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?