- Good afternoon. Welcome to the Bloomington Rotary Club's weekly celebration of service. I'm Steve Wicks,
- and I'm honored to serve as your president this year. Please silence your electronic devices. So today's
- program will touch on a number of themes. We'll start with the sad, move to the serious, move to celebratory,
- and then finally, most of the hour will be spent with thought
- with a thought provoking. So I'll start by announcing, as almost all of you know, that last week our
- longtime member, Charlotte Zitlow, passed away. We will have a short tribute to her next week.
- But for today, if we could just have a moment of silence for Charlotte, please.
- Thank you very much. If you would all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, and when we're done, veterans,
- when we're done, veterans, please remain standing. I pledge allegiance to the flag, the United States
- of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty
- and justice for all.
- And once again, would veterans please remain standing? Do we have any veterans on Zoom? No. So veterans,
- thank you all for your service.
- for club members. If you get a chance today and as a veteran, as a friend, family member, please thank
- them for their service. Can we have a round of applause for our veterans? Thank you. On this day in
- history, November 11th, 1918,
- The Armistice Agreement was signed, formally ending World War I, known at that time as the War to End
- All Wars. Three years later, on November 11, 1921, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was dedicated at
- Arlington National Cemetery. David Wright will share today's reflection.
- So I'm five years old and I'm at the State Museum with my grandfather for two and a half hours. And
- he's reading every single placard in every single exhibit with slow contemplative demeanor. He's embodying
- the wisdom of Socrates
- be slow to speak, and only after reflection. Once home, we're playing a game of chess, and
- he is contemplating every move forever. And I have no choice but to do the same. Later, he's reading
- the paper cover to cover, a book from beginning to end. And you guessed it, as a little five-year-old,
- With no TV and no devices, I have no choice but to do the same. Because of my grandfather, I became
- a voracious reader. And because of my grandfather, contemplation became a part of who I am. My only
- regret is that I never got to share the wisdom with him of the knowledge he gained from all those books
- he read every day.
- from all the articles and contemplations he had, because he was the strong, silent type. But I was always
- proud of him, and he is an important part of my history. And it is because of my grandfather that I
- now feel like a stranger in a strange land. News articles and books have been replaced by short videos
- and blogs. Those have been replaced by TikToks and tweets. And now,
- Those have been replaced by five word memes and emojis. It seems like our civil discourse is becoming
- less and less contemplative every day. And it seems like there's not any time left for discussing the
- why behind the what. And when that happens, sometimes our society forgets the why altogether.
- It's happened over time. Today is a good example. The purpose of Veterans Day has been slowly forgotten.
- Well, the second half of it. Here's a quote from one of the presidential proclamations a while back.
- Quote, to acknowledge the respect and admiration we have for our veterans, the Congress has designated
- November 11th to be a legal holiday to be known as Veterans Day and has dedicated it
- to the cause of world peace. For a while, I thought that was way back when, because it got passed in
- 1938. But this quote is from Richard Nixon, of all people, in 1970. But then over the last few decades,
- that kind of why behind the what kind of faded away. We remembered the fight, but are starting to forget
- what we were fighting for.
- And today's topic serves as a similar reminder about the importance of the why behind the what. We're
- about to discuss how freedom of speech is under siege. Like Veterans Day, it too has its own deeper
- purpose, the search for truth and accountability. But that purpose becomes clouded if we do not work
- to act on it.
- If we do not realize that we are the ones who are supposed to be speaking, if we, the principled leaders
- of our community, do not promote our ideals, call out transgressions, and pass on our knowledge and
- wisdom for the next generation, then our silence becomes a self-imposed threat to free speech as well,
- simply leaving more room for those who sow deception, prejudice, and ill intent.
- So in honor of my grandfather and his gift of contemplation, and in honor of our guest speaker today,
- Professor Sanders and others like him who worked to defend our right to speak, I offer this reflection.
- We all also have the right to remain silent. But I'm beginning to believe that remaining silent just
- isn't right.
- Thank you, David. Peggy Frisbee will introduce our guest today. Good afternoon. I'm here to introduce
- our guests of today. And when I announce your name, guess,
- Please stand so that we can welcome you. First, Shane Gibson, a guest of Jim Bright. Shane is engaged
- in real estate. Next is Jim Roddenbush, also a guest of Jim Bright, who says he's in academia. And then
- Daniel Schlegel.
- I knew I could do it. Guest of the club and a historian. And then our last guest of today is Jalen Gitanj.
- I'm not sure if I pronounced that correctly. Guest of Peyton Flynn. Do we have any guests online? Hi,
- Peggy. Hi, everyone.
- No guests, just rotarians. Well, thank you for coming today. And if you have any questions about Rotary,
- please ask anyone at your table or anyone in the room. OK, thank you. Thank you, Peggy. We have three
- Rotary birthdays to celebrate today. On the 14th, Trent Deckard. On the 16th, Lydia Potter. And on the
- 17th, Katie Cernyak.
- Also, we have anniversaries to observe. Tomorrow on the 12th, both Don and Carol Ann Hustler, one year.
- On the 16th, our greeter for today, Ruth Boschkoff, four years. And on the 17th, past President Jim
- Cryweigh, 37 years.
- Announcements make sure you're saving the date for the annual club holiday party Scheduled for December
- 11th at the Bloomington Country Club, and we'll have more details coming up next week Posting for the
- club executive assistant is still open. We tentatively plan to close this posting on the 15th Rotary
- global scholarship recipient Noah Jagger wrote a well-written letter to the editor at the Herald Times
- about Rotary. You haven't read it
- The link to it hopefully will be in this week's roundabout, or I'm sure you can go into the Herald Times
- online and find it. As of today, we still need a roundabout reporter for the month of December. Marilyn
- Wood is sitting at the back of the room. See her if you are interested. Get ready to serve. In the weeks
- ahead, we'll need club members to help put the finishing touches on our Meals on Wheels District Grant Project.
- We'll need lots of volunteers for our annual Salvation Army bell ringing. So Meals on Wheels. We need
- 10 people total. I think Diana Hoffman has five signed up so far. It'll be next week during the week
- 11 to roughly 1230. And you'll be riding with Meals on Wheels drivers. And you're delivering the rotary sponsored
- insulated bags to clients. So you won't need to drive. The bags aren't heavy. There isn't any heavy
- lifting involved. Ten routes. Once again, we have five people signed up. We need five more. And you
- may choose any day. And then there'll be a follow-up indoor activity with meals and wheels in January.
- And that will involve filling their freezer. Salvation Army bell ringing. That's one we've done every
- year for some time.
- We need 26 volunteer slots to fill over three successive Saturdays, November 29th, December 6th, December
- 13th. There is a sign-up sheet moving between tables. Dave Meyer, Michelle Cohen can help you if you
- have questions. But typically, there are two-hour shifts. You usually ring with another rotarian.
- I found it as a great opportunity to get to know other club members. And you just see lots of people
- in the community, and almost everyone's in a good mood. And it's a really important cause, especially
- this year when times are tough for a lot of our residents here in Monroe County. Dave? Ah, yes, okay.
- So it won't be freezing cold, but it will be in that area, and that's a good area.
- One of our organizational members, Wheeler Mission, they have scheduled a 5K run walk dash for shelter
- at Carson Farm Park on Saturday, December 6th. Please see me if you'd like additional information. I'll
- try to get the information in the roundabout. And I'm sure if you don't want to walk or run, they'd
- appreciate volunteers. Red Cross is also an organizational member. I noticed they're having a blood
- drive downstairs in the Frangipani room.
- So after we listen to Steve Sanders, if our blood pressure is really high, might be a chance to go down
- and relieve some pressure. I'm not sure if that's a medically appropriate procedure. Last, once again,
- we are members of the Chamber of Commerce. They are members of our organization. Their next business
- after hours is Thursday, November 13th. That's on Thursday.
- 530 to 730 at Beltrace Senior Living Community. And now we have a lot of service to celebrate. Tyler,
- can you put on the? So as raterians, we're called to serve. And once again, it's been two weeks since
- we've had a regular meeting. So I'll start with Rila.
- October 31st to November 2nd, about 45 high school students got together at Bradford Woods. On the left,
- you can see picture of the three young men that we sponsored. One is Rex Hillary's grandson. One is
- club member Erica Kovacs' son, and then the friend of her son. And then on the right, picture of Joy Harder,
- Joy spent about five hours on Friday registering everyone. Did a lot of work. So I want to thank those
- three individuals. Next, celebrate. FutureCast, November 4th. Once again, October was economic development
- month for Rotary. FutureCast is all about economic development. Here's a picture of Lauren Snyder giving
- the reflection, and you can see the Rotary
- four-way test banner right next to it. And Lauren did a really good job. In addition to that,
- Lauren's firm, Baird Wealth Management, sponsored our club's costs of being a sponsor. And then Kyla
- Cox-Deckard did all the work behind the scenes putting this together on behalf of our club.
- So thank you, Lauren and Kyla. Then finally, the Rotary Toast, November 7th. This is our biggest club
- event of the year.
- This is where, first of all, it ends up in being a really significant charitable donation for the recipients
- charity of choice, which this year was the Bloomington North Habitat for Humanity Club. And then secondly,
- some of the proceeds are used to fund the community services giving for the three Rotary Clubs. So it's
- a really big deal. It's a lot of work.
- On the left, you see a picture of some of our club members and members of the other clubs getting the
- place ready, decorating before the event. Here's a picture on the right of club member Shelly Yoder
- speaking at the event. So first of all, big, big thank you for Tracy. She took it on this year.
- in typical Tracy fashion. It's done with a lot of energy, a lot of attention to detail, and it's done
- well. And we had a sellout. So it was a very, very successful event. And then we had other club members
- who helped. Alan Barker, Ron Barnes, Jim Bright, Marcus Debrow, Andrea Murray, Lynn Schwartzberg, Heidi
- Schultz, Shelly Yoder, Charlotte Zitlow, and John Zote.
- In addition, Jim Bright, Andrew Murray, and Jeff Richardson all purchased tables. And then club members.
- We had a number of club members who attended future casts and a number of club members who purchased
- rotary toast tickets. So lots of things to celebrate. And now we'll move to the mystery rotarian.
- Once again, the rules are, I'll give a clue. If you know the answer, put up your hand. Don't shout it
- out. If you're online, put up your hand electronically.
- First clue, a native of Decatur, Illinois, this Rotarian served in the US Army. After finishing military
- service, this Rotarian used the GI build to earn multiple degrees, including a doctorate from Indiana
- State. Put up your hand if you know. Second clue, and I'm going to pronounce this word wrong,
- This Shidokan Karate Second Degree Black Belt currently serves as Executive Director of the IU Department
- of Mentoring Services and Leadership Development. I see a few more. Okay. Third and final clue. A club
- member for over four years, this Rotarian currently serves as Chairperson of the Club DEI Committee.
- and as a member of the District 65 DEI Committee. Put up your hands. Okay, we have a lot more here.
- And this week's mystery rotarian is Patrick Smith. Patrick has served on the State of Indiana Commission
- on the Social Status of Black Males,
- during his military service, served as a member of military intelligence. And in the case of Patrick,
- military intelligence does go together. Pretty smart guy. And he served in the DMZ region of South Korea,
- so a hot spot then and still a hot spot. And also in Panama during the Noriega era. So some of you remember
- that in our country's history.
- He's been with IU for almost 20 years, and Patrick is part of a power couple. His wife, Dr.
- Candice Smith, is a lecturer, African American and African Diaspora Studies. So anyway, congratulations,
- Patrick. Jim Sins and Dakir, you put your hand up about the same time. Did you both have it right? Okay,
- good job. Joy, did anyone get it online?
- Other than me with the last slide knowing it was Patrick. Nice to learn about it. We are running a little
- bit behind. So I'm going to do the Rotary International seven areas of focus. And we've moved into November,
- which is Rotary Foundation Month. And what I will say is that our happy dollars proceeds in November
- and December will be given to the Rotary Foundation.
- I had planned on happy dollars. I don't want to take any time away from our speaker. So Byron, if you
- can come in and come up and introduce our speaker.
- The best I recall, our speaker this afternoon was first introduced to me by one of our distinguished
- former Rotarians, Kent Owen. Kent thought that Steve Sanders was someone I should know and would want
- to know, and he was right. Some years later, Steve, who served for some years as a member of the Bloomington
- Human Rights Commission, was instrumental in recruiting me to apply for a vacancy on that commission
- which led to my appointment by the city's common council and to 20 something years of service on the
- Human Rights Commission of Bloomington. You may know Steve in various other capacities. He has been
- an important and articulate public voice in advocating for matters related to constitutional law, as
- well as human rights, academic freedom, and current threats to our cherished democratic republic.
- The current degradations to which IU is being subjected have also recently received his focused attention.
- There may be no one in our community better qualified by virtue of his credentials and experience to
- warrant this attention. Steve Sanders is Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Professor of Law, and
- the Val Nolan Faculty Fellow at the IU Maurer School of Law. His primary teaching and research are
- Mary is our constitutional law and his work has appeared in major law journals and has been cited in
- the New Yorker, the Atlantic, the Washington Post, federal district court opinions and briefs to the
- United States Supreme Court and other federal courts. He is a three time winner of an IU trustees teaching
- award and is frequently quoted by local and national media about matters of constitutional law and the
- US Supreme Court.
- I don't have the title of his address in front of me, but it's something about, does anybody care about
- human rights? No, about free speech anymore. Steve Sanders. Thank you, Byron. In difference to Steve,
- I will try not to raise your blood pressure too much. I know you didn't leave emergency contact information
- at the door, and I have
- appreciated this club ever since, as Byron mentioned, our late mutual friend Kent Owen actually nominated
- me back in 1992, 1993 for a Rotary exchange program to Brazil. And I just hadn't done a lot of international
- travel at that point. And that gave me a month in a completely different culture. And I was always grateful
- to Rotary for giving me that experience. So as Byron said, the title of my talk is, Does Anyone Actually
- Believe in Free Speech?
- anymore. We routinely hear politicians and activists on both the left and the right praising free speech
- and accusing the other side of being against it, but is this sincere commitment or just posturing? Political
- liberalism has always been identified with a commitment to free speech, but today the political left
- is dominated not by liberals but by progressives, and evidence suggests many progressives put other
- political priorities
- ahead of free speech. For example, the ACLU was once known as a group that gave meaning to the view
- attributed to the French philosopher Voltaire. I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend
- to the death your right to say it. The ACLU, after all, famously defended the right of the Nazis to
- march in Skokie, Illinois in the 1970s.
- Yet in recent years, the ACLU has abandoned this approach. Its guidelines on selecting cases for litigation
- now say the group will consider, quote, the potential effect on marginalized communities and the extent
- to which speech may assist in advancing the goals of groups which are contrary to our views.
- Ira Glasser, who led the ACLU from 1978 to 2001, said the new policy was the most fundamental departure
- from ACLU founding principles you could possibly have. Within my own area of legal academia, Professor
- Louis Michael Seidman of Georgetown Law School, one of the most prominent people in our profession,
- has argued that free speech simply cannot be progressive. He says it entrenches dominant voices and
- too often privileges elites at the expense of the marginalized. Modern progressives, Professor Seidman
- has said, just can't shake their mindless attraction to the bright flame of our free speech tradition.
- Progressives need to turn away before they are burned. Well, how about the political right? In recent
- years, political conservatives contrasted their
- implied commitments to free speech with the cancel culture on American college campuses and the political
- left more generally. On his first day in office this year, Donald Trump signed an executive order that
- it is, quote, the policy of the United States to secure the right of the American people to engage in
- constitutionally protected speech and to assure that no taxpayer sources are used to facilitate any
- conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge
- the free speech of any American citizen. Sounds great, right? But what to make of this as we watched
- federalized troops deployed to American cities to intimidate and interfere with small and largely peaceful
- protests. What to make of this as Trump uses unconstitutional assertions of executive power to punish
- journalists, universities, and law firms for their speech and viewpoints.
- In 2021, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita wrote, quote, the free expression of political beliefs
- should be encouraged, even if we do not agree with the beliefs. It is this free dialogue, he said, the
- free exchange of ideas, good and bad, that fosters our self-governance. Yet this is the same attorney
- general whose noisy public demands got a staff member from Ball State University, Suzanne Swierk, fired.
- Swierich expressed her political beliefs and exchanged her ideas in the form of a Facebook post about
- the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Swierich's post was passionately worded. It did not cross any lines
- of legality. It certainly did not advocate violence, yet Rokita could not abide it. And he used his
- power as a government official to attempt to ruin Swierich's life. Public employees have First Amendment
- rights as long as they're private,
- outside the office speech does not substantially disrupt their employer's workplace or its ability to
- carry out its job. Swierich's case is now in federal court, and I predict that Ball State, after spending
- several hundred thousand dollars on the expense of Washington lawyers it has hired, will lose. That's
- because no facts have come to light suggesting that the legal bar for substantial disruption was cleared here.
- The fact that some people were upset or angered by Swierks' comments likely will not be found by a court
- sufficient to qualify as substantial disruption. As I wrote about the case in the Indy Star, if people
- who didn't like Swierks' social media comments could simply manufacture substantial disruption through
- their extravagant overreaction, or if politicians could do so by their public bullying,
- then the First Amendment would protect very little. So to this point, I've tried to sketch, I hope not
- unfairly, a few high-profile examples of what I see as hypocrisy on both sides when it comes to free
- speech. But why is this kind of self-serving behavior a problem when it comes to an important constitutional
- right and principle of human freedom?
- Simply stated, a commitment to free speech must be a neutral principle. A principle is neutral when
- it can be generalized, when it applies without regard to the identity, popularity, or politics of the
- speaker or cause. Why are neutral principles important? The First Amendment is not merely about protecting
- individual speakers. It is a guarantee that the marketplace of ideas,
- remains open. Without neutral principles, free speech becomes merely a partisan slogan and cudgel. When
- constitutional rights, like the First Amendment, are litigated in court, they must be applied neutrally
- and consistently across cases, regardless of who is benefited or burdened. Otherwise, courts lose credibility
- with the public.
- In the Ball State case, the question will be not whether SWYARC statements were good or bad, popular
- or unpopular, whether they angered powerful people, but rather whether they objectively, according to
- objective standards, created a substantial disruption to Ball State's operations. And as I said, I don't
- think the test is likely to be met. The requirement for neutral principles
- is not just a matter of legal doctrine, it's a moral commitment. It insists on intellectual honesty.
- It insists on the courage to criticize our political allies when necessary and the courage to defend
- the rights of speakers we disagree with. And neutrality isn't always about political partisanship. Indiana
- University arguably abandoned neutrality when it imposed a policy prohibiting
- nighttime political protests, a ban that was later found unconstitutional by a federal court. But IU
- was more than happy to have hundreds of students happily gathering on campus overnight and voicing their
- support for their team when ESPN's College Game Day came to town. And so again, this is the difference
- between encouraging speech we like while banning speech we find
- problematic or inconvenient, even if there's not necessarily an element of partisanship to it. And so
- if we really believe in free speech, I think we must reject the thinking, as the historian and journalist
- Nat Hentoff titled one of his books, Free Speech for Me, but Not for Thee.
- A similar commitment to neutral principles is necessary, I think, for the proper functioning of academic
- freedom, which Byron noted is also an interest of mine. Academic freedom overlaps with free speech in
- the First Amendment. They have distinct principles, but they are related. By academic freedom, I mean
- the principle that faculty should be free to engage in the creation and dissemination of knowledge.
- free of constraints, free of censorship by the government, and that universities should be largely allowed
- to govern themselves. Yet many universities seem to have given up on these neutral principles. Being
- a neutral principle means academic freedom must rest on something more than faculty or institutional
- self-interest.
- The idea that universities should be largely left alone is a social compact. In exchange for a degree
- of autonomy, universities function as unique social institutions devoted to rigorous analysis, the free
- flow of ideas, and the discovery of new knowledge. As the American Association of University Professors
- recognized more than a century ago,
- public acceptance of our work as faculty members depends on it being seen as disinterested expression
- and as unbiased inquiry. The University of Chicago's 1967 Calvin Report said a university must remain
- institutionally neutral on political and social controversies. And that reason is the university
- This report written by the famous First Amendment scholar, Professor Calvin. The university cannot take
- collective action on the issues of the day without engendering the conditions for its existence and
- effectiveness. Calvin said that the university is the home and the sponsor of critics. It is not itself
- the critic. Like any other speaker, I feel
- to close on some sort of optimistic or at least positive note, although there may not be much among
- the wreckage that I've talked about. So let me offer this one quotation from a speech titled, The Spirit
- of Liberty, given by the great former Federal Court of Appeals Justice in New York, Learned Hand. Hand
- was speaking at an event called, I Am an American Day.
- in New York in 1944. This was an event that celebrated newly naturalized citizens. Judge Hans said,
- the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women. The spirit
- of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias. And something
- I find that I agree with the older I get, the spirit of liberty, Judge Hans said,
- is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. So thank you. I wanted to keep that relatively
- compact because I suspected this was also going to be a topic where there could be a lot of questions
- and discussion. And I would love to be a part of that as long as we have. Do we have any questions out there?
- And I don't know if somebody else will keep the queue or if I should just, was that Jim I said? I got
- it right here. Okay, all right. Thank you, Steve, for the presentation. The first thing I want to say
- is that, first of all, I'm not afraid of the governor, the lieutenant governor, the secretary of state
- or our attorney general. But thank you. But as a politician, I serve two terms on city council. I understand that
- A lot of my speech had to have been tempered during that time, mainly because of the funding sources
- and the threat against that. Move forward. Now I'm the president of the NAACP. We are nonpartisan. We're
- not apolitical. And I feel no threat to speak on what is right for our organization. So my question
- to you is, should I have anything to fear individually?
- from our political leaders with regard to our free speech and organizations such as that? I will say
- we just wrote a letter about the university and had it, we posted it against the takeover of the board
- of trustees, the kidnapping I should say, and the elimination of the diversity, equity, and inclusion
- programs. So should I still be comfortable in saying what we think is correct against what we think is wrong?
- I mean, the NAACP is a private organization. I think at the end of the day, legally, the only thing
- you have to worry about is your board of directors and whether they're happy with what you're saying
- or unhappy with what you're saying. You don't get funding, I assume, from the state or any other entity
- that could make a political judgment. So I would say, no, I mean, the only thing you might face.
- you know, is just, if something, if Todd Rokita, the governor, somebody else decides to use their bully
- pulpit to publicly attack you in some way or denounce you in some way, you know, that's what you have
- to worry about. Now that, in one sense, that's just the rough and tumble, the free flow of ideas and
- debate. But, you know, we're talking about people who have bigger social media accounts and access to
- the media and megaphones than perhaps you do.
- my sense off the cuff is the only thing you have to worry about is whether you feel you can adequately
- defend yourself, whether your membership will stand up for its interests if it's attacked or criticized
- by people on the other side of what you're advocating for. Sure. Other questions? Yes. I see a question.
- I can move around, right? Is this OK? OK.
- I would worry about his financial ability if somebody does decide to bring a suit. And that's a large
- part of the president's. So about Jim's union or what you say is. Well, anybody who's being sued, if
- they want to have a defense, they have to hire a lawyer. And some people have much bigger pockets. And
- I think that that may be something that
- he could worry about whether or not it's a worthwhile suit, he still might have to pay for the organization
- for defense. Yeah, it's certainly possible. This term lawfare has come into being where you use the
- law to try to harass your enemies. Again, offhand, a private organization, a membership organization,
- an advocacy organization like that, I can't offhand if we're talking about an organization like the NAACP.
- imagine on what basis someone could sue them. I assume Jim is not going to libel anybody. I mean, if
- you libel somebody, there's a legal definition for defamation. Well, that's true. And there's no safeguard
- other than hopefully a court doing its job and moving toward an early dismissal of an unmeritorious
- lawsuit. I'll add to that as well.
- Because I follow refugee and immigration issues here as a volunteer in the community, I've been following
- closely the state attorney general's work and efforts to chill organizations that are engaged in working
- with immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and the like. So there's another branch of that lawfare,
- as you put it, that is not
- doesn't come before a court, but rather Rokito has launched requests for information and investigations
- into organizations. One of note is Exodus Refugee Immigration, which is based in Indianapolis, but as
- an office in Bloomington. And so, you know, alleging potential for human trafficking, which of course
- they work on the opposite side of human trafficking,
- and, you know, not following their nonprofit charter and violating the law. So, you know, that's not
- defensible. That's just, it doesn't go to court. It only goes between the attorney general's office
- and, you know, so that stuff is happening. And I'm sure it's a reflection of speech or it's a reflection
- of trying to show their action in the work that they do.
- I don't know the specifics of the case you're talking about. I've read some headlines, I think. I mean,
- I think the only thing I can say is that at the end of the day, Attorney General Rokita is a lawyer.
- He is accountable to not just the ordinary law that we're all accountable, but to special ethical
- professional obligations that are applicable under
- the bar association's regulations that are applicable only to lawyers. Now, he has found himself on
- the wrong side of those ethical rules in the past, and that's been in the headlines. I mean, if he abuses
- his office, if he abuses his power as the state's lawyer, there are disciplinary mechanisms available
- to attempt to hold him to account. Again, I'm not making a judgment because I don't know the facts of
- this situation, but
- that is one place where it's useful that lawyers are supposed to be held to a particularly high standard
- of ethical conduct. Steve, if someone had told me just a few years ago that a lecturer would be banned
- from the classroom because a student called a US senator objecting to a graphic and that senator
- called the Dean, does this not just violate what academic freedom is all about? And it just reminds
- me of totalitarian place where students or where people are told to complain, to put in complaints to
- higher powers. It's the most authoritarian thing that I can imagine.
- How can we have changed so much so fast? I don't know if you've heard about the case that Judy is talking
- about. I have some complicated takes on that that I've been arguing with people on on Facebook as usual.
- This was a graphic that talked about this is overt white supremacy and this is covert white supremacy.
- What was listed as covert white supremacy included
- a lot of things that I would not call white supremacy, but it's a graphic that's often used in DEI trainings
- and so forth. Now, this was a class where students are graded. And so my sort of hot take on that is
- if this professor of this lecture was using that slide as an artifact for learning and discussion, let's
- think critically about this. Are these things really white supremacy? What do we mean by white supremacy?
- And, you know, contying these other kinds of things
- you know, particular behaviors or attitudes. Should those be called white supremacy? If she used it
- as the launching point for a critical discussion, then of course, as a matter of academic freedom, I
- think it is protected. And, you know, I think she might have a lawsuit if that was interfered with,
- because we are in a federal circuit that says what teachers do in the classroom is protected by the
- First Amendment. What I said on Facebook was if, however, she was using this particular slide
- and she was teaching it essentially as truth, this is what you must believe to succeed in this class,
- then I'd have problems with it from an academic freedom standpoint, because the AAUP back in 1915 said
- that professors' academic freedom doesn't include the right to politically indoctrinate vulnerable and
- impressionable students. So, so much of this
- as an academic freedom matter, I think depends on how that slide was used in political science. It's
- the difference between teaching a scholarly article, which you could say, this is the best that our
- discipline can come up with in the refinement of knowledge versus teaching somebody's political speech.
- And you can pick it apart, but you don't put it forth as truth. Now, the point you're raising is essentially
- just how this came to be. I use reaction to it. Yes, we live in a time where
- politicians feel increasingly, you know, I am certain that back in the days when I worked for Ken Gross
- Lewis, you know, in the 1990s, that there were politicians who, you know, brought complaints to the
- chancellor and the deans, but they didn't become as high, as high profile as this. And, you know, the
- response was not as harsh. The idea that you pull some, I don't, you know, I'm not involved in that.
- I think I, you know, as an associate dean myself, I need to be a little careful about criticizing the
- decision makers of,
- people in other schools, I would just say that I do think it is a somewhat harsh response to say we
- have to investigate this. That used to be the kind of thing we saved for really grievous things like
- an assault on a student or something like that. And so I do think, you know, you called it authoritarian,
- your word, I think a lot depends on how the university reacts to this. If there is
- a thoughtful discussion and analysis of how this was being used in the class. The slide in and of itself
- is not necessarily objectionable. It all depends on the context of what was happening in the class.
- So I just hope that this gets resolved quickly. And I hope that the university, if it's necessary to
- do so, is not afraid to tell Senator Banks, sorry, we looked into this, but it's academically appropriate. I hope.
- Question online. Yeah, Joy. Yes, actually I'm representing Michael Shermas, who is driving and I'm asking
- this question for him. He would like, Steve, he'd like to know how much worse do you think it will get
- in terms of our free speech rights being taken away? Do you think we're headed down a path
- of an authoritarian government taking bigger chunks of our free speech rights away?
- I think the short answer is simply yes, but I want to say there's a lot there. What level of government
- are we talking about? What speech rights are we talking about? Are we talking about my free speech rights
- in the classroom to teach a subject as I feel is appropriate to teach it? Are we talking about my free
- speech rights here in a public setting? Are we talking about a letter to the editor that I write on
- a public issue?
- I mean, I do think as a general principle, not just for the reasons I've talked about that we've lost
- sight of neutrality, but in a more general way, yes, free speech is under attack. People find comfort
- in strong leaders and borderline authoritarianism and seem to place less faith. I think free speech
- requires a commitment of principle. It's not something that necessarily makes your daily life easier.
- I guess I hope I'm not fudging on Michael's question in a sort of broad general way. I think yes, but
- I would want to discuss again, what is the specific context we're talking about? What is the government
- behavior we're talking about? I mean, I don't feel my free speech rights are threatened. I hope I'm
- not being naive, but I would not want to be the president of a university or the head of a law firm
- that was facing down the federal government and having
- conditions imposed on it that limit its freedom of expression, professional function and so forth. Okay,
- Tim. Thank you very much for coming. It's a message we need to hear. Some of us recently have seen the
- Wizard of Oz and we learned about courage. You have shown a remarkable lot of courage in your statements
- and I'm so glad you're here. Thank you. My question is there is a federal judge who now has resigned
- so that he can
- critique the current administration. Do you see, think we will see more courage on the behalf of our
- elected and judicial officials to come forth and speak outwardly with courage as you have done? Well,
- I, you know, at least in terms of the federal government, when it comes to Congress, no, absolutely
- not. I mean, there has been a complete, you know, the logic of our constitution is that you would have
- branches not just of equal power, but of equal jealousy in guarding their prerogatives. That has completely
- broken down with the lack of any sort of functional effective Congress willing to assert its prerogatives
- in the face of the kind of clear executive overreach we have seen. So in that political realm and the
- congressional side, no, we clearly don't see that.
- On the judicial side, I mean, from what I have seen, we have judges voicing increasing frustration,
- increasing skepticism, attempting to do their jobs, blocking things that need to be blocked and doing
- so with well-reasoned opinions, except for the Supreme Court, which does a lot of things and doesn't
- provide much of an opinion on it. But my great fear is that
- the courts are fooling themselves if they think at the end of the day, they can enforce some of the
- orders that they are giving. The courts, the Supreme Court, the lower federal courts do not have their
- own army police force. They have some enforcement mechanisms, but even those are typically dependent
- on the Department of Justice and the marshals who work for the Department of Justice. And who does the
- Department of Justice report to? The president. And so I worry
- You know, we have seen hints up until now of flouting or disregard of court orders. So far, I don't
- know that we've seen completely open defiance, or at least open defiance last very long. The short answer
- is, I think, yes, I do see the federal courts doing an admirable job of attempting to rule based on
- principle. I worry, though, when push comes to shove, that they may not have the muscle to enforce
- the principle orders and decisions that they are coming to. Thank you so much for what you're sharing
- today. Really an opinion question. Has social media become a friend or foe to the true principles of
- free speech? And does this facilitate a cultural misunderstanding of the same? Yeah. I mean, I'm tempted
- to punt and say that's a very complicated question. I mean, I think the answer is both. Obviously, social
- media does give people
- a voice who may not have had it before. I can engage in commentary that some of you appreciate on Facebook
- and do things, and I couldn't have done that otherwise. I couldn't write a letter every day to the HT
- and expect them to publish it. So yeah, social media in some ways has definitely been a boon, I think,
- to free speech. It's all in how you choose to consume it and what you choose to follow.
- I have become less sanguine about the theory of free speech and First Amendment that says in the marketplace
- of ideas, good ideas, right ideas, true ideas will prevail and eventually will drive out the bad, false,
- faulty ideas. I think social media doesn't lend itself to that. It's driven by algorithms and bots and
- all of that. Every time I, you know,
- decide to sign on to Twitter or X. It's just this overflowing toilet of political nonsense and sort
- of hate and illogic and everything. So in that sense, I do worry. There's social science literature
- that tells us about the effect that social media has on people's reasoning ability, attention span,
- and so forth. I worry that that's a problem. I guess the only thing I can say is if you use it
- wisely and in a deliberate way. Yes, I think I would rather have that access to LinkedIn and Twitter
- and Facebook for my own use than to not have access to it. We only have time for one more question.
- Raj, I know you had your hand up and I know Alan had a question. If it's quick, we'll try and squeeze
- you in as well, Alan. But Raj? Raj? Yes. Go ahead, Raj.
- Thank you very much, Dr. Sanders, for your presentation today. I live in Chicago, Illinois, and part
- of my source of IU campus is the IDF. And as you know, the IDF has been going through upheaval, partly
- from the government itself in Indianapolis, and major effects impacted it from the university administration.
- Would you please summarize what you think happened and why it happened and where are we going with the
- IDS printing coffee? So we have an expert here in Jim Rodenbush. The question was sort of what's happening
- at the IDS. The short answer is I don't know all of the truth because there is a lot about
- the decision-making process concerning Jim's job, concerning communication between
- administration and the students that to my mind just hasn't become clear. We haven't seen evidence or
- documents. We've heard a lot of speculation. We have heard people drawing conclusions about motivations.
- Again, what I have said
- Facebook, which some people have, including many of my own classmates. I'm a graduate of the journalism
- school. I spent six years working at the Daily Student in the 1980s. So I feel a connection there. I
- see the situation as complicated. I see it as a clash between business imperatives, how to move the
- paper toward often dependence on print toward a digital future, which was ongoing work.
- I don't know exactly what the nature of the communication was between the media school about what these
- special editions would look like, but my bottom line, what I have said, and I'm happy if people will
- disagree with me on this, that I, in this situation, from what I've seen and what I know, would not
- use the red letter, all caps word, censorship. To me, censorship has a particular meaning. It means
- prohibiting or punishing speech based on its
- viewpoint, its content, its subject matter. No one has ever alleged that there's been any attempted
- interference in what the Daily Student publishes online, which I venture to say is what most people
- see and where most people read the news product. There's never been any interference with that. Was
- the decision to end print or the decree that the special issues could only
- contain sort of special content and not news content, was that motivated by the fact that the university
- wanted to suppress what it saw as negative news coverage? That's the implication. I haven't yet seen
- the proof of that, the smoking gun that I would need to draw that conclusion that that decision was
- based on animus toward the topic or the viewpoints or the content being published as opposed to a frustration
- with a process that was supposed to help wean the paper off this occasional print run and move it more
- toward digital content. Again, Jim may disagree with me, Jim knows more than I do about the situation,
- others may as well. I have just, as I said, I have seen this as a difficult tension between business
- imperatives, the thing can't keep losing money, the university,
- subsidizes it to more than a quarter of its annual budget and is doing so so far uncomplainingly, a
- tension between that, the deficit, and editorial freedom for the paper. I would say that I think my
- sense of the task force that the dean of the media school has appointed, based on the
- people who are on it looks very good to me. It includes faculty members who have been critical of what's
- going on. It includes a very prominent media lawyer from Chicago who we at the law school actually nominated
- and recommended to Dean Tolchinsky. And so I see that as a positive development. What this seems to
- come down to is all this been happening with goodwill or badwill or at least badwill or lack of badwill.
- I have not
- seen the proof that I would need to draw the conclusion that this has been ill-motivated or out of bad
- will or malice to the paper. Again, I could be wrong. I'm open to evidence. To the contrary, that's
- how I have seen it at this point. I think there's a narrative out there that
- that people have latched onto, that the students are putting out, that people have latched onto,
- in my mind, uncritically. And I hope, again, I'm not, I spent six years there. It's near and dear to
- my heart. I hope I'm not dismissing the interests of the paper, the interests of the students, but it's
- my sort of wanting to see facts and think about all the sides here before I draw a conclusion.
- Thank you. Thank you.
- Thank you for a most interesting presentation. I really love the concept of the university being a home
- and sponsor of critics. In honor of your talk, a donation we made this quarter to the Lake Monroe Water
- Fund. I'll remind people in the room, don't forget to sign up for next week's Meals on Wheels project
- and Salvation Army bell ringing after Thanksgiving. Diana Hoffman for Meals on Wheels, Dave Meyer,
- for Michelle Cohen for Salvation Army Bell Ringing. Zoom attendees, how do they reach you?
- Dave and Diana, or do we do it to the roundabout possibly? Okay, we'll get information in the roundabout.
- I'd like to thank today's volunteers, Ruth Boschkoff, Peggy Frisbee, Byron Banger, Joy Harder,
- David Wright, Marilyn Wood, Tracy Ivanovich, Alann Barker, Sarah Loughlin, also like to thank
- Thank our staff, Tyler Martin Nichols, and Natalie Jenner-Blaze is still doing a little bit of her thing
- down in Tennessee. She was back for the Rotary Toast, and it was really good to see her. So our next
- meeting will be on November 18th here in the Georgia Room, and I will lead the Quarterly Club Assembly.
- And Tyler, if you could put up the graphic for the four-way test. Please stand if you are able.
- of the things we think, say, or do. First, is it the truth? Second, is it fair to all concerned? Third,
- will it build goodwill and better friendships? Fourth, will it be beneficial to all concerned? And fifth,
- is it fun?