← To The Contrary with Charlie Sykes
To The Contrary with Charlie Sykes
Michael Roth: It's Time for Universities to Stand Up to Trump
00:43:10
Loading summary
Transcript65 lines
- [00:11]
Charlie Sykes
Welcome to the to the Contrary podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. Donald Trump's attack on the institutions of American society, both inside of government and civil society, continue to. I would say they're gathering momentum, whether we're talking about his attacks on the media, the courts, the rule of law, the international order. And there is, of course, the assault on higher education, including the universities, institutions that, you know, that I have said in the past are devoutly in need of reform, but which now face an existential crisis as Trump is slashing hundreds of millions of dollars in funding while demanding radical overhauls in the admissions policies, the disciplinary system, and apparently also in the curriculum, threatening legal action if some law schools continue to teach certain subjects in certain ways. Now, the most dramatic case is Columbia University, where Trump has canceled $400 million in funds and where a student with a green card has been detained and faces deportation because of his pro Palestinian activism. But in the face of what one former university president calls an existential threat, an unprecedented and dangerous situation for higher education, most university presidents have chosen to keep their heads down, responding with caution, neutrality, even deference. The one exception is Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University. Since 2007, Roth has emerged as one of the nation's most outspoken university presidents and one of the strongest defenders of academic freedom at a time when it's been under siege from both the right and the left. And he joins me on the podcast. Thanks for joining me, Michael.
- [01:52]
Michael Roth
Glad to be here, Charlie.
- [01:54]
Charlie Sykes
Or should I call you President Roth?
- [01:55]
Michael Roth
What? Michael? Fine, thanks.
- [01:57]
Charlie Sykes
What is the protocol? And by the way, Michael's also a prolific writer. His most recent book is the Student A Short History, which is highly recommended. So I'm looking through social media and came across a. What do you call it, a tweeted jeet or whatever it's supposed to be that the current approach of higher education is. Columbia folds, Georgetown law resists, Roth speaks up, and all the others keep their heads down. It feels like a series of isolated decisions, not a wholesale rejection, and will lead to failure and a lot of obeying in advance. But that does seem to sum things up. So give me your sense of why, in the face of this incredible frontal attack, so few university presidents, so few universities have chosen to do what you have done in pushing back. Why have they chosen to be, and I think you use the word demure. Why have they chosen to be demure at a time when. When their hair should be on fire?
- [02:55]
Michael Roth
Yeah, I have a 20 something year old daughter and she, she taught me to use that word, demure. That I would speak to the kids, you know, and I. I think that in all seriousness, university presidents and deans, or are frightened. They are really frightened because the federal government, as you know, has enormous power. And in the United States, for a very long time, that power has been somewhat held in check, not just by the other branches of government, but by norms or conventions that presidents of both parties have pretty much gone along with. And when they haven't, there's been considerable flak. And whatever their motives, they show they care about the conventions. Whether it was George Bush or Obama, it doesn't really matter. You go back to Reagan, they did things that seemed like overreaching to maybe the other side, but when it was pointed out, they said, well, no, we respect the balance of powers. We respect the importance of having an independent citizenry in this country that has. Have associations that are not controlled by the government, whether it's churches, chambers of commerce, universities. But this president, he just doesn't believe that stuff, that American stuff. And so universities are. I think we've been caught off guard by a very powerful White House that seems intent on not following the law and, and not following conventions. So I think many people are not speaking up because they fear that if they do their constituents, the guys who work in the kitchen or the students from overseas, that they're gonna get punished and the president will be fine. But they want to protect the most vulnerable on their campuses.
- [04:57]
Charlie Sykes
Well, you did have a series of presidents who were forced out of office during the, you know, after the congressional hearing. So a lot of those presidents did lose their job. So I want to get to Columbia in just a moment. So why you then? Why are you. I mean, you are in theory, just as vulnerable as any other university. Right?
- [05:18]
Michael Roth
You know, I'm 67. I've been doing this a long time. I had a college president in 2001. Never really wanted to be a college president. It's a great job, I discovered. Took me a while. I'm a teacher, and when people do something that's seems wrong, the best way to learn is to point out that it's wrong. Now, either they learn because they say, oh my gosh, it's wrong, or you learn that it wasn't wrong and you have to correct. And so it seems to me, as a teacher as well as university president, it's just you have to speak out. I mean, we've been saying, if you see something, say something right for the last decades. And so I just think it's extremely important to stop this administration from doing More damage to the culture and society of the United States. I do think that they can change their ways. There's no sign that they intend to right now. But if there's more opposition, and not just from my progressive friends or from conservative people, if there's more opposition that. That draws on American values, I think we can correct the very, very unfortunate trajectory of the current administration.
- [06:33]
Charlie Sykes
Well, so that is kind of surprising that there has not been more rejection, there has not been more pushback. And you actually wrote a piece saying that you didn't think that university presidents were prepared for what is coming. You tried to warn them. Right. And yet it does seem, you know, and I've used this phrase over and over again, you know, perhaps not surprising, but still shocking how aggressive they've been. The degree to which they are prepared to. To shut down the entire research efforts going, you know, $400 million. Let me just read you something you wrote in Slate magazine in. In the past month since Trump's victory in the general election, this was early on, leaders in the worlds of business and education have been rushing to show that they no longer have any political beliefs. Facts. Why check them? Privilege. Who's to say that the mega rich don't deserve their advantages? Anticipating how best to be obedient, they aim to please those of the vanguard of what Mark Zuckerberg calls the cultural tipping point. And then you wrote, it's one thing to be reminded that elections have consequences, but quite another to insist that the best response to the abusive authority is to be restrained, demure, neutral. So it's not just higher education. It feels like all of civil society has decided, okay, don't make them mad. Keep your head down. It's an extraordinary moment, isn't it? Because it seems that every time someone does try to appease, it emboldens them to be more aggressive.
- [08:00]
Michael Roth
Exactly. I think it's John Mance, this writer who I see occasionally on Substock, called it a Vichy moment. You know, where you decide, are you going to collaborate with the Nazis in Vichy France because you save some of the dishwashers in your restaurant, or you save jobs in your bakery, but you collaborate with the Nazis and the French, of course, they were such good collaborators that it made it much easier for the Nazis than it would have been otherwise. And they deported extra Jews just to show how they were not going to make trouble. That's what's happening here. There are some people who recognize not just that they keep their head down, they'll be safer. They recognize they can make a lot of Money right now. Right. There's a. The level of corruption is extraordinary and people who are just wanting to put the feedback on and make a lot of money. And there are other people who are just petrified that their friends are going to get deported, that their institution will be defunded. I mean we're talking about of course an administration. Aren't you afraid of that too though?
- [09:08]
Charlie Sykes
But aren't you afraid of that? I guess I'm always asking why you as opposed to someone else? Because, you know, for the last 10 years this has been the phenomenon is why do some people stand firm and why do other people decide they're going to engage in the Faustian bargain or whatever you want to call it.
- [09:26]
Michael Roth
You know, it. I have a hard time with that. First of all, I don't want to blame people for keeping their heads down. That seems like blaming somebody who gets assaulted for wearing provocative clothing. I mean it's the assault. That's the story. I had a teacher at Wesleyan, Philip Halley, wrote this book on a group of a French village that did resist the Nazis in extraordinary ways. And, and, and, and it was very hard to know exactly why they were most is a Protestant village. And that seemed to have something to do with it. They were used to being minorities and resistant. There were a couple of people who stood up. Sometimes it just takes a few people. I mean, you know this Charlie. I mean collective action. One of those Republicans who's. Who's refused to just go along with the tide. And so it's kind of lonely, I think. I think I'm not sure why I. When people say to me what you're saying, why are you being so courageous or something makes me very nervous. I don't feel courageous. I feel extremely nervous. You know, I talk to my wife. What are you going to do if something happens? You know, I mean. But at the same time it's so astonishing that like I'm a professor of history that I would have to worry about the government. I mean this is America. I've been critical of America. I'm one of those leftists who were, you know, pontificating about the anti colonialism. But I've taken for granted American freedom. And right now it's so obvious we can't take it for granted. So we have to speak up because that freedom could disappear.
- [11:03]
Charlie Sykes
No, I think that's the key to it is I think people have. I won't use the word complacent, but I think there's been the sense that perhaps America was somehow immune from history, that what had happened to other societies and civilizations wouldn't happen to us. And so there's this rolling sense that things that we counted on, things that we relied upon, aren't there. So let's. I want to talk about the cut of funding to Colombia in a moment, but I want to talk about the number one academic freedom free speech issue. And you wrote about this in Slate magazine and a piece called A Turning Point for University Leadership. The arrest of Mahmoud Khalil should terrify every college president. And I just want to read the first three paragraphs. Well, I made them into paragraphs that you wrote. I'm no fan of the pro Palestinian protesters at Columbia University, and they would certainly not be fans of mine. Although I've been outspoken in my opposition to the Trump administration's march to authoritarianism over the past several weeks, I've also publicly opposed the divestment movement, written about my Judaism connection to Israel, and urged dialogue rather than puerile sloganeering on campuses. Student protesters, I made clear, must observe reasonable time and place restrictions. They cannot disrupt the core university functions without accountability. It should go without saying these restrictions should be content neutral. The content of your views, unless they veer into harassment and intimidation, should have no bearing on the restrictions you face. This is fundamental to freedom of speech. So you've taken this nuanced position. You are in the middle. You are pro Israel, you are pro academic freedom. So talk to me about why you think this, this case of Mahmoud Khalil is a turning point for university leadership.
- [12:46]
Michael Roth
Well, it's clear that he was arrested in order to scare the heck out of everybody. Right. Because he, for many people like me, a liberal guy who's, you know, I made critical of the Netanyahu regime, but I'm a defender of Israel's right to exist, that somebody with Khalil's politics and participating in some of those demonstrations, we wouldn't be very sympathetic.
- [13:11]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [13:12]
Michael Roth
And on the other hand, you know, they come to arrest him, they don't even, they think he has a student visa. He doesn't have a student visa. They come up with a cockamamie story that he's, it's going to make a huge difference to the national security United States. The Secretary of State has to himself make a determination. I mean, it's clearly a cock and bull story in order to show people that the government could arrest whomever they want because they're the government. And so that means that we can protect people from governmental abuse with the rule of law. You know, when I teach A course, as I've done forever, since the 80s, on modern Europe. And I talk to the students about what is it like to live in a fascist country. And one of the things I make clear to them is when sitting in the room, I say, we're, that's it. We lock the doors and starts. Really bad stuff starts happening in here. You know, we start beating up people, or we, we. We take one group of people and we, we. We. We torture them. What would you normally do? You'd call someone, you'd call the police, you'd call public safety. You, You. You'd. Whoa, knocking my light down.
- [14:24]
Charlie Sykes
You.
- [14:24]
Michael Roth
You do things that. That appeal in a fascist regime. You call those people and they laugh at you. They say, we don't care about the law. And so Khalil's arrest means they don't care about the law. When the President of the United States says, I'm using wartime powers and he's also starting his own crypto thing. Yeah, wartime.
- [14:55]
Charlie Sykes
That's. Well. And also saying that he can ignore court rulings. But. Okay, so let me just push back on this a little bit. Because of course they would argue that there are limits to free speech, that if, in fact, you are engaging in harassment or you are making other students feel unsafe or you are providing aid and comfort and support for international terrorists and you are not an American citizen, that you're a candidate for detention and deportation. You know, this organization that he was affiliated with engaged in some rather radically anti Jewish, anti Israeli rhetoric and did seem to provide support for Hamas in the days after its terrorist attack. So in terms of the public, people are going to say, yeah, you know what? We don't need this guy.
- [15:49]
Michael Roth
That's true. And that's why they pick on this guy first.
- [15:51]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [15:52]
Michael Roth
But then they're going to pick on someone like you. You know, someone who the Republicans won't come to your defense, let's say. Or. Or they'll, you know, they started off picking on trans people because they're not very popular.
- [16:04]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [16:05]
Michael Roth
And you find, you know, there. There aren't that many trans athletes. You can't stay with that issue for too long. But a lot of people say, yeah, you don't want it to be unfair. I mean, that's reasonable. This guy Khalil, he says things that make my skin crawl. Of course, we probably wouldn't enjoy a conversation together. If I were the, if there were demonstrations, Wesleyan, like they were at Columbia, I would have had the police in much earlier at Wesleyan. I mean, so it's really not about the content of the views, unless they were sending money, material support to Hamas, which is against the law. The Trump administration, of course, is in conversation with Hamas, actually direct conversations to get an American released, which is probably a good thing. But this is not about, it can't be about the content of the views. You know, that's the beauty of the free speech doctrine, is that your restrictions have to be content neutral. There are some exceptions, child pornography, some viciously harassing rhetoric and can turn into intimidation that we wouldn't allow. But here we have a person who is being arrested for things he may have done a year ago that already been adjudicated by the school in a different way. So I think it is meant to chill speech.
- [17:26]
Charlie Sykes
It's a way.
- [17:27]
Michael Roth
And I think that's something we have to beware of.
- [17:30]
Charlie Sykes
Well, see, here's where we of course, get into the complication. And my background is my father was a Jewish World War II veteran who was involved in the Civil Liberties, Wisconsin Civil Liberties Union. And I certainly grew up remembering the, one of the great tests of your support for free speeches. How did you feel about the Nazis marching through Skokie, Illinois?
- [17:48]
Michael Roth
Oh, yeah.
- [17:48]
Charlie Sykes
And it's like, well, that was pretty tough, you know, I mean, who's going to defend the rights of Nazis? But this was, I was always aware of how fragile this was because it's very easy to demagogue this. And universities, and you've written about this extensively, universities recently have had an inconsistent approach, haven't they, to free speech makes them perhaps more vulnerable and liable to charges of hypocrisy. For example, the creation of safe spaces, this idea of microaggression, the idea that speech can be harm. And that up until a few years ago, most of the restrictions on free speech were coming from the left. People saying, well, you're hurting people's feelings or you're making people feel unsafe. So the basis for defense of academic freedom and free speech was a little shaky before this right wing attack occurred. And you wrote about this.
- [18:46]
Michael Roth
I wrote a book called Safe Enough Spaces. So I was often put on the anti free speech side because I don't think there really are free speech absolutists. Even the University of Chicago, they don't want child pornography in this school newspaper. There are always limits somewhere. And I've argued that you want a safe enough space. You don't want the professor hitting on students. You don't, you don't, you don't want harassment, persistent harassment. I mean, not that you don't want it it should be illegal, and people should feel safe enough to engage in learning. But if they don't want to feel, I don't want them to feel too safe, you know, there's no right not to be offended. These are the kinds of things I've tried to argue. It's in some ways the classic liberal view of John Stuart Mill and others that you have to tolerate dissent, even offensiveness, but you don't have to tolerate situations that eroded the capacity to participate in speech. Going forward, I'm happy to accept that some schools, and certainly some individuals and associations, eroded the free speech protections by being too concerned about feelings. But right now, we're faced with the government that is willing to put people in jail over these things. And so whereas before we were saying folks walking on eggshells was the phrase because they didn't want to offend their students, I've always said, well, then you shouldn't be a teacher if you're afraid of offending your students. You should offend them, and they should understand why you're offending them, and they should learn. Right now we're seeing, however, a government with enormous power saying, these are views that are off limits. And although these are views that are unpopular, views that I myself don't like, I will have to defend the rights of those people to hold those views as long as those views are not directed at individuals in ways that intimidate them or harass them.
- [20:52]
Charlie Sykes
Well, and, you know, this obviously is not just about academic freedom. It's about First Amendment if you're involving government action. And I thought it was rather extraordinary, a story that hasn't gotten as much attention as it deserves, that you have the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. writing a letter threatening Georgetown Law School, which is, again, is a Jesuit university, not a government universe, not a public university, threatening them for the way they were handling dei. Now we can have a debate about diversity, equity, and inclusion. But he seemed to be targeting the way it was being taught in the law school, which it's hard for me to imagine anyone, even some of the most vocal critics of higher education, thinking that it's appropriate for the U.S. attorney to threaten a private institution of higher learning for the content of its curriculum.
- [21:43]
Michael Roth
Yeah, it was absurd. And I thought the dean of the law school wrote a strong and measured response to the acting attorney there. But the overreach of saying how you should teach what you should teach. The letter to Columbia says, we can't restore your funding unless you put these departments in receivership without any explanation as to why those departments? Was there an investigation? I mean, it's one thing to have the pressure of social media or students telling you you're offensive. Not pleasant, not great. It's another thing to have a U.S. attorney or officials of the federal government in other capacities going into private institutions and telling them how to teach. Now, you may say, well, we shouldn't teach anthropology that way. Nobody who cares. But, you know, we have. We have cancer research going on now that's not being funded because they're trying to punish the university for the way it teaches African studies. I mean, it is wildly irrational. The only way I can make sense of it is the federal government is trying to show that it has power over the content of what is taught at colleges and universities.
- [23:02]
Charlie Sykes
Well, and they pick an unpopular target in order to establish that wedge. Because, of course, I think it was Anne Applebaum who wrote, Columbia is obviously not going to be the last institution. They come for Columbia first, but who is next? So let's just talk about this. The $400 million Lee Bollinger. Is that how you pronounce his name? The former president said, never has the government brought such leverage against an institution of higher education. The university is in an incredibly unprecedented and dangerous situation. And yet the response of the university, the interim president, has been. Seems deferential and which has blown a lot of people's minds because almost every legal expert that I have read has said that the government has drastically overstepped its authority, that it's unconstitutional, it is illegal. The Civil Rights act does provide certain powers the government has, but it also limits them. You don't just go from 0 to 60 shutting it down at all. So it would seem that Colombia has a very, very strong legal case, and yet they haven't brought it. They seem to think they can appease the government. Is that an unfair analysis of it?
- [24:24]
Michael Roth
I don't know. The inside story at Columbia. And again, I don't want to blame the victim here, but it does seem a little bit like the owner of the Washington Post offering to make a documentary about the First Lady. I mean, it is a kind of deference that feels like corruption. And it's happening because people are afraid that their core operations will become impossible because the government will withdraw its support. Now there are people who will say, well, if the government supports you, you have to obey the government. But the ecosystem of American research and learning for the last 50 years, at least, probably since the founding actually has been such where the government does cooperate with education and does fund some schools, especially research at Schools, because it's in the country's interest that the education system remains independent. If we have a Soviet style education system or a Maoist style education system, we will destroy this extraordinary resource that higher education has been for this country, for its economy, for the culture. With all of the mishegosh that happens at universities, there are a lot of things that happen that of course, I roll my eyes, people roll their eyes, but, you know, that's where you get your vaccines, that's where you'll get your new technology, that's where you'll get changes for the economy. Unless everything has to pass a litmus test of loyalty to the president.
- [26:01]
Charlie Sykes
Well, which is the way we seem to be trending here. This is from the New York Times account. Just to clarify what the law is, because I am not a lawyer. The Trump administration is citing specific provisions of the Civil Rights act in attacking Colombia. The relevant section of the law, Title 6, prohibits discrimination by institutions that receive public money and requires federal agencies to believe an institution to be in violation to work with it before seeking to remove funding. So you're not just, okay, so you see a violation. There's a whole process that you have to go through. Some experts believe the Trump administration has skipped the onerous process that civil rights law mandates. It has to take place before the money is revoked. And also there's no provision for cutting everything because there's a problem over here. So it does seem that Colombia has a case. But I think the point that you're making here is also that this is a test case. Colombia is not going to be the last. That if Colombia doesn't fight back, you're going to see rolling through elite institutions, picking targets. And as that happens, you'll have more fear. Right? You have more institutions that decide, maybe we should become Vichy, maybe we should go along with all of this. Because if they don't fight back, if they can take down Columbia, who am I at the University of Wisconsin to fight back?
- [27:30]
Michael Roth
Yeah, I think that's exactly right. And that's what they're hoping for. You know, I was in a meeting with several college presidents in January and at the big research schools, you know, especially when they have hospitals attached, there are hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.
- [27:47]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [27:47]
Michael Roth
And that's, that's money that's paying for someone's cancer treatment. And then on Friday night, you get a notice from the government that the money's not coming anymore. I mean, that person's not going to get their medication. And it's meant to send A signal to the university. But it's individuals, American citizens and others who are going to suffer.
- [28:10]
Charlie Sykes
Well, then why doesn't the university president then go out in front of the university community, the world, and say, look what they are doing. They are threatening to withhold this cancer research or this medication for. From these patients at this hospital. People need to know exactly what's going on. Why are they so reticent to make that case? I mean.
- [28:33]
Michael Roth
I don't know, Charlie. I keep saying that, like what I'm making the case. And we don't have a hospital. We have significant grants at Wesleyan through the NIH and the nsf. But it's on a very small scale.
- [28:47]
Charlie Sykes
We.
- [28:48]
Michael Roth
Which means, of course, it would hurt more. It hurts us, too, if we have even a small reduction. But I do think there are people who will be, I hope will be speaking up against this, because if people don't speak up against it, it's going to get much worse, much more quickly. And so I'm doing this podcast with you because I want to show people that you can speak up against this and that as a citizen, not just as university president, but as an American, I feel that this is an egregious assault on civil society. Not universities where I work, but I spoke at the Chamber of Commerce in Seattle last week. I said, they're going to come for chambers of commerce if you guys don't line up. And it's wrong. I mean, it's just wrong. We should call it out.
- [29:40]
Charlie Sykes
Well, you. You wrote something back in February that appealed to my sort of Burkean side, where you talk about the. The importance of preserving the independence of civil society. You wrote, authoritarians have long known that total control will elude them if they do not eradicate the autonomous support engendered within civil society by cultural, religious, commercial, and educational institutions. This is one of the things that authoritarians, you know, want to have some sort of, you know, the coordination of all aspects of society in line with the ruling party. Whereas in a society with little platoons, you know, little platoons, in independent institutions, it is. It is. It is much harder. So let's talk about something that I think is an interesting debate. A lot of universities have decided that one of the ways to depoliticize or lower the temperature is to embrace institutional neutrality. And you've been very, very outspoken about this. This basically saying that, you know, this is a way that we're not going to take sides on issues. This will mean that we. We avoid controversy. And you wrote the infatuation with Institutional neutrality is just making cowardice into a policy. Talk to me about that because there are a lot of very serious academics and scholars who say, you know, no, it's. This is actually part of the liberal, small l liberal, you know, humanistic tradition. You disagree, obviously, very strongly.
- [31:13]
Michael Roth
I do, I do. I think when I'm a historian. And when you look back at when these institutional neutrality ideas get. Catch on.
- [31:21]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [31:22]
Michael Roth
You know, 67 with the Calvin Report. And now in January, University of Chicago. Yeah, University of Chicago. His son Jamie Calvin, who's a great journalist and a Wesleyan alum, he, he wrote a op ed in the Chicago Tribune a few weeks ago saying his father would not be in favor of neutrality. Now that was very interesting, but I thought Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and I wrote a piece in Time, I think, in January of just following October 7th and six weeks later saying this new infatuation with institutional neutrality was just to try to keep presidents from getting in the crossfire between their pro Palestinian demonstrators on campus or faculty and then their donors who may not be pro Palestinian. And then, and then I, and I, you know, strongly felt that then. And I, I think if you want to not say something, then don't say something. But creating a policy to legitimate your silence, to me, it raises all kinds of suspicions. All these statements about not making statements seems to be quite silly. But at the time, in the months of demonstrations on campus and counter demonstrations from donors and others about the Israel, Palestine War, it seemed to serve presidents well to have a doctrine that would excuse them from participating in the discussion, which for years, free speech people have said the solution to bad speech is.
- [32:53]
Charlie Sykes
More speech, more speech.
- [32:55]
Michael Roth
Right. Scalia is famous. I think he was quoting Brandeis. But, but the, the suddenly everybody said, no, be silent because it'll help other people speak if the president doesn't speak. Well, that's an empirical claim. Robert Post has pointed out there's no evidence for this at all, but it does. It's supposed to keep people safe. I guess I said that they were pricing in a Trump victory is what I said in the spring for like Harvard's new policy, which really isn't. It says deans shouldn't speak, even department chairs. I think, as you can tell, because I have a big mouth, I think the way to encourage discussion is to participate in the discussion. And you know, when I speak out at Wesleyan, most people will look for a way to oppose what I say rather than be forced to agree. And the more I participate, the more they realize that I know I'm fallible I should change my mind when I'm corrected appropriately, that I can learn from others and they can learn from me. That seems to me the model of free speech is to create more dialogue. Now people say to me, well, you don't want to opine on everything. Of course not. And no one ever did opine on everything. There were probably some silly statements that were made in the past, but that doesn't mean you need a doctrine to say you shouldn't say anything. It seems to me it is a big mistake for presidents not to be educators. If presidents are just going to be bureaucrats. We are way overpaid. We are educators. We should be talking about what we think in regard to subjects we know something about, to enlist others to speak and to listen to what they have to say in ways that from. And so everyone can learn.
- [34:46]
Charlie Sykes
But in order to have that. That environment and the respect for that environment, you basically have to convince people you do not have a right not to be offended. And when we say that there's a safe space, it doesn't mean that you're not going to hear opinions that you disagree with.
- [35:00]
Michael Roth
Right.
- [35:01]
Charlie Sykes
And that environment, I think it felt like it had been eroded over the last few decades in higher education. I was always amazed because I grew up in an environment where people debated and argued. And it was surprising to me that people's feelings would get hurt when you would challenge their premises or felt that somehow you were violating them by expressing an opinion that pointed out that they were wrong on something. So you need to have. I mean, this is. I think the essence. What you're describing is the essence of what liberal education ought to be. It is the essence of the humanities. And when we use phrases like wokeness or political correctness, it felt like that was an erosion of that culture of liberal give and take.
- [35:50]
Michael Roth
I think that's fair enough. I think that the way to combat that is actually just to create the dialogue, you know, not to back away from it. And, you know, I teach every semester. I've been a president for a long time, but I teach every semester. And I teach very controversial topics about old books, you know, but they resonate, as great books do, with the things in the present. And I've always have students who are extremely offended. And they get over it.
- [36:18]
Charlie Sykes
They get over it and then.
- [36:20]
Michael Roth
And they realize that part of learning is. Is to hear things that you don't want to have heard. And of course, I don't actually. I would not allow a Nazi to come in and make a pitch in class. You Know, I do have. I think everyone has their boundaries, but those boundaries should be based on what we can all learn from, not what we are most sensitive about. And I, I, I've taught. I teach courses on genocide. I teach courses to do with sexual assault. I teach, you know, subjects that are extraordinarily sensitive for students. And I find young people are extraordinarily resilient if you don't treat them as if they are weaklings. If you treat them as if they're resilient, they're actually quite resilient.
- [37:05]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, the assumption of fragility, like, don't challenge them. So you were asked this question by Politico magazine a couple of weeks ago that, you know, you sort of sketched out a middle ground. As a college administrator who's publicly pro Israel, but who's also spoken directly to students protesting the war in Gaza. Is it still possible in today's environment to have those kinds of conversations on university campuses?
- [37:33]
Michael Roth
It certainly is at Wesleyan. I mean, people are. During the war, in the height of the war in Gaza, it was hard. I mean, I met with groups of poor Palestinian students and pro Israel students, and I don't think they could easily meet with one another, actually, because there was just. It's a war. It's not just time and place restrictions. It's sometimes it's just not the right time to have a discussion that everybody can benefit from. At Wesleyan, I felt like people could be quite offensive, but that my job is to listen. And they knew I had been against, publicly against divestment for a long time. But I also invited someone who was very publicly for divestment to come to the campus and make a speech. She's an old friend of mine, but she's also a significant philosopher. And I said when her talk in New York was canceled, Judith Butler, this is. And I heard it was canceled. Now, I disagree with her. I think she's wrong about this. But I said, well, come and give the talk at Wesleyan. And people were very confused by this. But I thought it was pretty straightforward, is that you want to entertain a variety of ideas. Not everything, but a variety of ideas from which you can learn. And at Wesleyan, we managed to do that. I hosted Justice Scalia early in my tenure as president. It took a while for me to get ready for that because I really felt like he had done such harm to this republic. I also realized I could be wrong. So I was his host, and he gave an interesting talk, and there was a real debate. He stayed on campus all day and met with students. That was 12 years ago or so. It would be maybe harder today. But I feel at Wesleyan we do have, and we're small, 3,000 students. So, you know, I. It's an easier place to get to know people and to have the baseline level of respect that allows for people to have conversation. I mean, that's it, right? You, you, that's you.
- [39:44]
Charlie Sykes
That's where universities are supposed to be, right?
- [39:46]
Michael Roth
Yeah.
- [39:47]
Charlie Sykes
That is what a universe Disagree. Yeah, exactly. I always would tell people, you know, if you want to go to a place where you never hear anything that will offend you, you know, join a, join a Trappist monastery, you know, but, but avoid public transit and in institutions of higher education. So where does this go now? We're at a moment right now, maximum intimidation and assault on higher education. We may look back on this as the peak. We may look back on this as simply the beginning of it. What has to happen? What do you. Well, should I ask you what you think will happen or what has to happen? Let me ask you what has to happen happen as opposed to looking in the crystal ball. You're speaking out because you're trying to encourage others. I'm guessing that you get phone calls and people say, you know, Michael, keep it up. You know, I love it that you're speaking out. I can't do it. But you need to do it at some point. Will you're speaking out. Will it encourage, inspire people to face the fear and to push back?
- [40:50]
Michael Roth
I truly hope so. I mean, I'd say the president of Vanderbilt or the president of the University of Chicago. We disagree about neutrality, right? So what? I don't think we disagree about that. Government shouldn't put its hand into the classroom and tell people what to think. Or none of us disagree that there's a right to protest. So I'm hoping that people who might not agree about lots of other things will agree with this good old Burkean tradition, as you said, that we have to have an autonomous civil society and higher education is part of that. And I'm hoping that the presidents of large institutions and well respected institutions, and not just presidents, but deans and others will speak out not for their own self interest, but because it's so important for the vitality, for the health of this sector that it not be controlled by the ideology of those in power. That's that great old American tradition that you don't want too much power in any one part of the organization. And that's what we have to stop from happening now. It'll be bad for business, it'll be bad for religion, it'll be bad for education. If this happens, and I think I'm saying to you, you know this already. We all know this. If we studied American history at all. I just wish more people would, and I think they will come out and say it. And so that the administration that has its they won the elections, they have things they should do according to the law, but there are things that they should not be able to do because of our laws and our customs. And we have to hold them to account.
- [42:32]
Charlie Sykes
And the only way you hold them to account is to push back and call them out.
- [42:36]
Michael Roth
I think so.
- [42:37]
Charlie Sykes
Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University, thank you so much for your time and for joining me on the podcast and for your courage in speaking out.
- [42:45]
Michael Roth
I appreciate it. Thank you very much for having me.
- [42:47]
Charlie Sykes
And thank you all for listening to today's edition of to the Contrary Podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. We do this several times a week because it is now more important than ever to remind ourselves that we are not the crazy ones. Thanks.