Kind: captions
Language: en
it is the most important right that
Americans have
it's not a coincidence
or an accident that it's named in the
First Amendment
to the Constitution
without it no Democratic Society can be
Democratic for long
and I'm an absolutist
that is um I believe that for example
people say to me
but what about hate speech
well hate speech is much more important
than love speech and the reason is I'm
much more interested in knowing whom I
should not turn my back on
then I am interested in
figuring out who loves me
the following is a conversation with
Harvey silverglade a legendary free
speech Advocate co-founder of fire the
foundation for individual rights and
expression and the author of several
books on the freedom of speech and
criminal justice including the shadow
University the Betrayal of Liberty on
America's campuses
Harvey is running to be on the Harvard
Board of overseers this year with the
writing campaign so you have to spell
his name correctly civil glat
promising to advocate for free speech
and to push for reducing the size of
Harvard's Administration bureaucracy
election is over this Tuesday May 16th
at 5 PM Eastern
to vote you have to be Harvard alumni so
if you happen to be one please vote
online it's a good way to support
freedom of speech on Harvard campus
instructions how to do so are in the
description
as a side note please allow me to say
that since there are several
controversial conversations coming up I
tried to make sure that this podcast is
a platform for free discourse where
ideas are not censored but explored and
if necessary challenged in a thoughtful
and pathetic way is by having such
difficult conversations not by avoiding
them that we can begin to heal divides
and to shed lights on the dark parts of
human history and Human Nature
this is the Lex Friedman podcast to
support it please check out our sponsors
in the description and now dear friends
here's Harvey silverglade
you co-founded the foundation for
individual rights and expression also
known as fire a legendary organization
that fights for the freedom of speech
for all Americans in our courtrooms on
our campuses and in our culture so let's
start with the big question what is
freedom of speech first of all the
organization when I co-founded it in
was called the foundation for individual
rights in education
it focused on
Free Speech issues on college campuses
in Academia
and only earlier this year did we decide
to expand our reach beyond the campuses
which is why the name although the
acronym fire remains it's now the
foundation for individual rights and
expression the e used to be education
the e used to be education it's now
expression and we basically do a lot of
the cases the ACLU used to do the ACLU
now Moore's the the progressive
organization rather than a civil
liberties organization
and um and we've taken the um the the
role of dealing with free speech in in
the society generally in and now this is
a particularly
um
uh an era prone to censorship
um everybody thinks they're right that
people who disagree with them should not
be able to voice their views it's a very
difficult period right now both on
campus and off campus
um it's about as as intolerant an era as
I can remember in I'm going to be 81 May
10th I was born on Mother's Day 1942.
and I can't remember it being this bad I
was born during the McCarthy era
um so that says a lot and um it sort of
reminds me of that
well let's start with that almost a
philosophical question a legal question
a human question what is this Freedom
that you care so much about that you
fought for so much freedom of speech it
is the most important right that
Americans have
it's not a coincidence
or an accident that it's named in the
First Amendment
to the Constitution
without it no Democratic Society can be
Democratic for long
and I'm an absolutist
that is um I believe that for example
people say to me
but what about hate speech
well hate speech is much more important
than love speech and the reason is I'm
much more interested in knowing whom I
should not turn my back on
that I am interested in
figuring out who loves me or who likes
me
so hate speech is the most important in
my view and yet it's uh it's banned in
for example schools it's unbelievable
um kids are not schooled into
understanding the glory of the first
amendment when when schools say to them
they shouldn't say things that are going
to make somebody feel bad
um I mean the purpose of speech is to
express honest
views that people have and um so I
believe hate speech is as important as
love speech and my view is more
important
so it should be brought to the surface
rather than operate in Shadows
absolutely
absolutely what is the connection
between freedom of speech and freedom of
thought
well in a free Society
thoughts start in the brain and then
they come out the mouth
so there are different ends of the same
Spectrum so to you the censorship of
speech eventually leads to a censorship
of thought of course censorship of the
mode by which other people know what
you're thinking
so there's some aspect of our society
that is uh the thinking is done
collectively and without being able to
speak to each other we cannot do this
kind of collective ranking and out of
speed the theory is that ultimately out
of speech comes truth that isn't no
necessarily so
but I do think that when there's free
speech better decisions are made because
people put their views on the table in a
Frank accurate way and then those views
mixed together
and clash and out of that usually
comes the better the better decision
not always but usually more more often
than not but if somebody is not allowed
to be a you know sit at the table of
decision making
then the decision-making process is
poorer
um less robust
diverse
and ultimately less successful
so can you elaborate on the idea Free
Speech absolutism
so
hate speech
can be quite painful to quite a large
number of people does this worry you yep
living in a free Society
requires that you expose yourself to
some discomfort you call it pain
it's maybe emotional pain it's not
physical pain
um
but
it's uh it's the price we pay for living
in a free Society every so often we're
insulted
we're emotionally hurt
think of the alternative all the
alternatives are worse nobody ever
promised us a Rose Garden
we're lucky to be in a country that has
the First Amendment it's also the oh
it's the most diverse country in the
world
because of immigration
I mean my my
grandparents My Father's Side came over
from Russia my mother's side came home
from Poland
I'm very happy that my grandparents came
in from Russia I would not want to be in
Russia today I'd probably be sharing a
cell with a Wall Street Journal reporter
um so um I'm thankful that they came in
and um this is a great country it's got
troubles right now but our country
doesn't and we've had it's really had a
civil war we had segregation uh we had
the decimation of the Indians we're not
perfect
but it's the best place in the world for
somebody who values Liberty so you don't
think that hate speech can Empower large
groups
that uh
eventually lead to physical action to
physical harm to others no I don't I
think that
that
um we have developed a culture in which
um it's understood that if you don't
like what you hear you you talk back
um you write you write something
um
we don't punch each other we insult each
other
um it's insulting great well I don't
know it's okay I used to as a kid in
Brooklyn where I was born I was born and
raised in Bensonhurst
we used to say Sticks and Stones can
break by bones but names can never harm
me and it's absolutely true if what was
true when I was five is true and I'm I'm
almost 81.
so I've lived a long time I've seen it
all
and I'm talking from experience as well
as Theory
it's what happens when you reach your
80s
I read that you had this line that you
cannot be protected from being called an
asshole correct
okay especially if you're an asshole
well that's uh
uh but you don't have to be an asshole
to be called an asshole that's correct
and uh I think the internet has taught
me that well the internet is posed a
particular challenge to free speech
absolutist because of some of the stuff
that's on there is god-awful
but I have no different rule for freedom
of speech on the internet than I have uh
in newspapers or in lectures or in
classrooms or or conversations among
people what do you think about the
tension between freedom of speech and
freedom of reach as is uh kind of
sometimes termed so the internet really
challenges that aspect it allows the
speech to become viral and spread very
quickly to a very large number of people
but you know we've had we've had
Revolutions in um
in in the modalities of communication
after all newspapers were the first
challenge
um radio and television
posed A new challenge
um the FCC tried
But ultimately gave up the attempt to
control
um obscenity for example
um
and the Supreme Court has been pretty
close the one thing that liberal and
conservative Supreme Courts right now
we're in a conservative era due to Trump
nominations
um
during much of my life we were the
Warren Court it was uh William O Douglas
Brennan liberal Court
one thing they agree on is Free Speech
they don't agree on much else but they
do agree on free speech and I think the
reason is
that they recognize that well my group
is in the ascendance today but it may
not be tomorrow and I want to have
objective clear rules so that when I'm
in the minority I'm able to voice my
opinion
and so it's one of the few things that
both sides of the political Spectrum
agree on the only people who don't or
the the people way over on the right
that I call the fascists and the people
way over on the left who are the
Communists
um but with respect to most people in
this on the political Spectrum
Republicans Democrats socialists
Libertarians
um
they agree on the Primacy of free speech
because it protects them
when when protection is needed so to you
even on the internet
Free Speech absolutism should rule yes
nobody's gonna die remember the death
threats are not not protected
um nobody's gonna die
so people are going to be a little bit
insulted that's the price you pay for
living in a free society and it's a
small price in my view
um people some people don't have as
tough a hide as others well then develop
it um I hope everyone I don't mean to
sound uh cruel
um but you know you're living in a free
Society develop a tough hide
so that's the cost of living in a free
Society there's a cost the thing is that
it can really hurt at scale to be Cyber
Bullied to be attacked for the ideas the
express or maybe ideas you didn't
Express but that uh somebody decided to
lie about you and uh use that to attack
you well first of all there are there
were so there were some exceptions to
the First Amendment
libel and slander is an exception
um
direct threats are an exception you know
if you if you say such and such I will
murder you that is not lawful
if you say that it's somebody
um if you say about somebody oh you know
um you beat your wife
um that that is not lawful if in fact
the person knows you don't beat your
wife
there are some limits defamation is one
direct threats are another
um so it's not absolute this is not the
first amendment is not absolute but this
is it's more absolute than it is in any
other society and it's pretty near
absolute
um
for example fraud if you would sell
somebody a car and you say oh this is in
great running shape and in fact it's an
old jalopy and it's not going to make it
more than 10 miles
that's fraud that's not free speech
um so free speech is not absolute there
are these limits but they're very narrow
specific categories of limits
but uh this gray area here because while
legally you're not allowed to defame a
person
in the court of public opinion
especially with the aid of anonymity on
the internet
the rumors can spread
at scale thousands hundreds of thousands
of people can make up things about you
you have to defend yourself using more
speech we're we're big we're through
freedom of speech and we're big boys and
girls
um you have to defend yourself
um you know in in some societies if you
say something
um if you right now if you say something
nasty about Putin you'll end up in the
gulag
um if you say something nasty about
um you know Biden you end up in the New
York Times where would you rather be
well let's talk about
the thing you've done for over 20 years
which is fight for the freedom of speech
on college campuses
so why is freedom of speech important on
college campuses well it's important
everywhere in the society but it's most
important on college campuses why
because that's where we educate our
young citizens
and if you are educated
under a notion that some Dean can can
call you on the carpet because you say
something which is considered racist so
you can say something which is uh
considered uh then you know dangerous to
uh to the social cohesion
um then it's not a liberal arts college
now
um the um the theory that
I used in in the shadow University
a book you've written the shadow
Universe 1998
1998. you were ahead of a lot of these
things I'm afraid that as as a pessimist
I always saw the bad side of things
betrayal of Liberty on America's
campuses the shadow University the a
book you co-authored with the Alan
Charles yes with one of my Princeton
classmates Alan Charles cores who's now
an Emeritus professor of Enlightenment
history at the University of
Pennsylvania
I only taught for one semester and I can
go into that later the reason that I did
not continue to teach in colleges um it
was Harvard Law School I I taught a
course in the mid-1980s
um but in any event
um the college campuses are one of the
most important of all for uh for free
speech because this is where people get
education
and if you don't really get a good
education if certain points of view are
not allowed to be expressed because
education comes from The Clash of ideas
and you then have to decide this is the
this is how you become a thinking adult
you have to decide which ideas make more
sense to you which ones you're going to
follow
um the college experience is
transformative
and if there is censorship on campuses
it's highly destructive of the
educational Enterprise
and ultimately to the entire Society you
know we have in the Sciences
um we have a scientific method
so scientific method is you try
experiments and you see which ones work
and then you develop theories based to
public results of experiments well this
is not much different from every other
aspect of life
you have to entertain different views on
different subjects you hear all the
views and you make a decision as to
which one's accurate which one's not
so the scientific method I apply to
um to non-science to history to
journalism
um to all of these things so that
scientific method includes ideas hateful
ideas also correct if you don't allow
hateful ideas I mean when scientists do
experiments nobody says to them oh you
know don't don't do that experiment
because it would be very bad if that
turns out to be accurate you know that
outcome that's not the way it works
um
every every point of view is thrown into
the marketplace whether it's science or
whether it's a
you know non-science and that includes
uh the kind of ideas and the kind of
discourse that might actually lead to an
increase in hate on campuses the the the
First Amendment
prohibits speech which is liable to
produce
imminent imminent violence so for
example
um you know the um the exception is um
yelling uh falsely falsely yelling fire
in a crowded movie theater a lot of
people misstate it they say oh
um the exception is yelling fire in a
movie theater if there's really a fire
you're performing a real important
function
but it's falsely yelling fire you can
start a riot people would be crushed try
to get out
so there are these that that's one of
the exceptions that the First Amendment
as the Supreme Court has defined it
um
there are very few exceptions
um and defamation is an exception I'm a
I'm not a fan of that exception frankly
but um if you say something
um about somebody that has serious
implications in their uh in their life
and their ability their own living if
you say accuse somebody of being a
pedophile but it's not true
that person can sue you
um my own view is I think that's an
unfortunate exception but I'm not on the
Supreme Court
um I think that I'm I'm with I
a friend of mine was not hentoff
that hand tough who wrote for decades
for the Village Voice in New York
um
he was a friend of mine he was a free
speech absolutist
and uh he wrote a fabulous book called
free speech for me but not for thee
um and he was an absolutist and I'm I'm
with I'm with Matt hentoff even on the
defamation aspect I mean I agree with
you in some sense just practically
speaking it seems like
that the way the best way in the the
public sphere to defend against
deformation is with more speech correct
and through authenticity
authentic communication
um
of the truth as you see it yeah you know
it's the times the Boston Globe has said
something about me that it hasn't been
accurate they have invariably published
my letter to the editor
um I'm also uh not bashful about getting
in charge in touch with the reporter
that at the end of every column they
give the reporters email address
um
and I know people say that I I have more
access to the media than most people
um but um all that means is I get to
fame with the most people
can we also comment on from the
individual consumer of speech
there's a kind of uh sense that freedom
of speech means your you should be
forced to read all of it
freedom of speech versus freedom of
reach
we as consumers of speech do we have the
right to select what we read we do and
um that nobody can force us to sit in
the room and listen to a radio program
that we don't want to listen to nobody
can force us to read a book that we
don't want to read
um the whole notion of freedom of speech
means that people have uh autonomy on
their choices
in order to form a complete mind and
complete human being there's a kind of
tension
of that autonomy
versus consuming as many varied
perspectives as possible which is
underlying the ethic of free speech so
on college campuses
it seems like a good way to develop the
mind is to get as many perspectives as
possible even if you don't really want
to
well that's that is the theory academic
freedom is the is supposed to be the
highest degree of free speech yeah
um you should be able to entertain all
kinds of hateful
threatening ideas and and the way I put
it is there's something wrong when you
can say something with complete abandon
without any fear in Harvard Square
whereas on the other side of the fence
you can't say it in the Harvard Yard it
should be the opposite
and what happens is
um universities
from the best to the worst from the most
famous to the least well known
have been taken over by administrators
administrators do not really subsume
academic values they know nothing about
the Constitution they know nothing about
Free Speech they do nothing about
academic freedom they feel that their
job is to keep a water
and so they develop speech codes
kangaroo courts to enforce the speech
codes
and these are very dire developments I
wrote about them in the shadow
University in 98.
um and try to deal with them in 1999
when I started fire code started fire
and um
uh I would fire the reason I'm running
currently for the Harvard Board of
overseers is what I'd like to do is
convince the Harvard Corporation the
so-called president and fellows of
Harvard College the chief governing
board of the University with the real
power
um the board of office is is a secondary
body but quite influential
uh to fire 95 percent of the
administrators
it would have a salutary effect on the
academics of the University would have a
salutary effect on free speech and
academic freedom it would cut tuitions
by about 40 percent
um and it would create a whole different
atmosphere on the campus and the same
set of MIT or any other place
um I think administrators are a uh a a a
very uh
bad uh influence on American higher
education can you sort of elaborate uh
the intuition why this
thing that you call administrative bloat
is such a bad thing for a university so
first of all just in terms of the the
cost of yeah maintaining there are more
administrators in the American Education
than they were faculty members
the course is enormous number two
they are inimical to the uh the the
teaching Enterprise and and they feel
that their job is to control things to
make sure there are no problems that
nobody's feelings are hurt
um uh being called you know be before I
a Dean because you said something
um that insulted somebody is something
that shouldn't happen in American higher
education yet it happens because you
have these administrators who think it's
their job
to protect people from being insulted
you you insult a black student you
insult a woman
um there's a disciplinary hearing but
there shouldn't be
um
black people uh are accustomed to being
insulted Jews are cousins cousins women
or cousins being solid and it's very
good to know who doesn't like you it's
useful it is very you it's essential
information to know who doesn't like you
if everybody is forced to say I love you
and nobody can say I hate you you get a
false view of what life is all about
outside of the University outside the
university I mean you do graduate
eventually
and that's ultimately the mission of the
university is to prepare you to make you
into a great human being into a great
leader that can take on the problems of
the world correct and you don't do it by
by treating you like like a little
flower but what role does the University
have to protect students to women
African-Americans
anybody Jews anybody who gets killed you
could be a victim of hate speech they
they protect you from physical assault
if somebody physically assaults you
then they um they get punished but they
shouldn't and so they shouldn't protect
you against insult
because that is a violation of academic
freedom the freedom of the insulter to
insult you and also as I said it's very
useful to know who doesn't like you it's
useful for the so-called victim I think
is to said I want to know who doesn't
like me it's as important to me as
knowing who who likes me but do you also
believe in this open uh space of
discourse that the insulter will
eventually lose
I think that's true I think of the
insult or eventually
will wear out his or her welcome
um I do but I I like to know who the
insultism
because it gives you a deeper
understanding of human nature yeah and
and usually by the way my experience has
been that the insulters have generally
not been as smart as the people they've
insulted yeah and that's probably one of
the reasons they insult them because
they're if they feel inferior yeah I
mean I'm not trying to be a a a
psychoanalyst here but a lot of the
people who were the haters are pretty
low down in the intellectual scale
anyway 95 of administration you would
fire your calling to fire
95 of the administration people should
know I think
people that don't really think about the
structure the way the universities work
are not
familiar I think with the fact that
Administration there's a huge bloat of
administration you know when you think
about what makes a great University it's
about the students it's about the
faculty it's about the people that do
research if it's a research University
they don't think about the bureaucracy
of meetings and committees and rules and
paperwork and all that and all the
people that are involved with pushing
that kind of paper and there's a huge
cost to that but it also slows down and
suppresses the the beautiful variety
that makes the university great which is
the teaching the Student Life the
protests the the the
um the clubs all the fun that you can
have at University all the very kind of
exploration which you can't really do
once you graduate correct it's the place
the university is a place to really
explore
in every single way
so let me just talk about this important
thing because uh I'm very fortunate to
have contacted you
almost by accident in a very important
moment in your life you're running for
the Harvard Board of overseers uh what
is this board how much power does it
have
uh and what would you do if elected okay
first of all I have a I have a
prediction yes that in about five years
they're gonna probably change the name
because overseer is reminds people of
the slavery or yes and we're in a such a
politically correct era now that the
English language is being restricted
corrupted is the way I put it because
certain words are uh are forbidden we we
have some problems in this country and I
think part of the problem is the
educational system
has lost a sense of what academic
freedom and Free Speech were all about
and um and and
um I think it's essential that the
educational system begin to take more
seriously what Free Speech you know
they're feeling really are that's why
I'm running for the Harvard Board of
overseers so let me just link on the
uh the role of the administration in
protecting free speech so what often
happens I think you've written about
this is there's going to be a few maybe
a small number of hypersensitive
students and faculty that protests so
how does Harvard Administration
uh resist the influence of those
hypersensitive protesters in protecting
uh Speech and protecting even hate
speech
Harvard has done fairly well under the
presidency of Lawrence back how
I have had a couple of meetings with
backho
um I like back how
I have donated to Harvard a prince of my
Lake but my late wife took a picture of
Bob Dylan and Alan Ginsberg when the
Rolling Thunder review got to Harvard
Square
and it's a it's sort of an iconic
photograph she called it the music
lesson because it's got Dylan teaching
Ginsburg how to play the guitar
and I donated one of those to Harvard
it's hanging in back House Office
he the new president
Claudine gay is not known for respecting
academic freedom and Free Speech people
have said to me well give her a chance
well I'm willing to give her a chance
but she does have a record
and she's a bureaucrat
um I don't think she believes in free
speech and academic freedom I think
she's a progressive not a liberal
um I'm not happy with the the uh the the
the the appointment of Claudine gay and
it has made more essential my attempt to
get on the board of overseers
so let's talk about the board of
overseers and uh your run for it the
specifics actually it will be it'd be
nice because I think you're a writing
candidate
and the election is over on May 16th uh
yes and I think there's specifics I'll
probably give them in the intro I'll
give links to people but the specifics
are complicated let me just mention
that you have to be Harvard alumni so
I've graduated from Harvard you have to
in order to run in order to vote in
order to vote and the process I imagine
is not trivial but uh
it this is done online and if you're an
alumni you should have received an email
from a particular email address
harvard.mg
electionservicescorp.com and uh
presumably there's a way to get some
validation number from that email and
then you go online you enter that
validation number and you vote and you
to vote for Harvey you have to enter his
name
correctly Harvey silverglate and spell
it correctly
um obviously I'm imagining this because
I'm MIT not Harvard so I'm imagining the
process is not trivial because you have
to click on things you have to uh
uh sort of follow instructions that are
not uh trivial and uh I'll also provide
an email if the process is painful it
doesn't work for you that you can email
email Harvard and complain I.T help
harvard.edu and so on I'll provide all
the links but is there something else
you can say about the voting process uh
what you're running on this is my second
run
the first time I got enough signatures
to get on the ballot then the Harvard
Alumni Association sent out a letter
to all living Harvard alums
recommending that they vote for the
officially nominated candidates
that excluded two petition candidates of
whom I was one
and um
I wrote to the Alumni Association and I
said
you have now sent out the curriculum
vitais and the policy positions of all
the officially nominated candidates
there are two petition candidates on the
ballot
I would like to be able to send out my
positions
to the voters
they wrote me back saying our policy is
to only send out the policy positions
and the platforms of officially
nominated candidates can you believe
that
well this is a liberal arts college
right
um from the where from The Clash of
ideas truth emerges well really
this is what I call Harvard's not so
subtle means of candidate suppression
not voter suppression candidate
suppression
and um
everybody can vote but not everybody can
run
it is ill becomes a liberal arts college
where you know the Clash of ideas will
produce the truth will worry about the
class of ideas on the board of overseers
the board of overses is important it
doesn't have the same power and
authority as the Harvard Corporation the
so-called president and fellows of
Harvard College but it's very
influential
and very important and it would be a
great perch for me to try to exert
influence for the University to get back
to where it was before it was taken over
by the administrators well I'm pretty
sure that most of Harvard alumni most
the students currently going to Harvard
most The Faculty at Harvard probably
stand behind that ideas and the ideals
that you stand behind yep
the the people that love Harvard and
what it stands for so yeah the alumni
were educated in an era when these
Concepts were taken seriously and before
the administration's administrators took
over
so I do think if I get my message out
I'm going to win the seat and if I win a
seat I will have a great perch for for
trying to convince the real power that
be which is the Harvard Corporation
to do the things that I'm suggesting you
know get rid of 95 of the administrators
get rid of the speech codes reduce
tuition by 40 percent
all of these salutary benefits uh
can you imagine if Harvard became the
most affordable college in the United
States
well the affordability is another aspect
but I think before that the just the
freedom of expression freedom of speech
freedom of thought yeah it's America's
greatest universities I think is
something that everybody would agree on
it would have a it would have a a
tremendous effect on the whole country
and uh is there something to say about
the details of how difficult it is for
alumni to vote without experience with
this you could vote online or you can
vote by paper ballot you could request
the paper ballot
um and all I could say is that the the
hard part is getting the message out
um my name doesn't appear on the ballot
because I couldn't get enough signatures
um well Harvey Harvey silverglate
s-i-l-v-e-r-g-l-a-t you know when my
grandparents arrived from Russia
um the uh the the the name in Russian
was something like zilba glyph yeah and
the immigration officer had several
choices
he could have said Sylvia gate yeah gate
is a real silver and gate are real
English words yeah he could have said
silver Glade g-l-a-d-e those are real
English words that's how my name is
often the spelled neither Silver Gate or
silver Glade silver Glade is a nonsense
syllable
and why the immigration officer chose to
transliterate
silverglid as silverglade I'll never
understand and it is the cause of
endless mistakes in my name well the the
fundamental absurdity of life yes is
also the source of his Beauty yes anyway
we shall spell it out and we shall get
uh yell loud and wide that everybody who
has ever graduated from Harvard should
vote for you if they believe in the
ideals of the Great American
universities which I think most people
do
let me also ask about uh diversity
inclusion and Equity programs you've
been you've had a few harsh words to say
about those you know the idea of
diversity I think is a beautiful idea uh
you've said that Harvard's idea of
diversity is for everyone to look
different and think alike correct can
you elaborate and be comfortable and be
comfortable yeah first of all it is
impossible if liberal laws education is
taken seriously it's impossible for
students to feel comfortable why because
one of the roles of college is to
challenge all the beliefs that they grew
up with which mostly are the beliefs
inculcated by parents and by Elementary
School teachers
and the idea is to be able to challenge
those thoughts those ideas
and if you don't have free speech and
academic freedom those views get reified
they do not get challenged
so it's it is it it violates the
fundamental role of higher educational
institutions to have any restrictions at
all
that that's number one
number two as I think I said earlier if
people students are not allowed to be
frank with one another they don't really
learn about one another
uh and um uh you know I I've given a lot
of lectures in which I have said and I
think people students Now understand it
I'm much more interested in hearing from
the people who Haven and the people who
love me
I'm much more interested in knowing who
disagrees with it and people who agree
with me
that's how I learn and that's how they
learn
The Clash of ideas
which is the theory behind the First
Amendment
that truth will somehow emerge or if not
Truth at least a better truth a true
truth a more useful truth if ideas are
allowed to Clash especially in the
structure of a university where at least
I would say there's some set of rules
some set of Civility I think I would
rather read mineconf
to understand people that hate there is
also quality uh to disagreement that we
should strive for and I think a
university is a place where when uh
disagreement and even hate is allowed
it's done in a high effort way you know
somebody asked me once about what books
I would what I have is required reading
in in literature courses and I listed my
account
and they were horrified and I said well
it's one of the most important books of
the 20th century yeah I mean six million
Jews died an enormous number of other
people died because one guy wrote a book
called mineconf and took it seriously
it's one of the most important books
ever written how can how can an educated
person not have at least breezed through
Mein Kampf and um it's not a great read
though it's not a great read he was not
a great writer but you you do get a
sense for the the sociopath that was
Adolf Hitler yes because he really acted
on the words that he wrote yeah
and it was there and if people took that
work seriously correct they they would
have understood it's one of the most
important books of the 20th century and
if it's Politically Incorrect to read it
crazy
but can you uh speak to the
um
the efforts to increase diversity in
universities which I think is embodied
in this die effort of diversity
inclusion and Equity programs where do
they go right where did do they go wrong
okay let me tell you first of all this
may surprise a lot of people
I am opposed to affirmative action
um and I think that
um what it does is it
labels people by their race
by their religion and by their national
origin
precisely what we don't want people to
do is be pigeonholed in those categories
the reason that affirmative action has
become the way that universities decide
on who gets admitted
is because historically people in what's
called marginalized groups
blacks gays Hispanics
have been discriminated against in the
admissions process
now
what I have suggested
is that instead of affirmative action
and by the way
here's a prediction the Supreme Court is
going to abolish affirmative action
there's a case penis Harvin case
um it's the there's a there are two
cases joined together one of a public
university and one of a private
universities the private university is
Harvard
uh I I predict that the Supreme Court
will vote six to three to abolish
affirmative action
it is on its face it is a violation of
equal protection of the law
some groups are favored because of race
or ethnicity it is a classic violation
of equal protection clause
when affirmative action was approved
this deciding vote was just the Sandra
Day O'Connor she wrote a very famous
opinion in which she said
I am hesitate to vote to up to keep up
there to affirm the notion of
affirmative action because it's such an
obvious violation of equal protection
but we have an urgent problem in the
society we are not educating our um
members of racial ethnic minorities and
we have to try to get them into colleges
um so I'm I think it should be approved
for 25 years
um
and um it will uh it should be it should
in 25 years they should have performed
this role well it hasn't and um the 25
years is coming up I think it's for
three or four years left
the Supreme Court is going to abolish it
you can take my word for them
because it's such an obvious violation
of equal protection
why do why did affirmative action come
into play
because the secondary and elementary
schools are so bad
public secondary in elementary schools
are so bad
why are they so bad partly because of
the control of the teachers union
has Randy Weingarten runs the public
school system in the United States
and what I have suggested
is that
the effort should be
to uh this is an emergency it's a
national emergency
to improve
the quality of Elementary and secondary
education
and one way to do it is to hire teachers
who are fabulous teachers rather than
necessarily members of the Union
I have come to oppose
public workers unions I am a very strong
supporter of unions in the private
sector
why do I think there's such a difference
between unions in the public sector and
the private sector
in the private sector management is
arguing
bargaining with its own money and with
the money of shareholders
in the public sector there's only one
side
there is the teachers union and then
there's a school committee that is
dealing with the taxpayers money not
their room and so it's a very skewed
Power Balance
so
as supportive as I am of private sector
unions I am an opposition of Public
Safety unions they're very destructive
and I think without the teachers union
teachers who are really skilled will be
able to get jobs they would not have to
worry about the seniority of teachers
who long since have given up really
creative
teaching
and we have to improve the public
educational system
I had um in my late wife and I
um uh had a classmate of we have a son
who's Now 44 who went to the public
schools in Cambridge
um he has a friend
first name Eugene
who was black kid from Roxbury whose
mother understood that the schools in
Roxbury were terrible the schools in
Cambridge were pretty good
he lived in our house
Monday to Friday and he went to school
with Isaac in the Cambridge Public
Schools
elsewhere and I would show up the school
committee meetings when there was
bargaining between the teachers union
and the school committee
that teaches Union objected to our being
there
we argued we're taxpayers we have a a
kid in the school and we have his best
friend lives with us
and goes to school with them
we have a real interest
and the school committee
walked out of the bargaining session
the city council then reconsidered his
vote and they voted that we that
citizens
taxpayers parents of kids in the school
could not show up
to these negotiation sessions
I thought that was absolutely outrageous
but I understood why because these
contracts are crazy
no sane municipality
should enter into some of these
contracts
um and um so I am I have become an
opponent of the national Teachers
Association the Cambridge teaching a lot
okay with Teachers Association
I don't think there should be unions for
public employees
because there's no real bargaining going
on
and um I think that the public school
system will never be improved as long as
the the the teachers are unionized
so that to you as at the core of the
problem that results in the kind of
inequality of opportunity that
affirmative action is designed to solve
so if you if the educational system in
the Elementary and high school levels is
improved we wouldn't need affirmative
action these kids would get good
educations
so from all backgrounds
poor kids in the United States will get
good education if uh
uh public unions are abolished correct
and but do you mind incidentally the
Postal Service would probably work
better too
that's a whole nother conversation but
do you at the core of the problem of the
inequality in in universities
that diversity inclusion and Equity
programs are trying to solve is the
public education system correct of
secondary education yes correct
Elementary and second Elementary and
secondary education well then is there
use what is the benefit what is the
drawback of uh d i e diversity inclusion
and Equity programs Universities at
Harvard it's an affirmative action
basically and what it does is it allows
the system of Elementary and secondary
education to be bad because they could
say oh we got our kids into Harvard yes
but you haven't educated them
and it covers up the wound
and I think it will never improve as
long as we're able to cover up the wound
and as I said affirmative action is
going to be abolished by the Supreme
Court
it's a clear violation of equal
protection there's what's Santa's Day
O'Connor understood but ignored
intentionally but as an experiment
uh and um I believe it's going to be
abolished that that's going to have
that's going to force
the Elementary and high schools to get
serious
do you see the same issues that you
discussed now at Harvard uh at MIT we're
here in Boston so I have to talk about
the the great universities here in
Boston you've written about MIT I'm uh
the university I love I'm a research
scientist there do you see the same kind
of issues there yes I do do you remember
can you explain the case of Dorian
Abbott lecture that was canceled at MIT
yeah well you know it's this is this is
not the only it's not the only incident
um there have been incidents all around
the country
um of academics professors who have used
the don't comport with the uh as the
great Lillian Hellman another friend of
my late wife
said they they they
she said she refused to cut her garments
in order to fit the Fashions of the day
um Dorian Abbott didn't cut his suit um
to fit the Fashions of the day in his
intellectual suit
and so he was um this has happened at
Princeton this has happened at Harvard
this has happened at MIT
the great universities in the country
um have decided that the Clash of ideas
is not such a good idea because some
people's feelings will be heard
well this is there was quite a revolt
against it
um fire
sounded the alarm
and then in the end the universities
were I believe Abbott was invited to
come back I think he turned him down
he he shouldn't have turned him down but
he did
um and um when when the light is cast
upon these situations the universities
back down because they're so embarrassed
yeah
um and the newspapers because newspapers
depend on the First Amendment
in order to exist newspapers tend to
give pretty good publicity to these
cases of censorship so they grow the
universities yes so they they really
emphasize they catalyze the
embarrassment yes so is that one of the
ways is that the best way to fight all
of this yes sunshine is the best
disinfectant uh you've written about
mit's connection to Jeffrey Epstein yes
he was well connected at MIT and at
Harvard
um what do you what lessons do you draw
about human nature about universities
about all this from from this Saga let
me say this
I believe that universities
if somebody was to for example donate
to a university and donates on the
requirement that the building be named
after them if the university is taking
the donations and the person is funding
a building
the building should be named after him
or them Harvard is facing us now at the
Sackler building because the sacklers
had become now a persona non grata
because of their role in producing the
opioids that cause the huge
scandalous opioid addiction
there are people who want to have
removed the name the Sackler from the
Sackler Art Museum and however
Larry bakhow the president of Harvard to
his credit
has refused to to do that
um and um if it reminds people that the
money was earned through selling opioids
that's good that's good that people
understand that that's where the
cyclists got their money they should be
bonded in the mic in in my um uh
undergraduate alma mater Princeton
there's a movement to remove the name
Woodrow Wilson
because Wilson was president of
Princeton before he became governor of
New Jersey before he became president of
states
how he got to be Governor New Jersey was
he was someone sufferable that the
trustees of Princeton got an
denomination to run for governor of New
Jersey they had said we had to get this
guy out of here
um and um
not because it was anti-black and
anti-semitic because the trustees were
as well but because he just was
insufferable he drove the faculty crazy
and they got him out
um and um so Princeton was thinking of
changing the name I wrote a letter to
President Ice Prince saying you know the
the this is part of the University's
history you don't want to re you want to
rewrite history falsely uh Woodrow
Wilson was the president of this
institution he was one of your
predecessors he never answered me either
um I think these people you know they
they know they have no answer
the reason I didn't get a response from
president ice group is the same as the
reason I didn't get a response from the
Headmaster of Milton Academy they
understand that what they're doing is
violative of the fundamental precepts of
academic institutions they're ashamed
they that they feel they have no choice
because they feel that they would be
criticized for racism homophobia
criticized by how many people well they
feel that they would be criticized by
students and parents and donors I
disagree with that I actually think
there are more people out there that
agree with me than agree with them yeah
by a large margin by a large margin in
what I call the real world which is the
world outside the campus
but academics are afraid they'd be
criticized they're incredibly thin skin
when I say academics I mean academic
administrators they're very thin-skinned
politically correct holier than now
um as I said I would fire 90 95 of them
and I would be more um careful in who I
elected to leave this institutions so I
said Pauline gay is probably going to be
a disaster at Harvard
so it takes guts it takes courage to be
in the administration when the task of
protecting the freedom of speech is
there and also
um which in part requires
you to admit and to uphold the mistakes
you've done in the past correct not to
hide them correct and that do you do you
I mean Jeffrey Epstein for Harvard and
for MIT is a very recent mistake well
there's a debate whether it's a mistake
they took money from him yes okay
is it a mistake to take money from bad
people
do you have to do a morals test of a
potential donor
I don't think so
um It's Complicated because if there are
no conditions attached to it I think
it's emotionally complicated I don't
think that it is rationally complicated
um it's emotionally complicated it's
particularly complicated if they want
naming rights
yes you know the Jeff Jeffrey Epstein
biological Laboratory
um that that would be a problem for most
universities
um I don't think that naming rights have
to be given
to somebody that you that you don't
think is worthy of having their name I
think the university has the right to
say no we'll we'll take your money but
we will not name the building a few I
think they have a right to do that
there's some degree in which you
whitewash the name though if you not not
with naming rights but
if you take the money it allows the
person
in uh public discourse to say that
they're collaborating they're working
together with Harvard and with MIT I
have a problem with universities making
morals tests of the donors
because not every donor is as bad as
everything but some of the donors made
their money in Industry by being
rapacious uh by
paying low wages by exploiting people
you can uh make the case that
accepting money from the Department of
Defense from DARPA from the United
States organizations that uh contributed
to Waging War and killing hundreds of
thousands of civilians over the past few
decades correct
um folks like the 10-year Professor Noam
chomski who make the case that that is
far more evil than
accepting money from Jeffrey Epps yes
still Jeffrey Epstein is a known
pedophile yes
so that's why I say I would I would not
give him naming rights
I think the university has the autonomy
to not give naming rights
but I think giving morals tested donors
is a is a Pandora's Box
what do you think about the aftermath of
the Jeffrey Epstein Saga it feels like
I'm not familiar with Harvard's response
but mit's response seemed to
um fire a few scapegoats
and it didn't seem like a genuine
response
of two
the evils that uh human beings are
capable of sort of like rising to the
surface the description in a fully
transparent way of all the interactions
that happen with Jeffrey Epstein and
what that means
um yeah what that means about the the
role of money in universities what that
means about just human beings in power
money money is essential to run a
university one of the reasons is
essential is because the university is
artificially
requires huge amounts of money and
that's partly because of the
administrative Army that they that they
they
support
and they wouldn't be less dependent on
the Jeffrey epsteins of the world if
they didn't have
the the so it's sort of all part of the
same Circle
but there's attention here you're saying
we shouldn't be putting a morals test on
money but actually if you make uh
if you expand the amount of money needed
to run the university this you're going
to make less and less up more and more
unethical decisions
I I am flexible enough to say that I
don't think I would name a building
after somebody who is truly evil I think
university has the has the right to
limit the naming rights or for a donor
um if I was an absolutist I would not
even say that but I'm I'm not an
absolutist
um I I have my limits
and that's one of them the Jeffrey
Epstein biological laboratory it's a
little bit much
it feels like there's should be a
requirement on there should be moral
requirements
on who to accept money from but the
question is that the concern you have is
about who gets to decide
and what's the alternative correct I
think there is no alternative I think
that turning down a donation because you
you don't approve of the conduct of the
donor it's a Pandora's Box
but I'm just sickened by the fact that
an evil human being was allowed to walk
in the halls of a university I love
so what do we do with that well are you
telling me that none of the students are
evil are you telling me none of the
faculty members are you telling me some
none of the administrators are evil
um but that doesn't
sure sure
so uh saying scapegoating saying that
Jeffrey Epstein is evil can help us
forget
can Aid Us in forgetting that there is
other evil in the world and uh some of
it might be roaming still the halls of
MIT and Harvard Hey listen I won't tell
you the name but I represented somebody
in the MIT Administration a few years
ago uh who is who's charged with the
sexual improprieties against students
um and as a lawyer I represented that
person
um uh people say how could you represent
you know some of the people that
represented bad people
see how can you represent them I said
well if I was a cardiologist and this
person had a heart attack on the street
and I didn't deliver CPR I would be have
my license taken away I'm a lawyer the
only difference between my obligation
and the doctors obligation is the
Constitution gives people the right to
assistance of counsel they don't have
this constitution says nothing about the
assistance of cardiologists I have a
very high duty to represent unpopular
people
well I think as I apply the same test to
the college donors
um the university should not have a
morals test
um whose money to take
um I I do draw a line about naming
rights of buildings
um and as I say that's an inconsistency
with my absolutism
but I just emotionally I just can't deal
with having you know as I said the
Jeffrey Epstein biological Laboratory
well for me emotionally there's nothing
that sickens me more in the University
than the abuse of power
right and there's a little awful lot of
people who abuse power at University and
especially when it comes to abuse power
over students correct so sexual
harassment so in the realm of sexual
abuse of power and uh all kinds of other
well this is a crime to use one's power
position in order to take sexual
advantage of a student it's a crime yeah
um this is not a close question
yeah but if there's a legal crime
and there's uh deeply ethical crime and
there's an emotional response that I
have
you are
a good lawyer and perhaps a good man to
want to defend
some folks who are evil in this world I
don't think I have that emotional
fortitude well then you shouldn't be a
criminal defense lawyer or a
cardiologist
I think you're right
I'm still deeply sickened by Jeffrey
Epstein and the faculty the
administration that still might be in
these Great American universities that
are abusing their power in small ways
and big ways but that's human nature you
get a little bit of power and you're in
a bad man or a bad woman and you take
advantage of it yep we see that in the
smallest of ways and in the biggest ways
and uh
institutions and regimes all across the
world
oh boy Harvey it's a complicated
situation well it's a complicated world
and it's complicated to be a human being
and this is nothing new and we should
talk about it uh without restriction
all right just a linger on liberal arts
in 2014 and probably still today you
wrote that Liberals are killing the
liberal arts yes so can you explain yes
the problem with I'm a political liberal
the problem with the the political left
is that it has divided
between what's called progressives
and liberals
Liberals are people of the left who
believe in the First Amendment an
absolute First Amendment and in due
process of law
and um
the the problem with what progressives
now
in the pursuit of
equality what they view as equality
they're willing to bend those rules and
this movement actually started in
Brandeis
um the um the critical it's the critical
race Theory uh it started Herbert Marcus
it was a professor at Brandeis and he
came up with his theory the theory was
this this is right out of Orwell
in order to create true equality in a
society where you have some downtrodden
and some who are The Uber mentioned
in order to create real
um equality you have to reduce the
rights of the upper classes
and artificially increase the rights of
the lower classes
and um
that will produce
out of
unequal treatment
true equality will be will be attained
this is nonsense
the idea of discrimination
producing true equality is nonsense
my view is as I've said earlier in our
discussion
that the way to
increase the opportunities
for the lower classes is to give them
real educations
and until we do that it's not going to
happen and in order to do that we have
to overcome
the problem of the teachers unions at
the elementary and secondary school
levels until we're willing to do that
honestly
improve those schools we're going to
have a problem of a large number of
uneducated people
who need a boost because we haven't
given them proper educations
what do you think about some of the more
controversial faculty in the world so an
example somebody I've spoken with many
times on Mike and offline is Jordan
Peterson I'm not sure if you're familiar
with his work yes but he is an outspoken
critic of uh or proponent of free speech
on campus and he's been attacked quite a
bit
he's a controversial figure
which throw the university to protect
the Jordan Petersons of the world I
think the university has an absolute
absolute not relative not water that
absolute Road
obligation to protect the academic
freedom of even the most controversial
faculty members
and you can imagine at a University
campus you have more people who are
outliers than you do in the general
population
um
and um that's the hope at least
hopefully yeah
and and
um and those outliers have to be
protected
they can't be pressured they can't be
fired they can't be disabled from
spewing their their views whether
they're considered racist whether
they're considered to be you know a
promote an idea of human society that's
considered obnoxious
um it doesn't matter if you can't if if
you can't have freedom of thought on the
college campuses where can you you know
then we're lost as a society we're lost
and as an educational institution
um educational institutions no longer
will educate they will indoctrinate
that we have to avoid at all costs and
we should also remember that the outlier
might also be the only bearer of Truth
so in Nazi Germany speaking against the
fascism fascist regime and uh communist
Soviet Union speaking against communism
they might hold the key to the solving
the ailments of that Society absolutely
and some of the most important
discoveries in science for example
were were mocked
at the beginning I mean think of poor
Charlie Darwin Charlie I see he is on
nickname uh levels with you uh well
because we're talking about these big
topics of sexism and racism and hate
they should not forget about the smaller
topics which might even have the much
bigger impact which is what you're
speaking to which is uh
outlier uh ideas and science so
basically whelping welcoming
controversial ideas in science and by
controversial I mean just stuff that
that uh most the community doesn't agree
on it doesn't actually harm anyone at
all but even then there's always
pressure one of the things I'm really
concerned about is how little power
young faculty have
that there's a kind of hierarchy
seniority that's uh that universities
have empowered by the administration
where young faculty that come in they're
kind of uh
pre-tenured yeah there's a there's a
process in chasing tenure where you're
kind of supposed to behave
and there's an uh incentive to kind of
fit in and to not be an outcast and that
that's a really huge problem because
oftentimes the youth
is when the craziest the biggest ideas
the revolution idea is common if you're
forced to behave and fit in and not
speak out then even in the realm of
science the The Innovation is stifled
well now you now you trigger my uh I'll
tell you this story that you're
triggered this is good
in the mid-1980s I decided to take a
four-month sabbatical from my law
practice yes
Professor James vornburg who is the time
dean of the Harvard Law School heard
about it
heard about it from his wife Elizabeth
Betty wurenberg
whom I was very friendly with because we
were both on the acou the ACLU of
Massachusetts board at the time
and um so Betty told Jim
that Harvey was taking a sabbatical
Jim called Harvey and asked Harvey if he
would like to teach a course at the
Harvard Law School
because there was nobody who had
teaching criminal law from the
perspective of somebody who actually was
in court litigated
it was all theoretical
I said sure I'll do it
so I taught a semester at Harvard Law
School
the student evaluations were fabulous
why because it was really interesting
they were hearing a lawyer who's talking
about real cases I actually brought in a
few of my clients some of the classes
and um so Jim called me and said hurry
the students loved this course I'd like
to offer you a tenure track position
at the law school you'd have to give up
your law practice I turned him down
he said
did you just say no I said yes I said no
he said how come he says nobody ever has
ever in my Administration
has ever turned down a tenure track
offer at Harvard Law School
so because I could see that I'm not a
good fit
that the administrators are over run the
place
that faculty members especially
untenured who are afraid to say things
that might not get help them in the
10-year Quest
um it's it's not a good fit for me you
saw this in the mid 1980s already yes
1985.
and um I went back to my law practice I
I did not want to get into this me crime
that that I saw after all I had I
started to see it before the turn of the
century because I co-authored the shadow
University in 98.
and then co-founded fire in 99 I was
early student of this phenomenon
what are some other aspects of this uh
the book The Shadow University that we
may have not covered well let me let me
tell you a story I believe I tell it the
shadow University because it was part of
I'm loving these stories Harvey the
stories are fabulous let me tell you a
story of um
um I I I I did a tour of the country go
visiting campuses
I visited a college called Hamline
University I believe it was in Indiana
or Illinois somewhere in the Midwest
and I I attended a freshman orientation
now listen to this
this was a freshman orientation
the administrators
the Deans and the dnets and the deputy
assistant Deans and Dean hats and that
that third Deputy assistant Deans and
dinas line the students up according to
their skin hues
oh boy the the blonde blue-eyed white
folks were at one end the darkest
um you know
African-Americans who had whose
Bloodlines had not yet mixed with any of
the whites
on the other end and the exercise was
you had to tell how you erase affected
your success in life up until that point
I thought it was the most demeaning
thing that I could imagine
demeaning I thought to myself they could
do the same about sexual orientation
they could do the same about religion
they could just have a national origin
it would be demeaning no matter what
yeah and and the students actually
verbalized how their race
had either Been A Plus or a minus they
did it they did and I thought it was so
demeaning it just confirmed all of my
distaste for this kind of uh
this kind of approach uh let me ask you
from the interviewer see it so I get to
do this podcast and I often have to
think about giving a large platform and
having a conversation with very
controversial figures and the the level
of controversy has been slowly
increasing uh what's the role
of this medium to to you
oh this medium of speech between two
people and me speaking with a
controversial figure me or some other
interviewer what's the role of uh giving
platform to controversial figures say
members of the KKK or dictators
um
people who are seen as evil well we want
to face the world with reality
and the reality is that there are some
unpleasantness
unpleasantnesses in the world
you know running from genocide right
through to ordinary discrimination
um to offensiveness it's the real world
as we we know it exists are we afraid to
say it
do we want to make people think that we
live in a world where those words are
not used where those animosities don't
exist
um the answer is no but you can
whitewash you can normalize the use of
those words you can whitewash the uh
acceptability of certain leaders so for
example interviewing Hitler in 1938 1935
1936 1937 38 those are all different
Dynamics there but you can normalize
this person and in so doing create
enormous harm well see I don't see it is
normalizing I see it as exposing
if more people had taken mancom
seriously
um Franklin Roosevelt would have acted
much sooner
he only got us into the war as Congress
to get us into the war when the Japanese
made the mistake of attacking Pearl
Harbor
um but there were some people in the
state department there were some people
in the administration who were trying
trying to get Roosevelt to see what
Hitler was really like and he was blind
to it and this was one of the greatest
presidents the United States ever had he
was blind to it until the Japanese
attacked Pearl Harbor
so I think that words
unpleasant ideas as expressed by words
are essential for communicating fact and
truth and reality and that's why I think
that we should not whitewash language we
should not whitewash the fact that
Jeffrey Epstein was pretty close to MIT
and Harvard and Harvard
um and um your reality reality actually
means something yeah but from the role
of the interviewer that's something I
have to think a lot about whether
interviewing Hitler you said exposing
I think
it's hard to know what Hitler's like in
a room but
uh it's also hard to know I've never met
Jeffrey ever since cartoon know what
Jeffrey Epstein is like in a room but I
imagine to some degree they're
charismatic figures
so exposing them in the interview
setting is not an easy task
well interviewing is not an easy all
right job yeah
um it's it's not a good idea to have an
interview and be an idiot
hey
I know exactly what you're saying and I
know why you're looking at me directly
as you say it I appreciate that Harvey
all right
let me ask about your your friend your
colleague uh Alan dershowitz
and I'll also ask about your review of
his most recent book but before then
it'd be interesting um
to ask what you think of him as a human
being as a lawyer he's a quite an
interesting case he's represented some
of the most controversial figures in
history including Jeffrey up Steve
including Jeffrey Epps team Mike Tyson
Julian Assange Jim Baker and uh Jeffrey
Epstein and even Donald Trump
so he's an interesting figure what do
you think about that that's about bulo
what do you think what do you think
about uh him as a human being as a
lawyer what he represents in terms of
values and ideals well he's a criminal
defense lawyer and the job of a criminal
defense lawyer is to represent accuse
criminals
uh he he is a lifelong Democrat
he didn't represent Trump because he
agrees with him politically voted for
Hillary I believe he wrote he voted for
Hillary yes that's what he says and I
absolutely believe it he's a he's a
liberal Democrat
um but is a criminal defense lawyer as
well as a professor
and um I've represented some very nasty
people
uh in in my career
um I wouldn't go out for coffee with
them
but they have the constitutional rights
to representation
and you take that very seriously yes you
notice something that people don't
understand about their shorts
he was asked by Trump to represent him
in the second impeachment as well he
turned him down
why do you think he turned down so
people should know he represented Trump
in the first impeachment she represented
only in the first
and he was successful and when Trump was
impeached the second time he asked Alan
to represent him
has had a lifelong policy of only
representing somebody once never twice
why because he never wanted to be house
counsel to the mafia
and so he early on had this position he
only represented somebody once the mafia
wants a lawyer who's an in-house
Council who represents the mirror in
Wale cases
so that's the reason that now I never
publicly explained that I know it's a
fact because I've known him from the day
that we met at Harvard Law School 1964
he was a first year Professor I was a
first year student we both had Brooklyn
accidents and we hit it off
we've been close friends ever since so
there's some kind of unethical line
that's crossed when you continuously
represent a client
yeah he thought it was not so much an
ethical one and you have a right to
represent Mafia people but he didn't
want to be house counsel he didn't want
to be you know have him ask him for
advice in advance of what they were
doing yeah he he was willing to
represent somebody who won so no matter
how awful Klaus Farm bulo was accused of
killing his wife these are pretty nasty
people
um but he didn't want to be house
counsel to any of them
so you wrote a review of Alan
dershowitz's new book yes on Donald
Trump the title of that book is get
Trump the threat to civil liberties due
process and our constitutional rule of
law can you summarize this book and your
review of it yes by the way I
co-authored it with my research
assistant who's sitting right here Emily
yes
um and um
I thought that the book was another
example
of the fact that everybody is entitled
to a defense
and that Allen's being involved with
Trump was purely professional it was not
political it was not philosophical
and I thought that the fact that he was
being um
uh criticized he was being shunned
because of his connection to Detroit but
I found it very interesting
that this is a guy who represented such
um
I'll call them distasteful figures
as Klaus Farm Bulow
uh as uh
um Mike Tyson
uh as O.J Simpson
a Sheldon Siegel
uh when he was considered to be
a skillful
lawyer made his reputation
and then he represents Donald Trump who
to mind knowledge never killed anybody
um
and he's suddenly shunned I thought the
hypocrisy of it the political preening
it was
um very distasteful to me
um and it was not only because he was my
friend if he wasn't my friend I think
I'd have the same view
um the holier than thou nonsense
uh the hypocrisy of it
um you know they wouldn't talk they were
Martha's via now
different I'm not so sensitive
I'm someone doesn't want to talk to me
it's no problem no problem at all
um but Alan is because considering how
controversial his life has been is
someone sensitive he's somewhat
sensitive and I'm just telling out you
know the hour don't let it get to you
you know okay I can relate I can I can
definitely relate take an awesome
controversial conversation still wear my
heart on my sleeve it hurts all of it
hurts yep but maybe the pain makes you a
better
a student of human nature yep maybe
that's the case for him nevertheless the
book has a makes a a complicated and I
think an interesting point he opens the
pair he opens the book with not that
Donald Trump has announced his candidacy
for a re-election as president the
unremitting efforts by his political
opponents to quote get him to stop him
from running at any cost will only
increase these efforts May pose the most
significant threat to civil liberty
since McCarthyism so is he right he's
absolutely right because these attempted
for example the prosecution the the one
prosecution that has been brought now
Alvin Brigg in in the Manhattan
I have looked at that and I don't
believe that Trump is committed a crime
and yet Bragg was pressured to bring
that people in his office we're
threatening to quit if he didn't indict
holy and proper holy unethical
um and is going to lose the case
has Trump committed crimes yes most of
their tax crimes
um if his uh he has cheated on taxes his
whole career as far as I can tell
he could easily be indicted for the
state and federal taxes but those that
they're not as sexy
and um I think that um he's become a
Target
um by ambitious politicians ambitious
prosecutors
he has gotten some sympathy
which he doesn't deserve and um
a lot of it is is you've pardoned the
phrase political correctness the better
people are not supposed to be trumpers
um I I I had an interesting experience
about Trump I had two interesting
experiences
the more recent one was I was in the
house of um
Lauren Summers the former president of
Harvard
who is driven out by political
correctness by the way he insulted women
biologists
um I was in his house when he was still
president of Harvard
uh when the Trump Hillary Clinton
contest
took place
and I was with Elsa
um we were invited to Summer's house
in Brookline
and um
it looked like Hillary was going to win
and the Harvard faculty members they
were all celebrating they were all
figuring out what their cabinet
positions were going to be blah blah
blah blah
and then about 11 30 at night all of a
sudden it was announced and in terms of
electoral votes Trump had just geeked
out of a victory that Hillary beat him
in the popular vote but he had won the
Electoral College
and there was a immediate depression
and um
like quiet over the room but we removed
him absolutely stolen salad
and they they were all uh you know
disappointed
well that was a memorable moment and it
it told me that
they were a little bit too overconfident
and they they were savoring
being part of a presidential
Administration
ambition had been thwarted uh I'm not a
great fan of preening ambition I think
it blinds people to realities and the
resulting arrogance from such ambition
and the arrogance yes it's one of the
reasons I didn't accept Jim vorenberg's
offer to be part of the academic
Community I mean I represent professors
I have friends who are professors I
represent students I have friends who
are students
um and uh I have a great regard for
universities in higher education
um but I was not about to become part of
a culture I thought that it was not good
for me and not good for the institution
either that can a culture that can breed
arrogance yes self-importance yeah
and I in a sense the election of Donald
Trump was a big Fu to such correct which
is why I think he why I think he he
managed to uh to pull it off
um
the jump top is a little bit uh what do
you think about something you've written
about uh what do you think about the
mass surveillance programs by the NSA
and also probably by other organizations
CIA FBI and others
um and broadly what do you think about
the importance of privacy for the
American citizen okay I believe that the
FBI
should be abolished
because I believe that its culture was
so corrupted by its first director John
Edgar Hoover
J Edgar Hoover
that it is impossible to reform the FBI
to make its uh agents honest
to force them to obey the Constitution
the the first fourth and fifth
amendments especially
um
and it's a culture that cannot be
changed
Hoover established the culture and no
FBI director since has been able to
change it
if you go online
I did on YouTube a video
for the ACLU of Massachusetts it was
when I was on the board it was probably
when I was president of the board I was
president of the board for two years I
was on the board for 20 years
and I did a a video about advising
people to never ever ever talk to an FBI
agent when they come knocking on your
door
can you uh briefly explain the intuition
yes why not to talk to the FBI they have
a system when they come in and interview
you
two agents show up never one
one asked the question the other one
takes notes the the note-taking agent
takes notes and it goes back to the
office and types up a report called a
form 302
which is the official record of what was
asked and answered
so when I have a client interviewed by
the FBI I show up
and
I always agree I almost always agree to
the interview
but I bring a tape recorder
and I say all right I'm going to tape
this and they say well we're by
regulation we're not allowed to do the
interview of the state
the if the record is the 302 the agent
is taking notes I say well I have a
policy too my policy is to never allow a
client to be interviewed unless it's
recorded
so it's unfortunate but we're gonna have
to end this meeting and the Agents get
up and leave
and the I have never seen a form 302
that I considered to be accurate the
agents work write down what they
wish you had said yeah rather than what
you said it is a holy corrupt
organization that has not gotten any
better since the Hoover died and
fundamentally the the corruption is in
the culture that is uh resisting the the
the Constitution of the United States
correct the first and fourth and fifth
correct it's not it's not Financial
corruption it is um it is corruption of
the mission
and um I think you should be abolished
and if we need a federal investigative
agency uh should be a new name a new
culture wholly new members a new
director and um the it is it's
impossible to uh to reform the FBI can
you elaborate on what exactly is broken
about the FBI is it the the uh the
famous saying uh from uh Stalin's KGB
head uh Barry uh show me the man and
I'll show you the crime right is it that
kind of process it's it's that kind of
process they decide who's guilty and
then they go about concocting a case
against the person who's who who they
want to get so the goal is not to find
the truth or
uh to solve the solve the case and close
it in in Kansas City reputations
but to show that an innocent man is
guilty is also solving the case from
their perspective
so to falsely
convict or uh falsely imprisoned an
innocent man is also solving the case
well it closes the case if they fall
asleep in prison innocent man
their issues within closing cases
so that's the FBI but uh broadly
speaking about the surveillance aspect
of this what are your views on the the
the right that an American citizen has
to privacy well
um wiretapping and electronic
surveillance are very very intrusive
and um I think that the
circumstance
that these tools are used should be
narrowed
for example they're used in a lot of
drug cases
I don't think drugs should be illegal in
any event I certainly think that it's a
terrible violation of privacy
to to use why it's happening in the drug
case
I could see it in cases of murder
um possibly in cases of serious
extortion
but on other kinds of kinds of crimes
with a wiretap especially drug cases I
believe drugs should all be legalized
anyway
um I think it's um the the the the the
price we pay as a society is not worth
it there's uh on the Wikipedia page for
nothing to hide you're cited in fact
your book that you gave me today three
felonies a day excited so nothing to
hide argument that's an argument that uh
if you're a well-behaved citizen
you have nothing to hide in there for
your privacy can be violated well the
problem is that under the federal
criminal code
particularly the federal criminal code
um
it is very easy to be charged with a
crime now why
under the Constitution
the federal government does not have
plenary criminal jurisdiction that's up
to the state
how is it the thief feds
indict in so many areas of American Life
it's because the Supreme Court has
allowed the following absolutely insane
situation to prevail
anything can be made a federal crime
if in the course of the commission of
the crime
the means of Interstate communication or
travel or used
that means that if you commit a crime
which is ordinarily would be a state
crime and you use the telephone
or you send a letter
it suddenly becomes Federal
that means that the limitation that the
founding fathers who wrote the
Constitution
intended to keep the feds out of
daily life
and to give that jurisdiction to the
state
has been completely thwarted
because I can't think of we a case
where somebody doesn't use a telephone
in the course of
planning discussing something that's
arguably Criminal
and so this limited Authority the
federal government
to bring
charges in criminal cases is illusory
feds can indict a ham sandwich
so basically everybody's guilty and if
uh if if the if the feds want to bring
you in they can they're going to find a
way and that allows them
to terrorize people who are dissidents
yeah what is
broken what works about the American
criminal justice system from your
perspective from the jury the jury
system the jury system yes you like the
jury system everyday citizens
representing 12 ordinary people have to
agree unanimously
in order to convict
uh what do you think about the highest
court in the land the Supreme Court what
works and what is broken about the
Supreme Court as an institution what are
its strengths and weaknesses well the
Supreme Court is is is
um unfortunately fairly political
and um
the current Supreme Court is overruling
precedence
which are it's really improper
imprecedence cannot should not be
overruled so easily
um it's about to over really
affirmative action
now I'm opposed to affirmative action I
think I made that clear earlier in our
discussion
but still
um it's a precedent and it should be
given some respect
but in order to um in order to uh
in order to propagate a more
conservative
agenda the court is treating precedence
as if it doesn't have any any role and
that's a huge mistake
um some of the congressmen in the
Democratic side are looking to enlarge
the court
in order to
basically do what Franklin Roosevelt was
not able to do
um and and that is a change the Court's
philosophy
but I think that's very short-sighted
because this is a longer
this is a long game this is the Republic
we have here
and
anyone who tries to for example enlarge
the court from 9 to 12 in order to get
more
um liberals on the court
then some other Administration will try
to enlarge it from 12 to 15 to get more
liberals on the court
you have a
a constant fiddling with the very
important institution so the law should
have more lasting power than the
bickering the political bickering of the
day correct let me ask you
you've lived one heck of a life
and um
fought a lot of battles and continue to
do so with the Harvard Board of
overseers so first of all thank you for
that
but uh
we're all human we're all Mortal do you
Ponder your death do you Ponder your
mortality are you afraid of it well let
me say this my father died at 48.
he died because he smoked he died at 48
because he smoked four packs of camels a
day
he got a massive heart attack at 43. he
continued to smoke despite this that
he died at 48 so I did not expect to
live this alone
because I thought it was genetic it
turns out it was cigarettes
so here I am I'm going to be 81 on May
10th I was born on May 10th 1942 which
is Mother's Day coincidentally
and I realize I'm not going to live
forever
I also
take pride in the fact that I have
demonstrated that a lawyer does not have
to go with a law firm in order to manage
to make it you can make your own right
you wrote what's the word write your own
ticket
I've done that
um
I agree that I've had a an Elite
Education I went to Princeton and
Harvard Law School
but I don't think you have to
necessarily go to a lead institution in
order to really make it
you need to work hard
that you shouldn't put yourself in a
place where you're not going to feel
comfortable and what's the word
empowered like I refuse to
take Warren Birds
invitation for potato track position at
Harvard Law School
um
I'll I'll tell you one one other story
that illustrates this
I was originally pre-med my freshman sat
four years at Princeton I was in the
Pre-Med program why
because my parents
wanted me to marry the daughter of our
family physician
and the idea was
to go to medical school I was going to
go into medical practice with him in
Hackensack New Jersey
we had moved from Brooklyn at the time
the long story why we had to move from
Brooklyn had to do with my father's
having a problem with the furries Union
and having his life threatened
and we moved to Maywood New Jersey
because he got a job in first shop in
Passaic New Jersey
and a family physician they had three
daughters the oldest of whom was my age
she went to Hackensack High School
I went to Bogota High School
the both of them both North Bergen
County
and the idea was that
she and I were going to marry
I was going to become I was in a medical
school I was going to take become a
partner
of her father in his medical practice in
Hackensack
when he retired I was going to inherit
the practice
this this scenario was concocted by
Carolyn's mother and my mother
in my sophomore year of that Princeton I
won a fellowship to spend that summer
between my sophomore junior in Paris
I was fluent by then
I had taken accelerated French course my
freshman sophomore year
and um I went to Paris
it was my first time out of the country
and um
I spent the entire summer working
supporting myself and participate the
airfare and I I earned money
for room board
and I thought about my life and I
decided number one I didn't want to be a
physician I wanted to be a lawyer
number two I didn't want to marry
Carolyn
and I came back I changed for pre-med to
pre-law
I broke up with Carolyn
who is by that time a school at Douglas
right down the road from Princeton she
had followed me
or I had followed her
and um
my life suddenly took a wholly different
term
so that summer in Paris Paris
had a outsized effect of my life
every year the Bravo theater shows
Casablanca
where Bogart has this great line
he says will always have Paris
and I think to myself I always just said
Elsa we used to see Pastor Blanca every
Valentine's Day
because it was such an important movie
to me because Paris was transformative
in my life and we went to Paris every
year during my vacation we went to Paris
that was wherever she took some great
pictures
this high and this high they were
hanging up in the house
and um so I always I I
and even after Elsa's death I've seen
Casablanca twice now
she she died in the 2020.
and um I'm always I always think people
always have pairs
we'll always have Paris
well Harvey
um like I said I hope I hope you're very
successful in your
um in your run for the Harvard Board of
overseers I think what you stand for in
the realm of freedom of speech is uh
I think the thing that makes these
universities great institutions in
American culture and
um I'll do everything I can to help you
succeed and I just uh I'm really
grateful for all the work you've done
and I'm grateful that you will talk with
me today this is amazing
thank you
thanks for listening to this
conversation with Harvey silverglade to
support this podcast please check out
our sponsors in the description and now
let me leave you some words from Harry S
Truman
once the government is committed to the
principle of silencing the voice of the
opposition it is only one way to go and
that is down the path of increasingly
repressive measures
until it becomes the source of Terror to
all its citizens and creates a country
where everyone lives in fear
thank you for listening and hope to see
you next time