 0:15:44.716 the potential for discourse. So I agree with you. I 0:15:44.756 --> 0:15:48.276 think there are instances where a slur or an expression 0:15:48.276 --> 0:15:51.876 of bigotry can be far more damaging than violence, but 0:15:51.956 --> 0:15:55.836 that we're better off just recognizing that their distinct categories 0:15:55.836 --> 0:15:58.316 and each needs to be dealt with in its own way, 0:15:58.436 --> 0:16:02.196 and that I don't find it helpful to equate them. 0:16:02.316 --> 0:16:14.196 We'll be right back. Let me ask you about the 0:16:14.796 --> 0:16:18.156 free speech adjacent let's say, controversy that's been going on 0:16:18.396 --> 0:16:22.396 publicly in recent weeks and months surrounding a public letter 0:16:22.476 --> 0:16:25.676 by a group of public intellectuals in Harper's I believe 0:16:25.676 --> 0:16:27.596 you did not sign that letter, correct, No, I did 0:16:27.596 --> 0:16:30.556 not tell me what your thoughts are about the letter 0:16:30.676 --> 0:16:33.756 and the public response and their reaction to it. Yeah, Look, 0:16:33.796 --> 0:16:35.996 I think there are a number of things going on 0:16:36.116 --> 0:16:42.276 at once. We're in this moment of reckoning on systemic racism. 0:16:42.356 --> 0:16:46.156 And police brutality, and what it's going to take for 0:16:46.236 --> 0:16:50.956 us to push forward to the next level of inclusivity, 0:16:51.036 --> 0:16:53.516 equality and justice in this society. And I think that's 0:16:53.636 --> 0:16:57.796 very important, and many people are rightly focused in a 0:16:57.836 --> 0:17:00.756 deep and searching way on what needs to be done 0:17:00.836 --> 0:17:07.196 to dismantle barriers to eradicate racism, you know. And I 0:17:07.236 --> 0:17:10.916 think this impulse to drive forward a more equal society 0:17:10.996 --> 0:17:13.316 is a very positive one, but that we need to 0:17:13.396 --> 0:17:18.636 be vigilant that it not cross over into sensoriousness or 0:17:18.676 --> 0:17:24.076 an overreaction to the expression of views and free speech. 0:17:24.116 --> 0:17:27.036 And so I think that's what the writers of the 0:17:27.076 --> 0:17:30.836 Harper's letter we're trying to say, and it triggered an 0:17:30.836 --> 0:17:34.956 outsized reaction, kind of an inferno on Twitter, with people 0:17:35.076 --> 0:17:38.076 suggesting that this was the outcry of people who are 0:17:38.116 --> 0:17:43.116 privileged objecting to sort of the undercutting of their platforms, 0:17:43.156 --> 0:17:47.236 that this is a distraction from this seminal moment of 0:17:47.356 --> 0:17:50.956 racial transformation, and so, you know, it sort of reflects, 0:17:51.036 --> 0:17:53.476 I think this problem in our discourse, that we have 0:17:53.476 --> 0:17:56.276 a propensity to talk past one another, and that you know, 0:17:56.316 --> 0:18:01.516 at times the drive toward racial and gender based equality 0:18:01.716 --> 0:18:05.116 can be kind of pitted against the robust protection of 0:18:05.156 --> 0:18:07.996 free speech, and we understand why that happens. But I 0:18:08.036 --> 0:18:11.716 think through is in discourse we can and we must 0:18:11.796 --> 0:18:14.716 recognize that ultimately we need these principles to come together. 0:18:14.756 --> 0:18:20.076 They're both so fundamental to our constitution, to our democracy. 0:18:20.596 --> 0:18:22.836 We want to be an equal society and we want 0:18:22.876 --> 0:18:24.996 to be a society that respects free speech. So how 0:18:25.036 --> 0:18:28.476 do we make those things coincide and reinforce one another. 0:18:28.516 --> 0:18:30.476 I think there are many examples of how they do, 0:18:30.836 --> 0:18:33.796 but they're also instances in this Harper's letter was a 0:18:33.876 --> 0:18:36.676 vivid one of how they're sort of seemed to clash. 0:18:36.716 --> 0:18:38.716 And the effort really in the book is to explain, 0:18:39.116 --> 0:18:42.316 here's how these things can fit together. You go to 0:18:42.436 --> 0:18:45.276 some lens in your book to say that you're against 0:18:45.596 --> 0:18:48.876 cancelation or cancel culture, but you do support what you 0:18:48.996 --> 0:18:51.836 call calling out culture as long as it's done with caution. 0:18:52.476 --> 0:18:55.276 Say a bit about your approach to these very delicate 0:18:55.316 --> 0:19:00.156 and sensitive questions. Yeah, I think it's very context intensive. 0:19:00.436 --> 0:19:03.196 And now the term cancel culture, I think it has 0:19:03.236 --> 0:19:06.116 sort of taken on a new meaning and a very 0:19:06.156 --> 0:19:10.236 elastic meaning. We really can refer to everything from a 0:19:10.396 --> 0:19:13.996 perfectly legitimate give and take an argument and debate often 0:19:14.076 --> 0:19:20.156 online to harsh draconian punishments for speech by an institution, 0:19:20.476 --> 0:19:22.996 And to me, those are very different things that should 0:19:22.996 --> 0:19:25.876 not be lumped together. What I talk about in the 0:19:25.916 --> 0:19:30.996 book is the idea that in calling out, it should 0:19:31.036 --> 0:19:36.556 be done conscionably, thoughtfully, and you should consider whether there's 0:19:36.716 --> 0:19:39.276 a possibility of doing what I call a call in, 0:19:39.356 --> 0:19:41.876 which is more of a private approach. Is this, you 0:19:41.876 --> 0:19:44.996 know someone who you think maybe well intended, someone you 0:19:45.076 --> 0:19:48.116 know well, someone who may have just aired or been 0:19:48.196 --> 0:19:51.236 unaware or didn't get the memo, and by sort of 0:19:51.236 --> 0:19:54.076 tapping them on the shoulder or sending them email, giving 0:19:54.116 --> 0:19:56.996 them a call, they may retract the tweet or the 0:19:57.036 --> 0:20:02.316 Facebook post or apologize for something, and what could become 0:20:02.556 --> 0:20:06.476 a huge dust up is avoided through that private approach, 0:20:06.516 --> 0:20:08.956 So I think that's worth considering. I also think they're 0:20:08.956 --> 0:20:12.276 in instances where a callout is appropriate and necessary. It 0:20:12.556 --> 0:20:16.116 can be an instance where somebody says something publicly that 0:20:16.356 --> 0:20:20.956 is hurtful and offensive, and it's important to ally with 0:20:20.996 --> 0:20:24.396 those who are on the receiving end, who may feel 0:20:24.796 --> 0:20:27.556 stigmatized or victimized, so they need to hear that they 0:20:27.596 --> 0:20:29.796 have support out there, that other people heard this, that 0:20:29.836 --> 0:20:32.876 they're not alone in defending themselves. So I think in 0:20:32.876 --> 0:20:35.996 instances like that, it's important to jump in. Sometimes the 0:20:36.116 --> 0:20:39.636 speech has reverberations right away and the damage is done, 0:20:39.676 --> 0:20:42.636 and so calling in is really not an option. And 0:20:42.756 --> 0:20:45.476 you know, the only recourse is for an institutional leader 0:20:45.516 --> 0:20:51.316 to express dismay, even contempt for offensive speech, and that 0:20:51.396 --> 0:20:54.876 can be perfectly appropriate. So I think what we struggle 0:20:54.916 --> 0:20:57.556 with is these questions of intent and context, which I 0:20:57.636 --> 0:21:01.396 stress in the book. And unfortunately, our social media driven 0:21:01.436 --> 0:21:06.076 culture move so quickly. We see so much divorced from 0:21:06.076 --> 0:21:09.316 its context. We may not even know who originally posted it. 0:21:09.316 --> 0:21:12.836 It may be snipped out and juxtaposed with something else, 0:21:13.316 --> 0:21:16.076 and so there's an impulse to react to just what 0:21:16.196 --> 0:21:18.916 you see on the surface. But sometimes probing a little 0:21:18.916 --> 0:21:22.836 bit further will reveal that the intent or the import 0:21:22.916 --> 0:21:26.436 was something else entirely. So I advocate kind of taking 0:21:26.436 --> 0:21:29.156 a pause and making sure you really know what you're 0:21:29.156 --> 0:21:32.196 seeing and what you're reading before you react, and particularly 0:21:32.276 --> 0:21:36.036 before you react strongly. You know your approach, which calls 0:21:36.076 --> 0:21:39.356 for reason and logic and calm. It can only be welcomed, 0:21:39.396 --> 0:21:42.836 and I profoundly agree with it. Do you ever wonder 0:21:42.916 --> 0:21:46.556 if we are capable of achieving such things in this moment? 0:21:47.236 --> 0:21:49.996 As you mentioned, social media is not exactly conducive to 0:21:50.036 --> 0:21:53.716 this kind of calm, thoughtful, rational engagement. People seem to 0:21:53.716 --> 0:21:57.876 be raring for a fight on all sides of these issues, 0:21:57.956 --> 0:22:01.076 and often it is about political power. So I guess 0:22:01.076 --> 0:22:03.596 I'm wondering what would you say to a respondent from 0:22:03.676 --> 0:22:07.076 the progressive side who says, you know, luxus and it's 0:22:07.076 --> 0:22:08.676 all nice and well and good for you as the 0:22:08.716 --> 0:22:11.836 CEO Pan America to say, well, you know, just a 0:22:11.916 --> 0:22:14.116 call would really help, And they say, well, we're the powerless, 0:22:14.156 --> 0:22:15.516 not the powerful. We can't just make a call and 0:22:15.556 --> 0:22:17.516 tap someone on the shoulder. What we can do is 0:22:17.596 --> 0:22:20.116 motivate our base to speak publicly, to go on social 0:22:20.116 --> 0:22:22.356 media to make their point, and that will enhance us 0:22:22.356 --> 0:22:24.636 to a position where we will have the power to 0:22:24.676 --> 0:22:27.156 make sure that then we can call people privately. You know. 0:22:27.276 --> 0:22:29.356 I think that can be sort of a fair point, 0:22:29.476 --> 0:22:32.156 you know, and other points that get made that are related, 0:22:32.236 --> 0:22:34.436 you know, when I talk about forgiveness, that sort of 0:22:34.516 --> 0:22:36.556 some people are always on the end of this where 0:22:36.676 --> 0:22:40.556 they're being asked to forgive again and again, and that's 0:22:40.596 --> 0:22:42.596 not fair. And it's often people of color who are 0:22:42.636 --> 0:22:46.036 on the receiving end of these slights and aggressions and 0:22:46.396 --> 0:22:49.556 hostile speech, And so I think it is important to 0:22:49.596 --> 0:22:52.196 recognize that we're in this moment of reckoning, that people 0:22:52.236 --> 0:22:56.716 are amassing power and mobilizing their voices and speaking out 0:22:56.716 --> 0:22:59.676 in some instances, either for the first time or with 0:22:59.796 --> 0:23:02.876 newfound strength, and that represents a wound for free speech. 0:23:02.916 --> 0:23:04.756 You know, when you have an environment or society or 0:23:04.876 --> 0:23:08.316 campus where a certain portion of the population feels de 0:23:08.436 --> 0:23:12.556 facto silence because they're in the minority, because others are 0:23:12.596 --> 0:23:16.876 derisive toward them, because they don't see anybody looks like 0:23:16.916 --> 0:23:20.276 them on the faculty, and they feel on the outside 0:23:20.316 --> 0:23:24.356 of the dynamic in the classroom where other students are 0:23:24.436 --> 0:23:28.756 more favored or mentored by their professors. That's an impingement 0:23:28.836 --> 0:23:32.276 upon free speech. That's something less than the truly open 0:23:32.396 --> 0:23:35.276 discourse that I think is the ultimate goal of the 0:23:35.276 --> 0:23:38.996 free speech protections embedded in the Constitution. So I think 0:23:39.036 --> 0:23:41.396