Bollinger Urges Universities to Form NATO-Style Defense Pact

博林格呼吁高校建立北约式防卫协定 高等教育必须摒弃机构孤立，与新闻界一道采纳类似《北大西洋公约》第五条的共同防卫宪章，以在针对学术自主权日益加剧的威权主义攻势中求得生存。 在本次演讲及主持讨论中，李·C·博林格（Lee C. Bollinger）对美国高等教育展开了全面辩护，将大学与新闻界并列为民主社会中制衡国家权力和探求真理的关键引擎。他审视了高校正面临的日益严峻的外部政治干预，将威权压力与第一修正案开放求真的原则以及他所称的“学者气质”进行了对比。博林格还探讨了争议重重的校园挑战，评估了机构中立性，区分了受保护的公众集会与针对个人的骚扰，并回顾了密歇根大学就平权行动展开的法律辩护，以阐明跨部门团结如何维护学术独立。活动最后，他还就学术专业化、行政领导力进行了务实反思，并为处于职业生涯早期的学者在现代高等教育环境中前行提供了建议。 李·C·博林格警告称，美国高校正面临针对招聘、招生、课程和资金的前所未有的威权政治攻击，各机构必须对其自主权展开明确的公开辩护。 (11:55) 博林格建议在第一修正案框架下将高等教育视为“政府的第五分支”，并倡导建立仿照北约第五条的共同防卫协定，以反击整个行业面临的政治攻击。 (18:06) 博林格反对源自《卡尔文报告》对机构中立性的僵化解读，认为大学应区分不同的言论主体，以便校长和教职员工能够在基本道德和宪政问题上发声。 (44:17) 在校园言论自由方面，博林格区分了在公共广场（如Diag广场）受宪法保护的攻击性政治辩论，与应当受到行政纪律处分且不受保护的针对性当面骚扰。 (58:05)

Former University of Michigan and Columbia University president Lee C. Bollinger argues that American research universities face an unprecedented authoritarian political assault, requiring institutions to unite across civil society and reaffirm a truth-seeking scholarly temperament rather than retreating into ideological crusades or rigid neutrality. The Research University as Democratic Pillar (3:45) Bollinger defends American higher education against critics who he argues exaggerate flaws to justify dismantling institutions. Quantitatively, universities drive national GDP growth, commercialized patents, public health advances, and Nobel Prizes. Conceptually, Bollinger traces the First Amendment framework established in 1919 by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., which recognized that human beings naturally incline toward intolerance and ideological certainty. Under this framework, open debate acts as a constitutional experiment for discovering truth. Bollinger contends that just as the press serves as the Fourth Estate to check state overreach, the research university should be understood as the fifth branch of government, performing an equivalent duty under the First Amendment to expand public knowledge. Authoritarian Encroachment and Cross-Sector Solidarity (11:55) Bollinger warns of an escalating political assault by the federal government and state leaders in jurisdictions such as Texas and Florida. Tactics include predatory investigations, lawsuits, threats to cancel research grants, and deportation proceedings aimed at foreign scholars and students exercising free speech. Bollinger argues that political actors seek to seize internal control over faculty hiring, departmental organization, curricula, admissions standards, and student disciplinary proceedings. To counter these pressures, Bollinger asserts that universities must abandon institutional isolation and adopt an alliance modeled on NATO's Article V, committing to collective defense whenever an individual campus is attacked. He points to his defense of race-conscious admissions at the University of Michigan (*Grutter v. Bollinger*), which succeeded at the Supreme Court in 2003 because the university assembled a broad coalition spanning peer colleges, 50 to 60 corporations, labor, and the military. The Scholarly Temperament Against Activism (20:31) The academic mission rests on what Bollinger terms the 'scholarly temperament'—an intellectual discipline centered on questioning whether a premise is true, mastering literature, fairly considering opposing arguments, and remaining willing to change one's mind. While admitting that some academic departments lean heavily toward Liberal Democrats or succumb to groupthink, Bollinger rejects state-mandated ideological quotas, arguing that faculty must be evaluated on scholarship rather than political tallies. He distinguishes this scholarly ethos from student activism: although students naturally gravitate toward causes to repair an unjust world, Bollinger maintains that the university as an institution is designed to explore knowledge rather than adopt ideological crusades. To foster dialogue rather than confrontation, Bollinger advises campus participants to frame contentious issues with the phrase 'It's complex.' Disaggregating Neutrality and Protecting Free Speech (44:17) Bollinger rejects blanket interpretations of the 1967 Kalven Committee report on institutional neutrality, arguing that modern practice has swung too far toward enforced administrative silence. Instead, he proposes disaggregating university roles: governing boards should refrain from broad political endorsements, but presidents should speak out on matters within academic expertise and core democratic values, including civil rights and First Amendment defenses. Concurrently, governing trustees must not overstep their fiduciary roles to dictate academic curriculum or hiring. Regarding campus expression, Bollinger notes that while the First Amendment uniquely protects offensive speech and protests on open spaces like the Diag, university leaders must enforce clear disciplinary boundaries when public political demonstrations devolve into targeted, face-to-face harassment of individual students. While Bollinger urges rising scholars to avoid hyper-specialization and focus on consequential societal questions, his model leaves unresolved how non-tenured campus staff can balance personal commitments to social justice against institutional neutrality policies, as well as how universities can practically enforce collective defense agreements amidst sharp partisan division.

前哥伦比亚大学及密歇根大学校长李·C·布林格（Lee C. Bollinger）指出，美国研究型大学正遭受前所未有的威权式政治干预；他主张高等教育界应效仿北约第五条建立集体防御同盟，并依靠以探求真理为核心的“学者气质”与制度自治来捍卫学术自由。 大学作为“第五权力”与学者气质 (18:06) 布林格主张将研究型大学视为与新闻媒体（第四权力）具有同等宪政地位的“第五权力”。他援引联邦最高法院霍姆斯大法官（Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.）在1919年确立的第一修正案思想市场理论，指出压制异见是人类的本能倾向，唯有通过制度化的思想竞争才能检验真理，而大学正是支撑这一真理探索体系的关键机构。美国高等教育的成功建立在四大支柱之上：非传统的组织架构、年轻群体的活力、扩展知识的硬性要求，以及核心的“学者气质”。 布林格将“学者气质”定义为大学的超能力，其本质是内心不断发问“这是真的吗？”。这种气质要求学者严守中立观察、文本考据与理性分析，并在相反证据确凿时随时准备改变自身立场。尽管这种极度开放的心态违背了人类坚持既定立场的心理本能，且大学天然充满热衷投身正义事业的年轻学生，但布林格强调，大学的制度本职是客观真理的“探索者”，而非接揽特定道德或政治事业的“定居者”。 威权政治干预与学术界集体防御同盟 (11:55) 布林格直言，以特朗普政府为代表的政治右翼正在对高等教育发起系统性的威权式打压。干预手段包括针对受保护言论发起无端调查与诉讼、威胁驱逐外国师生，以及扬言切断公共科研经费与助学金，旨在夺取对教职聘用、学科架构、招生标准、课程设置与多元化倡议的控制权。除联邦层面外，德克萨斯州和佛罗里达州等地方政府同样出现了侵害大学自治的行政干预。 面对这场广泛殃及新闻界、企业界与非党派机构的政治攻势，布林格呼吁大学必须摒弃各自为战的孤立主义，签署类似北约第五条（Article V）的互助公约，形成“攻击一校即视同攻击全行业”的联合防御阵线。他回顾了2003年密歇根大学平权法案诉讼（*Grutter v. Bollinger*）的历史经验，指出当时正是校方坚决拒绝和解，联合了50至60家大企业、退役将领与媒体等公民社会力量共同提交法庭之友简报，才成功在最高法院捍卫了多元化招生原则达25年之久。 机构中立性的反思与大学话语角色分层 (44:17) 针对源自1967年芝加哥大学《卡尔文报告》（Kalven Report）的“机构中立”原则，布林格认为当下的学术界解读已走向极端。他主张对大学的表达角色进行三级解构：首先，大学法人与董事会在具体党派政策（如中东外交方案或富人税制）上应保持中立，但历史上在重大道德问题（如1980年代自南非种族隔离政权撤资、拒绝投资私营监狱、追究化石能源公司隐瞒气候科学）上采取立场是正当且必要的。 其次，大学校长与院长不应被贬抑为沉默的技术官僚，而应在自身专业领域（如第一修正案）及核心民主价值（如乔治·弗洛伊德事件后的种族平等）上发声。第三，个别学者与学生拥有就争议性议题自由表达的充分权利。布林格同时指出，大学校董会或受托人往往具有过度干预的冲动，强调必须划清受托财务监督与学术事务的边界，课程、科研与招生等核心教育权力必须严格由教授群体行使。 校园言论自由界限与意识形态争议化解 (58:05) 在划分受保护言论与违法骚扰的界线时，布林格以密歇根大学Diag广场的示威为例说明：抗议者群体之间互相高呼侮辱性或激进的口号，即便内容令人反感，仍属受宪法保护的言论；然而，一旦示威者脱离群体，专门针对某个抱书路过的个体进行近距离的人身辱骂与威吓，行为就越界转化为不受保护的“挑衅言词”（fighting words）与恶意骚扰，校方必须通过明确的纪律程序予以惩戒。 针对人文学科保守派教职偏少的批评，布林格承认部分院系存在自由派民主党人集中的事实，但强调政治面貌集中并不等同于教学不公，教职招聘绝不能屈从于意识形态配额，同时谴责立法禁止批评保守主义观点的政客企图违背了言论自由。在日常学术探讨中，布林格建议学生以“这很复杂”（It's complex）开场，通过承认多元价值的并存来开启共同探讨，而非以武断定论关闭对话空间。 布林格总结认为，高等教育生涯最宝贵的财富在于对思想的持久热爱与发现未知的智识自由，但他亦警示终身教职带来的迷茫与过度专业化可能导致学者回避宏大课题，同时承认无教职保护的行政人员在推行社会正义时面临制度约束。在外部政治威权化与内部极化加剧的双重夹击下，大学如何凝聚跨部门同盟、坚守学术严谨性以重建公众信任，仍是悬而未决的挑战。

[18:06] Lee Bollinger: If the press is deserving of having a special standing under the First Amendment as the fourth branch of government, so too should universities be regarded as the fifth. [25:18] Lee Bollinger: At the very least, we need our own charter like NATO and Article V. A charter to which we all sign that when one institution is attacked, we are all attacked and will rally to its defense. [3:45] Lee Bollinger: Universities have many flaws, and there is plenty of room for improvement. But it is vital that we not allow those who would destroy universities to exaggerate our defects and misrepresent us to justify their improper ends.

[0:00] MARTHA POLLACK: I am really delighted and really honored [0:03] to introduce today's speaker in this series, [0:06] How To Speak Your Mind, How To Change Your Mind, which [0:09] was launched last year in conjunction with Talking Maize [0:12] and Blue, a program that introduces all first year [0:15] students here at Michigan to the idea [0:17] and the importance of open inquiry. [0:20] Sponsors of this series include the life-changing education [0:23] theme semester, access and opportunity, the University [0:27] of Michigan Alumni Association, and Maize [0:30] and Blue Courage, a volunteer organization [0:32] of the University of Michigan. [0:35] Alumni and allies dedicated to defending academic freedom [0:38] and institutional autonomy. [0:40] We are so pleased to have them here with us [0:43] for today's conversation about free expression. [0:47] Nearly 90 years ago, Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardoso [0:51] famously wrote that freedom of expression [0:54] is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly [0:58] every other form of freedom. [1:00] And his point, of course, was that without free expression, [1:03] citizens cannot effectively defend their other rights. [1:07] And free expression and the related notion [1:09] of academic freedom are also the indispensable conditions [1:13] of a true university. [1:14] Without them, universities cannot fulfill their central [1:17] mission of learning and truth-seeking, [1:20] whether in the classroom or in research, [1:22] because learning and truth-seeking require [1:25] the ability to explore all ideas. [1:28] But upholding free expression in the academy has always [1:30] been difficult. And today, that core value, [1:34] and with it, the autonomy and authority of the university, [1:37] are facing unprecedented attacks. [1:40] I can think of no one who is better [1:42] suited to speak to these issues than Lee Bollinger. [1:46] Lee is one of the country's most prominent and most thoughtful [1:49] voices on free expression, a topic he has studied and written [1:52] about for four decades. [1:55] He has also taught first Amendment law, [1:57] both here at the University of Michigan [1:59] and at Columbia Law School. [2:01] And he's had a long and distinguished career [2:03] as a University Administrator, Dean of the Law School here [2:06] at Michigan from 1987 to 1994, Provost at Dartmouth from 1994 [2:11] to 1997, the 12th President of the University of Michigan from [2:15] 1997 to 2001, and then finally 19th President of Columbia [2:20] University from 2002 to 2023. [2:25] These experiences have provided him [2:27] with a particularly rich perspective on free expression [2:30] in the university, the subject of his recent book, [2:34] University, A Reckoning, and of today's lecture, [2:37] which will be followed by a conversation and open Q&A [2:40] session moderated by Demetri Morgan. [2:44] Professor Morgan is Associate Professor [2:46] of Education at the University of Michigan's Marcell Family [2:49] School of Education in the Center for the Study [2:51] of Postsecondary and Higher Education [2:53] and is also an affiliate faculty member [2:55] in organizational studies. [2:57] His research focuses on the critical role [3:00] that higher education institutions [3:01] play in fostering a diverse democracy. [3:05] Before I turn the podium over to Lee Bollinger, [3:08] I'd like to add a personal note. [3:09] I've known Lee for quite a while. [3:12] Although we never met in what was his last and my first year [3:15] here at Michigan, I was introduced to him [3:17] shortly after I became a university president. [3:20] And I deeply appreciated the fact [3:22] that he was genuinely welcoming, always willing to listen, always [3:26] willing to provide guidance. [3:27] I never walked away from a conversation [3:29] with Lee without feeling more informed and better [3:33] prepared to grapple with the difficult issues [3:35] of free expression and of higher education in general. [3:39] Please join me in welcoming Lee Bollinger. [3:41] [APPLAUSE] [3:45] LEE BOLLINGER: Thank you, Martha. [3:54] It is a very, very great pleasure for me [3:57] to be with you this afternoon. [4:01] This means more to me than you would know. [4:06] The University of Michigan is where [4:08] I began my career in academia, and it [4:12] is where I matured into a scholar and an academic leader. [4:17] It is where my wife, Jean, an artist, who was also [4:22] a founder of the Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum, [4:26] and I raised our two children. [4:30] It has accordingly an irreplaceable hold [4:33] on my professional and personal life. [4:37] Just about everything I will say to you today [4:40] has its roots in the formative experiences of the decades [4:45] I spent here. [4:48] Let me acknowledge Provost Laurie McCauley, Vice Provost [4:52] for Undergraduate Graduate Education Dr. Angela Dillard, [4:57] and my good friend and colleague Martha Pollack. [5:01] And Demetri, I look forward to our conversation. [5:07] Let me turn to the substance of my remarks. [5:09] I know you are thinking here about the very special [5:13] intellectual character of academic life, about what it is [5:17] and about how to preserve it. [5:19] I too have been spending a lot of time [5:22] reflecting on those questions. [5:26] So what I have to offer for you to think about today [5:28] is the best I can do. [5:31] Much of it is contained in the short book I recently published, [5:35] University, A Reckoning. [5:37] This lecture significantly tracks [5:40] the arguments advanced there, but for me, the ideas [5:44] date back many decades, including [5:46] with a lecture I delivered here in this very room. [5:52] In many respects, this is the sum [5:54] of what I have been thinking about for a long time. [5:59] So that we don't miss the forest for the trees, [6:02] I would like to begin with two large observations. [6:07] The first being a general view of universities [6:10] in America and the second being a warning [6:13] about the state of the world today, [6:17] especially in the governmental attacks on these institutions. [6:23] Universities have many flaws, and there is [6:27] plenty of room for improvement. [6:30] But it is vital that we not allow [6:32] those who would destroy universities to exaggerate [6:38] our defects and misrepresent us to justify their improper ends. [6:46] I think we should start with a clear and forceful affirmation [6:50] of the greatness of our system of colleges and universities. [6:56] Every one of us is very, very fortunate [6:59] to be involved with this or any University, [7:04] whether that be as a faculty member or a student [7:07] or administrator, staff, regents, alums, [7:12] or close friends. [7:14] These are tremendously successful institutions, [7:17] especially when considered as a whole, as a system. [7:22] They have been brilliantly successful at fulfilling [7:25] their basic mission, and they are [7:27] profoundly worthy of our dedication and protection. [7:33] There are many ways to support this proposition. [7:37] You might look at the innumerable ways [7:39] the work within the Academy has contributed to and brought to us [7:45] a greater GDP. [7:48] You might think about how they have made much of modern life [7:53] possible. [7:55] You might cite the ways in which scholarship has enhanced [8:00] the number of patents issued to academic research [8:04] or the number of commercial products yielded. [8:08] You might count the number of Nobel Prizes awarded [8:11] to members of our communities. [8:14] You might explain how our health and our lifespans [8:18] have been improved by our scholarship. [8:22] You might point to the incredible demand [8:26] all over the world, from young people in this nation [8:30] and beyond, who ardently seek to spend [8:33] a significant portion of their lives [8:36] receiving the education we offer. [8:40] Or you might estimate and extol the increase in salaries [8:44] over a lifetime that these students will receive [8:48] because of their degrees. [8:51] In short, the success of the American higher education [8:55] experiment can be measured and proven [8:59] with concrete data from many sources. [9:03] But for me, the most persuasive proof is not in the data, [9:06] but in the simple experience of being present [9:10] on a campus such as this. [9:13] Of walking around and seeing with your own eyes and ears [9:17] what is happening in research laboratories, [9:20] in libraries, in faculty offices, and in classrooms. [9:26] The range of earnest and serious investigation into the mysteries [9:30] of life and the natural world is simply astonishing, [9:34] and it is exhilarating to be in its midst. [9:38] Any visitor who spends a little time must tell you this. [9:44] Go up to any faculty member and ask [9:45] them to talk about their field, yield, [9:48] and you will quickly be dazzled by the depth of their knowledge [9:52] and their desire to share it. [9:54] Go into any classroom or lab and you will see and feel the same. [9:59] Go up to any student and ask him or her [10:01] how their lives have been transformed [10:04] by being in this environment. [10:06] And you will go away impressed. [10:09] This is what we have created approximately over a century. [10:15] As the research mission became a serious endeavor, [10:19] as disciplines of study emerged, as funding undergirded [10:25] the enterprise and as educational opportunities [10:29] were democratized. [10:32] I have spent virtually all of my adult life [10:34] within universities, first as a student, [10:36] then a professor, then a dean, then a provost, then [10:39] a president, and now is a very happy professor once again. [10:46] Astonishingly, this adds up to over six decades, [10:50] of which some 26 were spent right here at the University [10:54] of Michigan, where as I said, my wife jean, [10:58] and I arrived at age 27, and I joined the law school [11:02] as an assistant professor. [11:05] In all of these years, I have never [11:08] once regretted that decision. [11:12] And I have to add that I have now in my life [11:16] met and worked with people from just about every other sector [11:20] of American life, from government, business, the press [11:24] and media, politics, civil society, religion, and beyond. [11:31] And I can say, I feel with confidence, [11:34] of all those experiences, that there is no other sector that [11:39] has more talent, more creativity, more [11:43] dedication to its mission or more integrity in its behavior [11:47] than in the system of American higher education. [11:52] So let's start there. [11:55] Now, to the second point. [11:58] And yet, shockingly, our system of higher education [12:02] is now under attack by our own government. [12:06] The Trump administration has employed multiple sources [12:10] of leverage to bring universities [12:12] under political control, opening unfounded investigations, [12:19] initiating baseless lawsuits, bringing deportation proceedings [12:24] against faculty and students for exercising their free speech [12:29] rights, and most potently, withholding public funds [12:34] for scholarships and for scientific and medical research. [12:40] The administration is seeking to impose its will on universities [12:45] intervening in basic academic decisions about faculty [12:48] hiring, departments, admissions, curriculum, [12:52] student discipline, and policies involving diversity. [12:56] Unfortunately, what is happening with universities is also [12:59] occurring with other sectors with the press and media, [13:03] with law firms, businesses, foundations, [13:07] and independent government agencies. [13:10] We are experiencing, in a word, an authoritarian style [13:14] assault on the basic laws, norms, [13:18] and institutions of civil society, [13:21] with universities being a leading target. [13:25] All of this goes hand in hand with the campaign [13:28] within the political right to discredit our universities [13:32] and the achievements that have been so hard won. [13:37] Where these efforts to control, dominate, subdue, and chill [13:42] will end is unclear, but they are most definitely ongoing. [13:48] This is a national tragedy, but it has for sure [13:53] made us feel the need to define our role in society. [13:57] Our rights and responsibilities, and the special character [14:01] inherent in our mission with greater sharpness [14:04] and forcefulness. [14:07] That is what has become my primary task [14:10] and the reason I wrote University. [14:14] For me, the answers to these questions of identity [14:17] are best traced through our constitutional history [14:20] and especially the First Amendment. [14:22] And it's appropriately widely heralded protections [14:26] of freedom of speech and press. [14:29] The thesis is complicated, to be sure, but here is the essence. [14:35] The Supreme Court's interpretation of the First [14:37] Amendment opens in 1919. [14:41] Why so late in our history is a story unto itself. [14:45] In 1919, at about the same moment when the modern research [14:50] university is founded and when the principle [14:53] of academic freedom is conceived. [14:58] Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. set forth brilliantly [15:03] the framework for free speech. [15:06] It has two components. [15:08] The first is what we seek, namely truth, [15:11] and the second is what we need to watch out for, [15:15] namely our natural inclination to be intolerant. [15:20] Here is what he said. [15:23] Quote, persecution for the expression of opinions [15:28] seems to me perfectly logical. [15:31] If you have no doubt of your premises or your power [15:35] and you want a certain result with all of your heart, [15:38] you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep [15:42] away all opposition. [15:45] To allow opposition by speech seems [15:48] to indicate that you think the speech impotent, [15:51] or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, [15:55] or that you doubt either your power or your premises. [16:01] But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting [16:05] faiths, they may come to believe that the ultimate good desired [16:11] is better reached by free trade in ideas [16:15] that the best test of truth, is the power of a thought [16:18] to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. [16:24] And that truth is the only ground [16:26] upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. [16:30] That, at any rate, he said, is the theory of our Constitution. [16:36] It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. [16:42] And so in this eloquent and seminal summary, [16:46] Holmes linked free speech with our interest in truth, [16:50] with knowledge, with understanding, with learning, [16:55] and warned us to be wary of our inclinations, our logic [17:00] to suppress and censor, and persecute opinions we disagree [17:06] with and even loathe. [17:09] Holmes, by inference, also made it clear [17:11] what we are not as a nation. [17:14] We are not a people adhering to a single ideology, [17:19] whether political or religious or social. [17:24] We have no Catechism to memorize. [17:27] No crown to whom we must learn to submit or to be obedient. [17:34] No cult to sign on to unto. [17:38] We are an independent minded people [17:40] ready to engage with the difficult and complex, sometimes [17:45] even frightening and certainly always exhausting [17:49] process of finding our way through a world of many ideas [17:57] in order to try to decide what is [18:00] the knowledge we will take to let us live the lives we want. [18:06] This is our quest, and in this quest, [18:11] we need the help of institutions that are organized and dedicated [18:16] to this mission. [18:19] This is for many reasons, but it is primarily [18:22] because large institutions bring the scale needed to seek [18:27] knowledge more effectively. [18:31] They bring the ability to create a special culture [18:35] or intellectual mindset required to pursue the mission. [18:42] And institutions give us a power needed [18:46] to fight back when the state becomes [18:49] repressive and intolerant. [18:53] In the United States, we and the Supreme Court [18:57] in particular, have come to recognize the press [19:00] as such an institution. [19:03] At its best, the press follows a special mindset. [19:08] Professional standards of objectivity [19:11] and a commitment to informing the public about information [19:15] and ideas they need, along with the size [19:20] equal to the task of standing up to the state. [19:25] Less well recognized but worthy of the same standing [19:30] is our system of universities. [19:33] Both institutions are committed to enhancing our understanding [19:38] of the world, consistent with the goals of the First Amendment [19:42] as laid out by the court in the opinion that Holmes wrote. [19:48] If the press is deserving of having [19:50] a special standing under the First Amendment [19:53] as the fourth branch of government, [19:58] so too should universities be regarded as the fifth. [20:04] And just as the press has claimed, [20:06] that special role in shield, so should universities. [20:12] And we should together in common defense, when the press is [20:17] attacked just for performing its role, [20:22] universities should come to its defense. [20:25] And the same is true when it is the other way around. [20:31] Focusing now on universities, I think [20:34] there are four points worth noting [20:38] to account for why our network of universities [20:42] has been so successful. [20:45] The first is that universities have achieved enormous success [20:49] by evolving into a structure that uniquely [20:53] serves its basic mission. [20:57] The structure is not rational under conventional [21:02] organizational theories. [21:04] Quite the opposite. [21:07] And yet, it works. [21:09] A combination of factors knit together [21:12] and create an environment in which [21:15] some of the most talented people of every generation [21:19] seek to spend their lives pursuing knowledge within it. [21:25] Lifetime tenure for faculty in specialized fields [21:30] within a community of unity of scholars [21:32] spread across the nation and in many cases, the world. [21:36] Each within supportive institutions, [21:40] these are key ingredients. [21:44] The second source of success is the presence [21:47] of young people just beginning to experience [21:52] the life of the mind. [21:55] The third is the insistence that everyone, faculty and students [22:00] alike, do their utmost to add to the vast bodies of knowledge [22:08] that we inherit. [22:10] And the fourth is the expectation [22:14] that we all abide by the precepts of what I [22:19] call the scholarly temperament. [22:22] To me, the scholarly temperament is our superpower. [22:26] It is the special intellectual character that defines us. [22:31] It is specifically tailored to the search for knowledge. [22:36] Like any mentality, it is difficult to define. [22:40] But its general traits are clear. [22:43] At its core is a continual voice of challenge, [22:50] a constant voice in your mind always saying, but is it true? [22:58] That question never rests. [23:01] It demands that what we think must [23:05] be tested by neutral observation, [23:09] by fidelity to texts. [23:12] The deployment of reason wherever [23:14] possible and an unflinching commitment [23:18] to alter your views whenever other ways [23:21] of looking at a problem present themselves compellingly. [23:28] The scholarly temperament does not [23:29] preclude belief or a conclusion or a judgment. [23:34] On the contrary, we expect that of each of us [23:37] as a necessary element of the ever ongoing search. [23:42] Nor does it forbid engagement with controversial issues [23:46] in the public sphere. [23:49] On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the scholar [23:52] to be engaged with the broader public, which when the public is [23:58] in the right frame of mind, welcomes all views, including [24:02] those of scholars. [24:05] The scholarly temperament is critical to our mission [24:08] and therefore critical to preserve. [24:12] It's what has helped make the American university so [24:15] great over the last century. [24:20] Yet given human nature, that is the logic of intolerance. [24:26] But also the fact that the scholarly temperament is not [24:31] a single guide for all of life, it is difficult to keep. [24:38] Like other professional mentalities, [24:41] the scholarly temperament is uniquely [24:43] suited to a single goal. [24:45] Not all life is contained within that one goal. [24:53] The extreme openness of the scholarly temperament, [24:56] like the extreme openness demanded of the First Amendment, [25:00] we protect the most abhorrent ideas, is, in a word, [25:05] mannerist but for a good, limited purpose. [25:11] We should not think of it as an ideal [25:13] by which to live a full life. [25:18] Finally, a few words on youth in the university. [25:23] It can be especially difficult sometimes [25:26] to keep this intellectual character, [25:28] the scholarly temperament, with the presence of youth. [25:33] The typical student joins the academic community [25:37] at just the point in life where forming [25:40] beliefs is often a strongly felt need when [25:45] on the path to creating a mature identity. [25:50] And because the world unhappily is always filled with injustices [25:55] and is always obviously in need of improvement, [25:59] and because youth tend to feel the gap more intensely, [26:04] there is a natural tendency to become [26:06] committed to a cause, often a very just cause. [26:10] I felt that when I was young. [26:12] I suspect others of you did too. [26:15] Of course, we must respect this, but we must also [26:19] understand how that tendency can be in conflict with the mission [26:24] of the university. [26:27] We are not, as a university, built to take on causes. [26:33] We are explorers. [26:35] Not homesteaders or stakeholders at the point in life [26:42] where we are trying to achieve some beliefs. [26:46] We are explorers. [26:49] It would be good to acknowledge this tension [26:52] and to speak of it always but especially at the outset [26:56] when students join us. [27:00] I begin by asserting that our world class universities are now [27:05] under assault from our own government. [27:10] Let me close with a few recommendations. [27:14] As we better understand who we are as universities [27:18] and make the case more forcibly to ourselves and to others, [27:22] the relationship of each institution [27:25] in regards to the whole, to the system in which each is [27:31] a part becomes more critical. [27:35] In the face of the assaults we are witnessing now [27:38] and are likely to face in the future, [27:42] we need to build the capacity to act with more collective action. [27:48] Each university favors its own identity and autonomy, [27:53] but we are weaker for that when under attack. [27:58] At the very least, we need our own charter [28:02] like NATO and Article V. A charter to which we all [28:07] sign that when one institution is attacked, [28:11] we are all attacked and will rally to its defense. [28:16] We need to proclaim the freedom of the University, [28:20] just as the press is quick to defend the freedom of the press, [28:26] and to join together in the defense of the freedom [28:30] of the university. [28:33] These are our biggest challenges at the moment. [28:37] In 1997, this university was sued [28:40] over its long standing affirmative action policies [28:45] and commitments. [28:48] The claim was made against the University of Michigan, [28:52] that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th [28:56] Amendment. [28:58] The university, in a period in which such policies were [29:02] under bitter attack and successful attack [29:06] all across the nation, stood up for the values [29:10] at stake, for the values of being [29:13] able to create those values, and refused to settle. [29:19] Then the university rallied all universities and institutions [29:26] from every other sector of society, [29:29] from business, the press, and the military, [29:33] to defend its principles. [29:36] The University won that case in 2003 [29:41] in the United States Supreme Court. [29:44] And that sustained affirmative action in universities [29:48] across the country for another 25 years. [29:53] In doing so, the university not only successfully [29:57] defended a basic value, but the University of Michigan [30:01] also showed that we stand stronger when we stand together. [30:09] The University of Michigan is in so many ways [30:11] a model for America. [30:14] My hope and expectation is that it [30:16] will continue to be so for a long time into the future. [30:22] Thank you very much. [30:23] [APPLAUSE] [30:32] DEMETRI MORGAN: Thank you. [30:33] Thank you so much. [30:35] President Bollinger. [30:37] Good afternoon, everyone. [30:38] Good evening. [30:39] My name is Demetri Morgan. [30:41] As Dr. Pollock mentioned, I am a faculty member [30:44] in the Marcell Family School of Education [30:46] and also have the wonderful privilege [30:48] of serving as the faculty director of Life-Changing [30:51] Education, which is one of our theme initiatives [30:54] that are connected to our Look to Michigan campaign. [30:57] And in a second here, I'm going to have the awesome opportunity [31:00] to engage President Bollinger in a Q&A. [31:03] But I have a little pause in the program for us for a second. [31:07] That was deep. [31:09] That was a lot. [31:10] And I think we all need a second to take it in. [31:14] And so being good pedagogues from the School of Education, [31:19] on your way in, hopefully you received two cards. [31:22] One in maize and one blue. [31:25] And on the maize card, we have a question for you [31:27] all that we want you all to think with us. [31:29] And this is actually going to seed an activity that we'll [31:32] do during the reception. [31:33] So the question is simply what is something [31:35] that you once believed but now see differently? [31:39] What changed your perspective? [31:41] And as you listen to the Q&A, I want [31:43] you to be thinking about that question, [31:44] and we would love for you to fill it in and hand it [31:47] to one of our awesome LCE team members [31:50] who are wearing the maize lanyards, [31:52] and we'll come around and grab it for you. [31:54] We also are going to do a Q&A. So your blue card [31:58] is your opportunity to write a question. [32:02] And again, one of our student staff will come and grab it, [32:04] and we'll try to get through as many questions as possible. [32:08] I also want to direct. [32:09] We have a bunch of people who are online. [32:12] So if you're online, and you want [32:14] to join us in asking questions for President Bollinger. [32:16] You can scan the QR code, and that will allow you [32:20] to type in a question that our team will get to us, [32:24] so we can engage in conversation. [32:26] And after following the Q&A, we invite you all [32:29] to join us for a reception to continue the conversation, [32:32] because this is ultimately a part of our series [32:35] how to speak your mind, how to change your mind. [32:37] So I am going to move and join President Bollinger. [32:46] All right. [32:48] I want to start off, one, saying thank you. [32:53] I am a higher education nerd, and I actually [32:58] have my class here, my Intro to Higher Education. [33:01] Raise your hand, Intro to Higher Ed class. [33:04] Of future oncoming higher education professionals. [33:07] And so I love everything about higher education. [33:09] And I'm really inspired by your word. [33:11] So thank you. [33:13] And also thank you for the work you [33:14] did on the affirmative action cases and just your leadership [33:17] in the higher education sector. [33:19] I'm just big on giving people their flowers [33:20] while they're still here with us. [33:22] So thank you for everything that you've done. [33:26] I want to, as a sort of form of personal privilege, [33:30] bring us back to this scholarly temperament, [33:32] because there was a lot of things [33:33] that I really enjoyed about your book. [33:35] We were chatting earlier. [33:36] I studied governing boards. [33:37] You talk a lot about governing boards in the book. [33:40] But this idea of scholarly temperament [33:41] connected to our topic tonight, I think, is really important. [33:45] So I'm actually going to read a passage because you summarized [33:47] it for us, but I think this is a good place for us to start. [33:50] So you say, in mastering your field or advocating [33:53] for the ideas about the field, you cannot just declare that you [33:57] believe what you are saying is true and leave it at that. [34:01] On the contrary, you must demonstrate [34:04] that you have grasped all that has come before you, [34:07] and you must explain in detail how what you are proposing [34:11] fits into the body of thought. [34:14] You must give reasons why your ideas [34:16] are different and important for others [34:18] to hear and think through. [34:20] If anyone else has contributed to your thinking, [34:22] you must openly and fully acknowledge and credit [34:25] that contribution. [34:27] Most important, you must confront opposing perspectives [34:31] and show genuine recognition for their merit when it is due. [34:35] You must entertain, really entertain the possibility [34:38] that you are wrong. [34:40] And finally, you must be willing to change your mind [34:43] if the evidence calls for it. [34:45] That's powerful. [34:46] And so my first question for you is [34:48] you write early in the book that University, [34:51] A Reckoning is ideal. [34:52] So how would you respond to somebody [34:54] who says everything you just shared [34:56] with us is for a bygone era. [34:58] We're not that type of university anymore. [35:02] How do you entertain the possibility [35:05] that your thesis might be wrong, and how would you respond? [35:11] LEE BOLLINGER: I'm right, goddammit. [35:17] I mean, I take it, Demetri-- [35:20] first of all, thank you very much. [35:22] And thank you for calling it deep. [35:24] I really appreciate that. [35:29] There is a critique of the American university [35:32] now from outside, that certain parts of the university, [35:37] mostly in the humanities, maybe in the social sciences, [35:41] some departments, have lost the kind of scholarly idea. [35:45] They don't use the scholarly temperament, [35:47] but they become partisan and ideological and really promoting [35:54] a liberal agenda with students and so on. [35:57] So that's a common critique of the university, and I take it. [36:03] And insofar as that's true, it's inconsistent [36:06] with the scholarly temperament as I see it. [36:10] Although one has to be really subtle and nuanced about what [36:15] we're talking about. [36:15] There's also, I think, a critique [36:17] from within the university world that [36:20] says that the scholarly temperament is antiquated [36:24] or it doesn't exist. [36:25] Everybody is promoting their ideas. [36:28] Let's acknowledge that, and let's get on with it. [36:31] We're supposed to be ideological and partisan. [36:38] That kind of debate goes on in other fields too. [36:41] I've encountered it in journalism. [36:43] The idea that journalists are impartial and objective and [36:47] non-partisan. [36:49] It's just not true. [36:50] And it's all a matter of how much you pretend, that you've [36:57] got a neutral perspective. [36:59] Everybody's got. [37:00] So I think that debate is really important to have. [37:04] And it's very complex when you start [37:07] to really be serious about it. [37:11] I really do think that the things that, the passage you [37:18] read, refers to things that-- [37:21] I mean, I think most scholars abide by those things. [37:27] You know you present a paper. [37:30] It's ridiculous if you just say, oh, that's what I believe, [37:34] and you don't try to give arguments and reasons, [37:37] and you don't try to root it in evidence and so on. [37:41] So I think absolutely accurate. [37:46] I think it's also true that you need [37:49] to demonstrate to people that you have looked at what [37:53] everybody else has said, really absorbed it, really thought [37:57] about it and decided you've come to a different conclusion [38:01] for the following reasons. [38:05] We're all humans. [38:07] So I know many people who have been in academic life. [38:11] I know departments who have been accused of just following [38:16] a single kind of perspective in physics or in economics [38:22] and so on. [38:23] So we're human. [38:24] But we do have, I think, still an ideal [38:27] about how to think about knowledge [38:29] within an academic community. [38:31] If you want to test whether or it's true, [38:36] I suggest you become a university president. [38:39] And the reason is, the reason is you start to realize, [38:44] I don't have to give reasons for what I believe. [38:48] I'm in an interview. [38:49] I'll answer the question I want. [38:53] I mean, that's the way a lot of public life is done. [38:58] And you quickly say, wow, that's liberating. [39:01] All these years I spent as a faculty member thinking I [39:06] had to give reasons for everything. [39:08] And at some point, reasons run out. [39:11] It's very frustrating. [39:12] And so there just is a different culture. [39:17] And I love it. [39:18] I think it's great. [39:24] I do think that the formation of beliefs is also part of this, [39:30] as I try to say in my remarks and in this. [39:33] But it also comes with that I will change [39:36] my mind if the beliefs are-- [39:39] I mean, the evidence is contrary. [39:41] So that's my best attempt at that and I appreciate that. [39:47] DEMETRI MORGAN: So I'm going to jump into our questions [39:49] and please keep them coming as you have them. [39:53] So this question is, in a campus environment [39:57] with so many strong, diverse perspectives, [40:00] what is one piece of practical advice [40:03] you have for students who want to express [40:05] controversial ideas without shutting down the conversation? [40:09] I appreciate the nuance in that question. [40:10] LEE BOLLINGER: No, I think it's all in the tone in which you [40:13] present things. [40:16] I frequently encourage students in my class [40:21] to begin with the classic academic way [40:27] to answer a question, and that is [40:30] to start by saying it's complex. [40:33] DEMETRI MORGAN: Always the right answer. [40:35] LEE BOLLINGER: Yeah. [40:36] I mean, because that puts you in a mindset of saying, [40:40] why is it complex? [40:42] Because you might think and that you might think and so. [40:48] But I think that also leaves room [40:52] for the people you're talking to, to say, wait a minute, [40:55] I see it differently. [40:57] If you just come at a question like this is what I believe, [41:01] pretty well shuts down conversation. [41:05] There has to be some sense of openness [41:08] to wanting to hear what other people have to say. [41:10] So in terms of having discussions on the campus, [41:14] I think it's a skill. [41:16] And it's a skill we need to help teach students. [41:20] Because actually believing and saying this is what I believe [41:23] is the more normal way to interact. [41:26] So I think that's one thing I would say to students. [41:32] DEMETRI MORGAN: I would just add that I [41:33] think the opportunity to practice that in the university [41:37] environment, which you speak to a lot, is really important. [41:41] LEE BOLLINGER: And I also think inviting the other person, what [41:44] do you think. [41:46] And be serious about listening. [41:49] DEMETRI MORGAN: All right. [41:50] Next one. [41:51] Looking back at your time as president, [41:53] I know you mentioned enjoying faculty life again, but thinking [41:57] back to your time as president here [41:59] at Michigan and at Columbia, what [42:01] has changed the most about how universities approach [42:04] free expression today compared to 20 years ago? [42:13] LEE BOLLINGER: Free speech is something that it's just alive. [42:20] I mean, I am never without hypotheticals in my classes. [42:25] Current ones. [42:26] I mean, from the day, from this morning, every single day, [42:30] you pick up-- [42:31] I mean, you look at online. [42:34] You see news, and there are free speech questions always. [42:40] It's always-- but free speech is, as I like to say, [42:45] counterintuitive. [42:47] That was the point of Holmes. [42:49] That's many people have made this point. [42:51] We don't naturally embrace freedom of speech. [42:55] We don't naturally-- we weren't born believing in free speech. [42:59] It's hard to do so. [43:02] It was hard when I was here. [43:05] It was hard when I was a dean. [43:07] It was hard when I was the president here. [43:08] It's hard when I was the president of Columbia. [43:11] I just feel like this is-- new students come in. [43:15] They have to be taught. [43:17] We all have to teach ourselves. [43:19] We have to preserve what we think is important. [43:22] I think that on this one, I don't really [43:27] see any difference, except we are in an environment where [43:35] there is the use of government power [43:38] to try to impose a particular objecting to particular ways [43:47] of thinking. [43:47] So I think the level of censorship that is going on, [43:53] the level of intrusion into objective pursuit of knowledge [43:59] and so on or even in independent agencies, [44:04] I think this is an assault on the very thing we're [44:09] supposed to believe in. [44:10] We do believe in the university world, [44:12] and that is more serious than anything in my lifetime. [44:17] DEMETRI MORGAN: So this is a good segue into, [44:19] because you alluded to it a little bit about higher [44:22] education being the fourth branch of government [44:25] after media. [44:26] But you also, you didn't get into it too much in your talk. [44:28] But you also call out media a little bit [44:31] in a fractured ecosystem that maybe media is not [44:35] doing what it used to do. [44:36] And so higher ed is now this important role. [44:39] So it connects to this question, in today's polarized media [44:42] ecosystem, institutional neutrality [44:45] has become a central debate. [44:47] Should university leaders take official stances [44:49] on major global or political events, [44:52] or does doing so inherently stifle open inquiry [44:56] among students and faculty. [44:59] LEE BOLLINGER: Yeah, yeah. [45:00] So this is a big subject. [45:02] And if I may say so, very complex. [45:05] And here's my very quick but thoughtful, I hope, answer. [45:16] It's gone way overboard. [45:17] This whole thing of institutional neutrality. [45:20] This came up in the 1960s. [45:23] Should universities institutionally [45:26] condemn the war in Vietnam. [45:28] Group was set up. [45:29] Harry Calvin, the great First Amendment scholar [45:31] of that period, whom I admired tremendously, [45:34] what a great figure he was, had a committee. [45:37] They said there should be, at University of Chicago, [45:39] there should be institutional neutrality. [45:42] We're not going to take positions on the war in Vietnam. [45:44] And the reason not is because it would chill debate [45:47] on campus faculty, and students need to debate. [45:49] Fantastic. [45:51] It's a couple of pages. [45:52] It's not an in-depth analysis of the idea [45:55] of neutrality in the way a lot of people [45:57] are talking about it now. [45:59] You need to separate the institution from the president, [46:04] from the deans, from the provost, the academic leaders, [46:09] and the faculty, and the students, [46:11] all different analyzes. [46:14] With the institution, yes, of course. [46:17] I mean, the University of Michigan regents and president, [46:22] provost should not take an institutional position [46:24] that they favor a two-state solution in the Middle East. [46:28] Or that they regard taxing billionaires [46:31] as the right policy. [46:33] It's just not the interest of the university in doing that. [46:37] On the other hand, universities, all of them [46:39] have taken positions on apartheid [46:41] in South Africa at certain points in time. [46:44] I mean, in the 1980s, on private prisons, [46:47] on energy companies and deceit about science and climate. [46:53] I mean, universities have taken positions. [46:56] But it should be very, very contained and so on. [47:00] Then there's the president. [47:01] So in my lifetime, for a long time, when [47:04] I was a faculty member and a dean, [47:06] the whole thing in the public debate was, [47:09] where are all the great university presidents [47:11] who used to give us the benefit of their views [47:14] and so on and so on? [47:15] And now, they're just a bunch of technicians [47:18] who manage institutions. [47:19] And then-- what's that? [47:21] DEMETRI MORGAN: Better not me. [47:22] LEE BOLLINGER: Yeah, right. [47:23] And then in my time, I think university presidents [47:27] were much more outspoken. [47:29] And I tried to keep my comments to things [47:32] that I was an expert on. [47:34] I mean, should I not be able to talk about free speech, [47:38] free press when I'm a dean or a president and so on. [47:42] George Floyd event, incident. [47:47] And I made a comment about the problem of racism remaining [47:52] across the society. [47:54] Is that a really bad thing to do. [47:56] I mean, I think there should be a consensus [47:59] that the society still has a long way [48:02] to go to overcome racism, that discrimination that [48:07] has been part of the country for 300 years. [48:10] And not to say, I did not say anything [48:12] about what happened in that particular make a judgment about [48:16] just that it evoked that. [48:20] Then there faculty. [48:25] Faculty are taking positions on public and controversial issues [48:30] all the time, and that's great. [48:34] I think a society, a good society, [48:36] wants lots of points of view. [48:38] And I think as long as it's done with the scholarly temperament, [48:42] we should welcome that. [48:44] I mean, certainly that is the reality. [48:46] If you're a scholar of constitutional law, [48:48] you may take a position on Roe versus Wade on abortion. [48:53] But you defend it and participate [48:56] with the right scholarly temperament. [48:59] So big and complicated question. [49:02] DEMETRI MORGAN: Can you talk a little bit-- in the book, [49:04] you talk about in the upswing of starting [49:07] to respond to affirmative action and reaching out [49:11] to President Gerald Ford, who was a Republican. [49:14] And you used that to go into collective action. [49:17] So talk to us a little bit about how we get to collective action [49:20] when, based on your response with institutional neutrality, [49:24] we also have to be thoughtful about the positions we [49:26] take stances on. [49:27] So how do you square those two between-- [49:30] LEE BOLLINGER: A very interesting question to me. [49:32] All these are interesting questions. [49:34] And so wonderful that you're pursuing the field you are. [49:40] So to me, this was a life changing experience. [49:44] I become president here in 1997 within a matter of months. [49:48] I'm informed that the groups that [49:51] are opposed to affirmative action [49:53] are going to sue the University of Michigan. [49:56] So you better get ready. [49:58] And there's Prop 209. [50:01] I'm forgetting which one it was in California that had [50:04] voted down affirmative action. [50:06] And Texas had a Court of Appeals decision [50:10] that had declared it unconstitutional. [50:12] And so the wave was going around the country, [50:15] and it was coming right at Michigan. [50:18] And everybody knew this was a big, big moment. [50:24] We made a decision we were not going to just settle this. [50:27] This is a deep principle. [50:30] Where was the deep principle? [50:32] It was from Brown versus Board of Education. [50:35] The society had decided, through the Supreme Court decision [50:39] in Brown, that the discrimination that [50:43] had been in slavery and Jim Crow and so on [50:46] was no longer going to be permissible [50:49] under the Constitution. [50:51] And that led to a society grappling [50:54] with, appropriately, how to deal with discrimination. [50:59] Civil Rights movement, et cetera, [51:01] at the beginning of the 1970s, every university looked [51:04] at itself after 20 years of Brown and saw only White male [51:10] faces in classroom after classroom. [51:13] And university said, we need to do something about this. [51:16] I mean, we see people from different parts of the country, [51:19] from around the world. [51:20] We say we believe in diversity and so on. [51:23] We should have more racial, ethnic, [51:25] and we should have more women and universities. [51:28] Every one of them set out to do that. [51:32] We had Bakke. [51:34] I could go into that. [51:35] And then we had the Michigan case. [51:39] And I knew as president, and because this is my field [51:45] and so on, I knew if this were just [51:48] left to be a University of Michigan case, we would be dead. [51:53] And so it had to be, all universities had to realize that [51:57] a decision by the Supreme Court that we were in violation [52:01] of the 14th would affect everybody and privates [52:04] because of the Civil Rights Act. [52:08] Would go into that. [52:09] But in fact, every university. [52:11] It took a lot of work to convince other universities [52:15] to sign on for Michigan's defense. [52:20] Nobody likes to be connected with somebody who's a defendant. [52:24] I mean, that's just the reality of life. [52:27] I'll just stand back. [52:30] I won't-- And so that took a lot of work. [52:33] And then I realized that this was not [52:35] going to be successful unless other sectors of society [52:39] joined in. [52:41] There was work on getting businesses to join in. [52:43] Fantastic efforts. [52:45] And I forget we had 50 or 60 major corporations. [52:50] Other amicus briefs from others. [52:53] And then the military. [52:54] I was having lunch with David Halberstam. [52:59] Jean and I were vacationing in a little house on Nantucket. [53:04] And I explained this to him, and he said, [53:07] my friend, I'm forgetting his name right at this moment. [53:10] But he is on the board of the Military Academy, Naval Academy. [53:16] And they have affirmative action. [53:18] You can't have a military in the United States, [53:22] given the racial ethnic composition of, [53:24] unless you have an officer corps that is diverse. [53:29] And so then I realized that, boy, that could be powerful. [53:32] And it turned out to be very powerful. [53:36] So we worked on that. [53:37] The joining together. [53:39] If you ask any political scientist, when you're [53:42] in a moment like today of authoritarian sort of assault, [53:48] what is needed to resist? [53:52] And the answer is civil society joining together [53:56] and saying enough is enough. [53:58] We're not there yet. [53:59] We're still in our own kind of sectors. [54:02] And within those sectors, there's still some go along, [54:06] some don't. [54:07] Nobody-- [54:08] So the great thing is I tried to say [54:11] in my remarks about the University of Michigan [54:13] in this-- it made a decision. [54:15] This was a core principle about how [54:17] we think education works best and our role [54:21] as a university and universities in a society that has made [54:27] this basic value commitment. [54:30] But it was also a great moment because it showed that you could [54:34] bring in other sectors too. [54:37] That's great. [54:38] DEMETRI MORGAN: And thank you for going into that, [54:40] because I think learning that history of how you brought, [54:43] you and many others brought lots of people [54:45] together to work on that is instructive for today. [54:49] So this question asks, blaming the government [54:53] solely for what's happening in universities [54:56] seems somewhat contrived. [54:57] Many limits of free expression on campus [55:00] predate the current federal government. [55:02] How do you explain that? [55:04] What role do boards or regents have to play? [55:06] I didn't write this question. [55:08] But what role do boards or regents have to play? [55:11] Is there a way to restore balance? [55:15] LEE BOLLINGER: Well, so there are many parts of that question. [55:18] DEMETRI MORGAN: That was an online question. [55:20] LEE BOLLINGER: Yeah. [55:21] I think that universities, as I tried to say, [55:24] because I only have so much time. [55:26] Yes, we have flaws. [55:28] I mean, I'm, as I like to say, right at the front of the line [55:33] in criticizing universities. [55:37] Big problem is that I'm not going [55:39] to accept the criticisms of universities [55:42] as a justification to allow what's happening. [55:48] We really have to separate out all of those things. [55:53] Have universities been involved in censoring free speech [55:58] before all of this happened? [56:01] We'd have to talk about the specific things that [56:05] are being raised. [56:06] I mean, the answer, of course, is yes, [56:12] because I can give you my own instances of universities [56:15] suppressing speech. [56:16] And it's not only the federal government. [56:18] There's also a lot of states that are doing this. [56:21] I mean, what Texas is doing to Texas A&M, [56:25] I mean, it's just shocking. [56:28] And what Florida has done with universities. [56:31] So there's a lot going on. [56:34] And universities themselves sometimes lose their way. [56:38] And I could give again all kinds of examples. [56:42] Boards, very difficult subject. [56:47] I think boards have a really, really important role [56:50] to play, of course, in overseeing [56:52] the institution and the things that need to be done. [56:55] It's got to be run with principles, [56:59] and it's got to be run with budgetary propriety [57:03] and lots of things. [57:05] And those are all very, very serious. [57:08] But the academic mission lodges the decision [57:15] making about basic things. [57:17] I mean, who gets admitted? [57:18] What the scholarship is all about? [57:20] What kind of departments do we have? [57:22] And so it lodges all of that in the layer of the faculty [57:26] and in schools. [57:29] Most boards, I think, learn to respect that. [57:34] Sometimes, they don't. [57:36] And there is a feeling I know I've [57:40] been a board member in many different contexts. [57:45] And I know that feeling where you say, [57:47] boy, I'm ultimately responsible for this institution. [57:51] I'm on the board of directors. [57:54] And therefore, I've got to get involved in. [57:57] And that tendency to get overinvolved [57:59] is really powerful sometimes and really bad [58:02] in an academic community. [58:05] DEMETRI MORGAN: So I want to-- there's so many great questions. [58:08] I'm going to try to speed us up and get through a good number. [58:11] So this is a classic question, but I [58:13] think it is important to always revisit, [58:16] especially in some of the arguments [58:17] you make in university. [58:19] So where do you draw the line between protected free speech [58:22] on campus and speech or conduct that crosses [58:25] into harassment or disruption? [58:27] And there was another version of a question [58:30] that targets marginalized or minoritized groups. [58:34] So I'm going to make sure I get this. [58:37] Say the question. [58:38] Where do you draw the line between protected free speech [58:40] on campus and speech or conduct that crosses [58:43] into harassment or disruption? [58:47] So I teach a class to undergraduates [58:49] every single year, and I did it here [58:52] to the whole time I was president. [58:55] I just love this. [58:56] And this is exactly where I am with my undergraduate class [59:01] right now. [59:03] And the hypotheticals I would use [59:05] would be things like there's a protest. [59:10] And it's right in the diag. [59:13] And there are people who are opposed, counter-protesters, [59:17] and some of the protesters yell at some [59:22] of the counter-protesters and say awful things to them. [59:25] I mean, we're going to get you, or you're awful. [59:35] They use all kinds of words and language and so on. [59:37] All that's protected. [59:39] It's all protected. [59:41] But if that person runs up to somebody, a single individual [59:46] walking along, just carrying their books, and going [59:49] and starts yelling in the face of that person, some kind [59:52] of offensive, highly offensive language, [59:56] that turns into harassment. [59:58] That turns into fighting words. [60:00] That turns into speech that is not protected. [60:03] And these are always hard lines. [60:07] They're lines worth drawing, even though they're hard, [60:09] because we really value free speech, [60:11] but we only value it for certain reasons. [60:15] And there are lots of ways in which speech [60:17] can be used that are highly destructive of other values we [60:22] care about. [60:24] And we use words to describe those lines, like harassment [60:28] or something like incitement. [60:32] And then there are all these cases [60:34] over the last century that take us [60:36] into the complexities of that. [60:39] And what about lies and falsehoods and so on and so on? [60:44] Take a First Amendment course and get [60:46] into the wonderful intricacies of all of this. [60:50] But realize that there are differences. [60:54] It is the role of a university leader [60:57] to constantly make this clear. [61:01] The reasons why we protect really awful speech [61:07] and that there are limits and that those limits [61:10] have a good disciplinary process to deal [61:14] with people who cross the lines of free speech and into those. [61:18] And that I think has been lacking on a lot of campuses. [61:23] And that creates just enormous, bigger problems. [61:27] We're always going to have problems. [61:29] But when you don't have clarity about what it [61:32] is we're trying to do, the lines that [61:34] are involved, even though they're vague, [61:37] even though they're difficult to define, [61:38] if you don't have at least clarity on that, [61:41] you're going to have much bigger issues. [61:45] DEMETRI MORGAN: Which leads to this question. [61:47] So it reads, I'm a political science undergrad student, [61:50] and I am noticing a lack of conservative voices [61:53] on campus, professors, guest speakers, forums. [61:56] How can universities bring more diverse viewpoints [61:59] and challenges beliefs, so that they [62:01] can be strengthened or changed? [62:03] LEE BOLLINGER: Yeah. [62:04] So I think this is something that [62:06] is a legitimate criticism, a legitimate issue, and hard. [62:15] I think in certain departments, at certain schools, [62:21] if you look at the overall sort of are they Democrat, are they [62:28] Liberal Democrats, are they Republicans, [62:30] you'll find overwhelming Liberal Democrats. [62:36] And you've got to say more than just that, that that's bad. [62:41] You've got to say, how does that fact [62:46] that their political perspectives are that way [62:51] and that concentrated affect the scholarship and the teaching? [62:56] Because they may not. [63:00] I mean, when I go into teach a class, [63:03] I view it as my responsibility to present [63:07] every other point of view that's within the bounds [63:10] of the discussion of the discipline. [63:13] I don't know whether they're conservative or liberal, [63:15] but they would certainly include. [63:17] Including maybe this whole idea of free speech [63:21] is crazy, which I call the China view or the Singapore view. [63:26] Or even on hate speech. [63:28] I mean, we're the only country in the world [63:31] that protects hate speech. [63:34] So you have to look at really how the political perspectives [63:40] of people translates into their scholarship and into their-- [63:44] That said, sometimes, there are viewpoints, [63:47] major viewpoints that are missing, even [63:51] with all the efforts of people. [63:56] I mean, all the departments, like in law schools and so on, [64:00] they were looking for people who have [64:03] come from conservative perspectives [64:06] and want to be scholars and so on. [64:09] But you have to be a scholar. [64:11] I mean, so one of the things the administration is doing [64:13] with the compact and so on is saying you [64:16] have to hire conservative, but we're about scholarship [64:22] and about teaching. [64:24] And those are certain things. [64:26] And we don't just hire people who have different views. [64:30] They have to be scholars. [64:34] They say you can't belittle ideas on campus. [64:38] Well, I mean, come on. [64:40] Have you ever heard of free speech? [64:42] And we're not going to have a law on the campus that [64:47] says no [INAUDIBLE] thing critical of conservative ideas. [64:51] So the remedies that are being proposed [64:55] for what may be a serious problem and is sometimes [64:58] [INAUDIBLE] are completely out of whack with the problem. [65:03] DEMETRI MORGAN: So we've talked a lot tonight so far [65:05] about faculty and administrators and presidents. [65:08] But this question asks, what are your suggestions [65:10] for future and current educators, [65:12] maybe those that work on college campuses [65:14] but not as faculty or not as administrators, who are trying [65:18] to maybe toe the line between what they are describing [65:21] as social justice efforts and institutional limits. [65:24] It's almost in conversation with your last response [65:26] as well about different ideas. [65:28] So the question is what advice do [65:31] you have for people who are trying [65:32] to pursue their version of social justice [65:35] but understanding the institutional limits, [65:37] as you've outlined? [65:38] LEE BOLLINGER: I'm not sure, Demetri. [65:39] Say more about that. [65:40] What do you think that's asking? [65:42] DEMETRI MORGAN: Yeah. [65:43] So I think staff are differently protected than exactly what you [65:48] talk about tenure in your book. [65:49] Administrators kind of have the institutional neutrality [65:52] tensions. [65:53] But you have staff members who kind of sit [65:56] in this that are they're not students, they're not faculty, [65:59] but they staff our residence halls. [66:01] They work in the study abroad. [66:03] They're academic advisors. [66:04] And they might be pursuing higher education [66:08] and want to commit to the shared mission [66:09] that you talk about in your book. [66:11] So for me at least, the question, [66:13] and sorry if I'm misinterpreting it, [66:15] is that there might be limits that the university places [66:19] on how one might want to pursue social justice [66:22] within their staff role. [66:23] And so what does that look like from your vantage point as a-- [66:26] LEE BOLLINGER: Yeah. [66:27] So I'm trying to think about this [66:29] and to get behind what is really in the mind of the person asking [66:34] the question. [66:36] I think staff, and I don't like the term, staff. [66:40] I mean, people in the community who [66:43] are other than faculty, whatever, they [66:46] play a big role in my mind. [66:47] I mean, I've spent, in my time as a dean and president, [66:52] a lot of time with people who are dean of students, dean [66:56] of admissions, or they're working [66:58] in those departments, or people who are in communications. [67:03] And I think you have a huge impact on an institution. [67:11] And so I think if you have a particular view [67:16] that universities need to do this [67:19] or that, being a staff person should be a route [67:25] that you should follow. [67:28] But I don't know of particular are [67:31] rules that may have come up where staff have [67:34] been told not to say things. [67:36] But we'd have to get more specific about that. [67:39] But I do want to affirm that people [67:42] who are in roles in the administration [67:44] of the institution can have a very important effect [67:48] on the course of that university and universities generally. [67:52] It's a great and important role. [67:55] We should all recognize it. [67:56] DEMETRI MORGAN: I have just a few more questions. [67:58] These are a little bit more about your experiences [68:00] as a leader. [68:01] What's the greatest lesson you learned during your time [68:04] in education? [68:05] That's a big one. [68:06] Your greatest lesson. [68:16] LEE BOLLINGER: I think just the love of ideas. [68:20] The love of understanding. [68:23] The freedom that you feel and the accomplishment [68:31] when you are just learning new things or seeing something [68:38] about the world that you didn't know before. [68:43] It's just an unbelievable part of life. [68:48] And the university is just filled with that. [68:53] And there's so many points in my life when I just felt wow, wow. [68:59] That is just the best insight. [69:02] And I want to share it with my wife, [69:05] and I want to share it with other people. [69:08] And I mean, every time I teach a class, [69:12] I am learning something new about the subject every [69:16] single time I didn't see that before. [69:21] And so if you value that kind of life, [69:29] then that's what's so thrilling about a university. [69:33] And that's what I've learned as the most important thing. [69:37] DEMETRI MORGAN: I'm like nerding out inside. [69:39] This one is, you mentioned for decades, in higher education, [69:44] from student all the way to two-time president. [69:47] What's one thing you wish you would have had more time [69:50] to focus on during your career? [69:53] That's interesting. [69:54] LEE BOLLINGER: Yeah. [69:55] I mean, there's a way in which you specialize, [70:03] and the university world almost insists on it [70:08] or certainly encourages it. [70:11] And there's a point in life, it happened to me. [70:19] It was at 40. [70:21] And I realized I'm just thinking about the same thing [70:24] over and over and over again. [70:26] I'm thinking, I mean, but it's about the same thing. [70:30] I think I'd like to be a dean, you know? [70:33] Because I'll still think about them. [70:36] But I'll be better doing some other things. [70:41] So for me, it was a perfect combination. [70:44] Continue thinking about what I love thinking about but doing [70:48] something else. [70:52] There's a lesson in that about also at some point, [70:57] saying to yourself, if the deanship is not open to you, [71:02] you got to do something else. [71:04] Because you do have this tendency [71:08] to just keep following what you're doing. [71:11] And then there is the pressure to be an expert. [71:18] And if you say, at age 50 or 60, I [71:23] think I'd like to explore another area, [71:25] you've got the freedom to do it as an academic. [71:30] But the pressures against it are really, really strong. [71:35] And I kind of wish I took the academic leader route in a way, [71:44] but there are other things. [71:47] The field I have is rich. [71:48] It continues to nourish me in my mind. [71:52] So to me, it's been a good life. [71:54] But it's that problem of I'd like to expand [71:58] what I'm thinking about. [72:00] Do I have the bravery to do it? [72:04] Related to that is just having other experiences. [72:06] I wish I had taken two years out and worked in the government, [72:10] for example. [72:10] That would have been a good thing for me. [72:14] DEMETRI MORGAN: So our last question, [72:16] and you started to go there. [72:17] So it will give you a good way to reflect on just [72:21] what's coming up for you. [72:23] So the question reads, as a young scholar [72:26] entering the realm of higher education [72:29] and learning to become a good scholar [72:31] practitioner and a steward shaping the future of higher [72:34] education, what advice would you provide [72:37] for young higher education scholars? [72:47] There's this thing I write about in the book when [72:52] I try to describe to be a faculty member. [72:55] And you get tenure. [72:57] And then you say, well, now I've got freedom. [73:00] I mean, that's really a dangerous thing. [73:04] Because now, I really, really have [73:06] to decide what I'm going to do and what's creative. [73:10] I think this problem of specialization [73:16] again, of just finding your little niche and pursuing it, [73:22] it's great. [73:24] It actually advances knowledge as a whole. [73:27] But you constantly have to say, what is worth thinking about? [73:33] And somebody said to me early on, [73:36] the question you ask is probably the most important step [73:40] in your academic career. [73:43] And so reflecting on, am I asking the big enough questions? [73:48] Am I asking important enough questions? [73:51] And being prepared to always step [73:54] back and ask, what is the contribution I'm really [74:00] making here? [74:00] I think is the best advice I would give a young scholar. [74:04] DEMETRI MORGAN: Great please join me [74:06] in thanking President Bollinger for an amazing time. [74:12] I'm now going to invite Vice Provost Dillard for some closing [74:15] remarks. [74:25] ANGELA DILLARD: Hi. [74:26] I'm Angela Dillard, I'm Vice Provost for Undergraduate [74:29] Education and Interim Vice Provost [74:31] for Access and Opportunity. [74:33] On behalf of all of the co-sponsors for this event, [74:37] join me once again in thanking both Doctors Bollinger [74:40] and Morgan for such a wonderful conversation. [74:45] [APPLAUSE] [74:49] I also want to say thank you on behalf of all of us [74:51] to our online audience, especially members of our alumni [74:55] community. [74:55] It was really wonderful to partner with them [74:58] for this event and to make the online option [75:01] available for alums across the country. [75:05] And of course, our thanks to all of you here. [75:07] I hope you'll join us across the hall [75:10] to continue our conversations, and for a display of your cards [75:15] about what you changed your mind on and under what conditions. [75:20] As we try and continue the conversation [75:24] and continue as much dialogue as we can all possibly [75:27] stand together across the hall, along with treats. [75:32] Finally, we're happy to let you know that the How [75:34] To Speak Your Mind, How To Change Your Mind series [75:37] will be welcoming FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights [75:41] and Expression, to campus for a student-oriented event next week [75:45] with our open inquiry student fellows and others [75:49] across the undergraduate population, [75:52] and graduate population, don't want to leave them out. [75:54] You can find details about it on Happening @ Michigan, [75:58] and we hope that you'll encourage [76:00] students who you know, the students in your life to attend. [76:03] We're really excited about the event. [76:06] And thank you again for being here. [76:08] For those of you joining us online, [76:10] we're wishing you a good evening. [76:12] And for everyone else, we'll see you across the hall. [76:14] Thank you again. [76:18] LEE BOLLINGER: Thanks, Angela.