 Good afternoon. It's 101 Eastern in time provision a show about the trends ideas and disruptions changing the face of our democracy. I'm your host Sam Gill. College campuses are a petri dish for our society. They are where an emerging generation spends its formative years. The open spirit of academic inquiry combined with close quarters and a general mixing of backgrounds and experiences is a pressure cooker of social and political experimentation and innovation. Campuses will always be at the vanguard of American life. The question is simply what at any given moment that vanguard is thinking about a key issue that we are all discussing today in America is how to balance the various values and principles that animate our democracy in a perfect world. These values are always compatible in the real world. They can sometimes seem to be in competition. College campuses are at the center of this tension. They are on the one hand places where a piety for history and the long stretch of time comes together with a passionately unapologetically adversarial culture of inquiry. Universities we believe are where we go to do battle with ideas in the pursuit of truth. On the other hand, universities are also ground zero for an emerging generation that is thinking differently and critically about the weight of history, about the pain and injury that words can cause, and about the demands of a more inclusive, more pluralistic society. We're not going to be able to tackle these issues comprehensively today, but we are going to be able to open some of them up with two distinguished guests. Dr. Wayne Frederick is the president of Howard University in Washington D.C., the leading historically black university in the U.S. Suzanne Nassel is chief executive officer of Pan America, a leading human rights and free expression organization. We've got a lot to cover, so we'd love to get right into it. But first, Dr. Frederick Suzanne, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me. So I want to sort of get right into it, and I guess I'd like to start with you, Dr. Frederick, which is whether it's remote in a time of COVID or on the main quad, what is the discussion about expression and engagement Ben like on your campus? What are the big issues that are on the minds of your student body? You know, Howard's DNA is social justice. And as you can imagine from the minute of the outbreak of COVID-19, and it was clear that African Americans are disproportionately affected, that DNA, the phenotypic expression of that DNA was the concern that we have. And when you follow that up with the George Floyd murder, you then have the issue of the civil unrest and systemic racism. And again, that just simply manifests itself as a phenotype from our DNA. The thing is that this is what Howard's mission has been about, and therefore it strikes a chord with our students and faculty and alum as well. And so the discussion has been about the fact that we are aware that these things have been taking place and that the time has come to arrest them. And whether or not people leave the stage from this or not, Howard is going to be here continuing to try to address this issue with our research and our scholarship. What are the things that we've certainly seen in discussions about expression on campus? And also, and I think also have seen in this moment of significant attention around racial justice is sometimes a generational divide, even among would-be allies about how they think about this. Is this something that's been produced on your campus? Do faculty or alums think differently about this legacy, interpret this legacy of social justice differently than the current student body? Yes, most certainly. There's no doubt about that. The lived experience of the faculty in certain generations is very different from today's lived experience. The tolerance that or perceived tolerance as well across the generations is different. And then the tools that are available and can be used to implement and execute and change is different. So when you think of protests and changing protests to policy, there's a very different point of view. You've got faculty on this campus who junior faculty or even students at a time of wrong versus a board of education, which was a landmark decision where a lot of those mock trials and stuff were done right here on our campus. Our lower faculty supported that. So they've seen that. They've lived through that. They've seen a process come to fruition. And now we have young people who see a broken system, albeit with fixes from a generation beyond them that hasn't completely solved the problem. And so it's kind of taken a fractured leg with multiple broken bones. And they've seen a couple parts of it fixed, but they still see the brakes and they want the brakes fixed. And they want them fixed on immediately. And I think that that sensor agency is something that that generation brings that we have to respect as well and give them the tools in order to get that done. Suzanne, Penn has been, in particular you as a interpreter of the moment have been, I would say, among the leading, sort of the leading thinkers on the one hand being unapologetically in favor of the power of the word, of the power of expression. And at the same time, incredibly sympathetic, at least in my reading, interpreters of some of the evolving sensibilities about what kind of constitutes expression and the experience of expression and social discourse and sometimes sort of counter poised with the kind of take no step backwards free speech advocates that are, you know, is an important tradition in this country in the 20th century. And just sort of for those who are less familiar with this issue, you know, what are some of the ways that you have seen young people, particularly on college campuses just thinking differently about speech than past generations? Yeah, I mean, you know, for me, it sort of goes back to, I remember it was about four or five years ago, being on a campus at Wellesley at a seminar, free speech experts, and you know, there are people kind of renowned people from around the world and like quite staunch and some libertarian free speech defenders. And there was a student who sort of just got up at one point and said, you know, what would be so wrong about simply emphasizing the idea that people need to use speech conscientiously, you know, that linguistic conscientiousness, as she put it, you know, should be a principle or an ideal and kind of looking at her, I thought, you know, this is obviously a bright young woman. She's no firebrand. She's mature. She's thoughtful. And what she's saying makes sense. You know, she was sort of encapsulating the views, I think of student social justice advocates on campus, but in a way she was sort of translating it to this group of experts. And I think what that kind of unlocked for me was the idea that we really have to listen to students like they're the rising generation. We don't get to decide what they think like ultimately they're going to be in charge of these institutions. And so we have to engage with the ways that they look at these issues with what's top of mind for them with the concerns that they want to drive forward. And so our effort, you know, in the next ensuing years has really been to try to articulate free speech principles in a way that will resonate with that rising generation and that explains how the drive for social justice, racial equality, inclusivity, equity is not at odds with the robust defense of free speech. Yes, sometimes they can come into conflict and there are a lot of difficult issues to parse through in terms of incidents of hateful speech, you know, racial slurs that are sometimes used pedagogically. And so each of those to me has to be kind of analyzed carefully in terms of how can we both drive forward equity and inclusivity and justice, but also respect the robust defense of free speech. And I know I believe fundamentally that these principles can and must coexist and that that you know, must be the work that we do. So what do you just want to drill down on that? I mean, and I sort of I think of this debate is sort of like making your way through one of Plato's dialogues like the first half of the book is all the red herrings and then they get down to what the real questions are that they're trying to figure out. There are real there are definitely red herrings in this debate, right? There are state legislators who've got bigger fish to fry that want to spend a lot of time talking about whether people can speak their minds on campus or professors are allowed to teach. And then of course, there are you know, progressive advocates on the other side who are advancing sort of a conception of speech restriction that really is probably at odds with some of the values either of inquiry or openness. What do you think are from your mind as an expert, what are the real points of tension? What are the real hard cases that we need to spend some time on that are that are more difficult to figure out? Yeah, I mean, I think one of them is really is really the impact of hateful speech and the fact that, you know, we know that hateful speech, you know, in its more kind of florid incarnations, but even at the level of microaggressions, you know, where they're persistent and nagging and sort of dog someone throughout their life can have psychological, academic and, you know, even according to some studies, physiological effects. And, you know, the sort of free speech discourse, we take the position for the most part that, you know, the best way to deal with that is not through prohibitions on speech. It's through things like counter speech, education, dialogue, condemnations, official condemnations in some cases. And, you know, one of the things I struggle with is, you know, their moments, I think this is one of those moments in this country. And, you know, I do sort of blame a lot of the blame, the foot of the White House, where, you know, those solutions don't seem quite adequate. And when people sort of come forward and say, yeah, you know, all that's well and good, but, you know, we're still, you know, living in a society where especially online, you know, white supremacist ideology is running rampant and we need to be protected. I mean, the answer I come back to is that, you know, what you don't want is government regulation, that that's not the answer for you. You know, but what I, you know, I'm stuck on is that the other answers we have, you know, as much as they can work in certain circumstances aren't fully satisfactory either. And I think, you know, I think that's a genuine dilemma. How have your students and faculty experienced this on campus, Dr. Fredricka? You know, you're animated by a strong social justice tradition. Yet, I'm sure there are still dilemmas between students and faculty about the power of words, the power of language, what it means to constitute a university community. Have you run into any of these conflicts and what have you done to work your way through them? Yeah, you know, I think it happens on a daily basis because when you think of the pedagogical environment, there's a broad spectrum of information and knowledge that needs to be transmitted and the manner which that's done is critical. Whether it's you're looking at it from a linguistic point of view or you're looking at it from a historical point of view. And I think that evolution of how we see it I think is critical, especially if it turns into policy. And so sometimes I think when we discuss this issue of free speech and even when we discuss hate speech and we try to think about what really are the barriers, I think one of our big concerns on this campus is how often does that get translated into some kind of policy? Whether it's a policy of laws on the books or it's a policy of the way we live our lives in society. I mentioned Brown versus the Board of Education as an example of a landmark case. However, if you go to the southern states right now, and actually throughout America, this has been happening in increasing numbers, they're greater than 75 percent won race schools predominantly throughout America. The number of those has been increasing. As a matter of fact, there is some data to suggest that they are more than prior to Brown versus Board of Education. So which means we got a law put on the books to lots of effort. And yet still as a society, we've lived our lives very differently. And so sometimes when we talk about hate speech, it's one thing to talk about, you know, some of the impacts of it. And I agree that they are impact psychological and personal impacts as well as physiological is also pointed out. I think she's absolutely correct. But I also worry about how much it really impacts how people live their lives and experience their day-to-day living. And that I think is where, you know, as a country and as a campus, we really struggle with trying to make sure that we can regulate that or control it in some way or combat it when it's negative. One of the questions actually coming through from our audience for both of you is, you know, how do you respond to intentional use of hate speech? You know, put aside the, I just didn't know, that which lends itself at least intuitively to the idea of a more open-ended dialogue and a meeting place. You know, there are certainly there's speech on campus that's intentional that some regard as hate speech, particularly given the kind of polarization we're experiencing. Maybe Dr. Frederick would like to hear what you think. And then Suzanne would love to hear. Yeah, I think we have to combat it because I think it is clear when it is intentional hate speech. I think it's inappropriate and we have to combat it. And like I said, because I think it can translate into how people live their lives, how people experience their lives and whether or not they lose on the books or not, it can really push things in a certain direction. I think you have to combat it. Now, at the same time, on a college campus, you want to encourage critical thinking. So even when it is wrong and it is negative and we don't appreciate it and we don't want to see it, we still need to make sure that we create a space where we discuss it in an academic environment and make sure that students also take away something different from it as well. They have to recognize it. They have to recognize that it's wrong and they have to be able to take steps to make sure that we are also protecting them from it. But we have to make sure that they also are willing to be inquisitive enough about it to understand its roots, its origin and where it may head if it's not manageable. Suzanne? Yeah, I would just add, I think taboos have worked well in this country and around the world to sort of contain noxious attitudes and just the fact that something is socially unacceptable. Those taboos have been loosened and weakened over the last few years in this country and I think there is more of a sense of leeway to her hateful speech in some quarters. I think that's very damaging and we need to buttress those taboos through the expression, including of leaders. One of the most important things when an incident of hateful speech happens on a campus is really how the university administration reacts and sometimes there would be administrators of college presidents who would say, well, it's free speech. We sort of throw up our hands and one of the things that we've said very strongly at America is that's not good enough. Yeah, it might be free speech, maybe that you can't punish the person, but you could still express a condemnation and a rejection of those sentiments and that's very important. I think another piece of it is who is doing the speaking. I mean it's one thing, if it's a professor, that could impinge upon the right to an equal education. That if there's sort of hateful and obnoxious speech in a classroom or derisive or belittling. But if it's a student, there have been a number of incidents in recent weeks with these newly admitted students who are found to have a tweet or a video in which they use a slur and the question comes up, should their mission be rescinded? I think there are two sides of that because on the one hand, look at the university wants to provide an inclusive welcoming environment for all of its students and if you're letting people on campus who you know may harbor these attitudes, you're endangering that. On the other side, I think about Ibram Kendi's work and I think what he's forced us to recognize is we're all racist. We now must come to grips with that. We can't deny it. It's really no surprise that like a portion as Dr. Federer was saying, people grow up in segregated environments. Our schools across the country are very heavily segregated so people who have not had a lot of exposure, who they have parents at home environments where those racist attitudes that become ingrained are never really challenged. And so they're 18 years old and they have, particularly if it's an isolated expression as opposed to sort of something pervasive, they have an offhand moment where they say something that's offensive and objectionable, should that be it? Should that mean that their admission is rescinded in their whole life trajectory is affected? So I think those questions are tough. I want to lift up a few things too. Like I think one of the classic red hearings is that there are a number of people advocating for deviant views to be legitimized on the basis of a free speech argument. And the two things aren't the same. I mean, I think that is just a classic red herring in this debate because you're condemning me. I'm not allowed to speak my mind. It's no, your view is odious and we're letting you know. Say it as much as you want. I also think pointing to the free speech rights of administrators is a powerful and often overlooked point in this discussion too. And then of course, as you point out that a lot of what I think a younger generation is asking us to acknowledge is that the subject positions are not all equal coming into these discussions and that there can be some explicit space for that. I do, I want to ask you a bit both about this question of sort of discipline or rescission of offers, because I think it points to a bigger challenge for us. Like if we do accept the premise, right, that we are really facing a structural challenge, that we're really all implicated at the level of convention and behavior in disposition, particularly white Americans, then it's going to be really hard to move forward with retributive models of justice, right? You know, there's a reason South Africa pursued a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, right, that you had to have a different model of moving forward in which the whole community could see itself or people were going to defend themselves, even if they could kind of get there philosophically and emotionally. And are there ways to do the work of condemning, of acknowledging, of surfacing how we participate in discrimination without it being a punishment? Are there ways that people can sort of stay in the community in some of these cases? Maybe Suzanne, you first and then we'd love to hear from you, Dr. Frederick. I'm curious what Dr. Frederick will say. You know, I think so. I think in some of these cases it would be better to have the person take a year off, make sure they do a course or a class or some kind of engagement, and then have them be interviewed about whether they recognize what kind of environment they're entering and they're prepared to comport themselves in a way that's going to make other people on campus feel comfortable and not threatened. So I think there are those models. There's also the point that gets made that, and I think this awareness of the racism that lies within each of us is actually a positive thing in that you can recognize like this is systemic, it's structural, it's sort of in the water we drink and our DNA at some level, and that it doesn't necessarily render you evil or untouchable. It may be something you could overcome. And there are these stories of white supremacists who have been reeducated and who have really come to see how what a false premise and path they've been sent down, and they come around to a very different point of view. So there are those possibilities for reconciliation. I also think there has to be space for just outright condemnation. It also depends who the person is, where you have people with a prominent platform who reveal that they have ingrained racist attitudes. I think it is important to deny them that platform and for the world to see that that's not acceptable, that there are consequences, that there is accountability. So I think one of the difficulties is that there's no kind of single solution for all of this and that individual circumstances, intent, context, position, power, all that plays into it. Dr. Frederick, have you had to confront one of these issues where someone, past remark, past behavior is calling into question a higher or a matriculating student? Yeah, absolutely. And that happens probably far more frequently than you would think. Last year we had an incident where students were threatening violence against administrators and employees. And that was unacceptable and some of those students ended up being suspended for that reason. We have to also recognize though that part of our responsibility as educators is to create an opportunity for rehabilitation and for that formation of the mind. You have a high school student just graduated coming into your environment and they put something out. And the question is, is that person fully formed? Does that person have an opportunity to hear and see alternate views? And so I think that that is something that we have to take into consideration on a case by case basis. I think one of the points that has been made is that one size doesn't fit all. Having said that, I do feel very strongly around the condemnation aspect of it. I think you absolutely have to draw a line. And a few years ago, there was a young man who I would say was involved in some white supremacist, wasn't a student, but put out a threat on social media that he was going to come up to Howard's campus and kill a few people. And we pursued that aggressively. FBI finally was able to hunt him down through his IP address and arrested him and he actually served time. And I think it's important that we don't mistake activity like that for free speech because it certainly isn't. And the last thing I would say is in the faculty ranks, we also have to be careful because of academic freedom and academic integrity. And again, I think that's probably one of the most difficult areas for us to really manage and manage appropriately. And it does become quite tricky with faculty, depending on the subject matter, depending on their own history and their own research as to what their speech may be around. And I think again, you have to take that on a case-by-case basis. I also think that no single administrator, including the president, and I'm pretty sure that my committee would be happy to hear this gets to make that decision as well. You have to have a robust area of inquiry with several different opinions weighing in because it's a lens that you just can't see because your own experiences are always going to cloud that to some extent. And you definitely need a circumstance in which others can jump in. And so the last thing I would say is you do need some policing to occur within the environment. So you do want with students, for other students, to be able to do some of the management of that themselves. I think to always have administrators jump in is not the solution. You want faculty members to also help manage what takes place among the faculty ranks. And you want that to be a robust debate as well. Well, I think, and I think it sort of speaks to Suzanne, your opening comment. To some extent, the right answer is kind of unsatisfying. We do need to take a lot of this on case-by-case. You actually have to look at the facts of the case. But I think there's some really, in the theme of dispelling red herrings, some great red herrings dispelled there. Administrators should be proud to stand up for the safety of students. Let's get away from this language of sort of who's being coddled or not. If there are real risks to student safety, you have to take those seriously. And I sort of feel the same way about academic integrity. Like the question is, is the argument important to be aired? Not what's the subjective experience of a student, which is harder to account for. I actually want to ask you guys both about sort of another dimension of time in this discussion, which is the really active debate about monuments and memorials and other sort of physical forms of expression and our intense reaction to them. And I would say a lot of this discussion, I look at it a little bit differently. A lot of this discussion has sort of been about the monument. And I actually look at this moment and it feels to me sort of like post-Soviet republics in 1991. Like the form of expression is the action against the monument. And to some extent, I think there's a generation saying, this is our project. Our project is to resist a kind of erasure or aggression. I'm not suggesting that that's right, but I think that is the act as an act of expression. But I'd be curious to know, first from you, Dr. Frederick, are you all confronting some of these questions of sort of physical manifestation of history on your campus? Or how are you in faculty and students talking about some of these discussions about what monuments and artifacts stay up and which ones need to come down? Yeah. I think it's an important discussion. However, I think it's a starting point on a longer journey. And that longer journey is does that then come to policy and societal norms? Do we reframe those? So it's great to take down the Confederate flag as part of the flag of Mississippi. But do we then examine where Mississippi is today? And what is the state of race relations in Mississippi? Are there laws in the books in Mississippi that are disadvantaging one or the other? Here at Howard, Howard is named after General Oliver Otis Howard. He was also the third president of the university. He ran the Freedman's Bureau and was an abolitionist. But he also represented the federal government in cases and action against Native Americans. And that is a history that we have to confront. That's a history that we're going to have to, as a university, be transparent and open about and have a robust discussion. He did great things. And his starting of Howard and his history around freed slaves was a very, very positive one and had a very positive impact. But his actions and engagement with Native Americans probably wasn't as glorious a history and resulted in many of them dying and many of them losing their native lands as well. And we have to, I think as a university and as a community, be willing to confront that conversation. Not drawing any conclusions as to what must happen. And then the last thing I'd say is on the monuments, as we do that, some of these men, and I would note that it is largely men, have done things that aren't great. Should our children learn about that history? Should they be aware of it? Absolutely. But that should not be their future. And that should not be kind of where their ultimate journey ends. I think what we need to do as part and parcel of that is to tell a more complete story. And the other thing that has happened, unfortunately, in the telling of those stories is that there's been a minimalization of the contributions of African Americans in this country to summon that history as well. I want to go to use this question, but your remarks do remind me. A few years ago, I experienced for the first time in Canada a land acknowledgement. And I remember asking some Canadian civic leaders about land acknowledgments. And what was interesting was, I said, this is an interesting practice. How did this come about? And to your comments about Mississippi, they said, well, we had a big Truth and Reconciliation Commission about our First Nations peoples. There were a lot of ideas, including significant redistribution programs, but the easy one to implement was doing land acknowledgments. And so you're partly optimistic, like we're taking steps that people can embrace. And you have to give people steps you can embrace. But of course, that does it become something that preempts the more structural maneuvers that also need to need to happen? But Suzanne, how have you and Penn been talking about some of the actions around monuments? I mean, I've been one of the most visible forms of expression over the last month. Yeah. I mean, we don't see it really as a free expression issue. I mean, obviously, people would be demonstrating their exercising expressive rights, and those can be infringed upon if the demonstration gets shut down. But insofar as calling for the removal of a statue, that's not like shouting down a speaker. That's calling for a cultural evolution or reformation. And so we don't see it as denying the freedom of speech of the people 100 years ago who decided Robert E. Lee should be on a big pedestal in the middle of Richmond. They made their point. They erected their statue, and now the city of Richmond has taken it down. I think the symbolism is important. I mean, we can all think of moments, whether it's the Berlin Wall falling or the statue of Saddam being pulled down. Those moments of people rising up and saying, this doesn't represent us. These are not the values we want to uphold. This is literally not what we want to put on the pedestal. I think that's very important. And I think in some ways, the more students, rising generation of students can feel that these institutions reflect their values, that there's a place for them, that it's not just a university that was made for the students of generations ago who on some campuses were all white and all male and all from a certain background, but that the university has really evolved and that you see that in the portraits that are hung in the lecture halls and the statues on campus and the names of the buildings and the residential colleges. I actually think if we can create a university environment like that, that we'll see some pulling back of the calls to silence controversial speech because people will feel more at home, more welcome, more included, more reflected. And I think their tolerance level for whether it's a microaggression or a contentious idea in the classroom that makes them uneasy, brings back up something traumatic. I think that's buffered in a way by feeling like you're on a campus that has made this evolution and that reflects you in these not just the superficially visible ways, but also more fundamental ways like who's on the faculty and one of the policies and other things. I think you make a good point that if it's just window dressing, that doesn't count for all that much. I think a lot of the progressive sort of interpretation of where free speech can go, I think, turns on what you just said, which is that it's a reassurance to the First Amendment maximalists. I'll call them like affectionately. Which is if you can really recognize in the design of the conversation and the side constraints of the conversation the people's true subject position than a lot of what we want to see in discourse can happen without being fraught. If people are really showing up as equals, then more challenging speech can be on the table because it doesn't bring with it the weight of aggressive, oppressive action. But is that possible? What should universities be in your mind? What should universities be thinking about doing to bring about the vision that you just articulated? Yeah, you give me a perfect lead into my book that's coming out later this month that's called Dare to Speak Defending Free Speech for All. I center it on 20 principles for how I think in our diverse digitized and divided society we can defend free speech in a way that is not going to be seen as inimical to the goals of a rising generation that is focused on social justice and eradication of racial disparities and racial hatred. I think it's a series of things, some of which kind of cut against one another. It is being more conscientious with language but it's also taking into account intent and context when other people speak. It's recognizing who's been excluded from the conversation and taking active measures to draw them in and give them the platform and make sure they can get paid for what they write and say. So it's kind of a whole series of things which is maybe not the the simple answer that you know we're all grasping for. I don't think there's a silver bullet here. I think it's kind of an adaptation as a society in terms of how we think about utilizing our free speech, you know how we respect that of others. You know when we exercise voluntary restraint because that's that's part of free speech too. It doesn't mean you say everything that comes to your mind. You know it's never meant that. And so you know I think there's sort of a confluence of things that we have to keep in mind you know as we navigate this and ways in which we have to adjust. But then you know if we do it the prize is enormous because we can realize this more equal and inclusive society and also enjoy the freedoms that you know enshrined in the Constitution and that I think I've made this a very vibrant you know creative and dynamic society as well that we don't want to lose. So I'm gonna give the last word to Dr. Frederick but when I ask a similar question I mean you're you're a president of a of a major university in the 21st century confronting these challenges thinking about how to prepare next generation. You know the great the great universities as I think Suzanne you really articulated well give forth not just a vision of education but a vision of society and and the the the ideals and the practices and the behaviors that we want to govern and to lead democratic society. They've given that vision for good or for ill you know depending on what you think of the last century. What is your vision when you talk to students, when you talk to faculty, when you talk to administrators about the role of the university what's what's animating your view on what universities need to how they need to orient themselves? Yeah you know I think universities need to be bastions for the truth and the truth doesn't always accompanied in free speech. Howard's motto is truth and service and I think that what we try to do is to instill that truth in students and then what we want to see them do is to then convert that into service for the good of everyone and so when we think of this particular issue of free speech and that critical dialogue that must take place I accidentally embraced that and envisioned that and absolutely made some decisions that haven't been popular in terms of the types of speakers that I bring to campus but I think it's critical for our campus to really be able to see that and see the full breadth of the argument whether you want it or not but let's not be fooled we live in a in a society where 79 to 80 percent of my students are African-American and therefore they are coming from a circumstances very different that you would get on campuses that produce as much research and scholarship as this one does and so I have to also take in that lens of what has happened to them over the course of time in terms of that continuous weathering of seeing of hearing one opinion one dominant opinion that also has resulted in oppression to them as well and so that's a slightly I didn't say slightly but a significantly different lens and I have to take that into consideration that is going to be less tolerance for that type of oppressive language and oppressive perspective and so we have to still be creative to make sure that they get the full formation of what we want them to get and that still involves you know bringing that up so part of it is not I think to be too heavy-handed and force that is part of what I think I have learned in my own evolution of it and part of it is to make sure that you're creating lots of circumstances where the conversation is kind of clear and there can be more organic formation of it and I see it I have a 13 year old daughter who'll be 14 this month and a 16 year old son you just turned 16 last month and I see it in them you know they would my daughter was doing huckleberry fin a couple of years ago in class the teacher decided to use the n-word without you know as far as she was concerned really preparing them and she became a free speech advocate in a very different way and that I just watched her go through the process of it and it was fascinating you know and I had my opinion about it which was very different from hers and she stood her ground you know and I think that now that she's had that experience where she goes to college she's going to have a very different experience but it was handled well her school handled it well the conversation was good about it and we have to remember that we're getting young people that have had an experience already we're part of their process and their journey so we have to be open-minded and flexible about how we we do these things as well well you both provided something very unusual during this moment which is you addressed a complex problem with sort of thoughtful nuance non-dogmatic answers and hope all all qualities in short supply so if nothing else the hope orders of our audience are grateful nuance orders of our audience are grateful to you both as am I as Suzanne mentioned her book is coming out soon dare to speak defending free speech for all and is that available for pre-order on amazon yes on amazon and that independent bookstores and bookshop.org so you know please track it down dare to speak I'm glad you mentioned the letter so if you have competition concerns about amazon you could still buy this you could still buy this book you're not restricted don't don't stand on on principle and you could also follow Suzanne at Suzanne Nassle Dr. Frederick can be followed on twitter at huprez prz 17 as usual we'll send this out along with some other op-eds and writing from both of these guests but Dr. Frederick Suzanne I just want to thank you so much for joining us thanks for having us before we go I want to tell you as always about what's coming up on vision we're going to have a trio of some upcoming shows are continuing this this theme of sort of speech and changes in our democracy next week on July 9th we'll have Mary Ann Franks talk about online speech she's a professor at the University of Miami law school on July 16th we're going to hear from American media and technology lawyer in a bsc ed and on July 23rd we'll hear from Eugene Volek who's a law professor who focuses on the first amendment at UCLA as a reminder this episode is going to be up on the website tomorrow you can see this episode in any episode on demand at kf.org slash vision you can email us at vision at kf.org or visit us on instagram at vision.kf please stay and take the two-question survey and as always we're going to end the show to the sounds of Miami songwriter nick county his music is available on Spotify until next week thank you so much for joining us