哈維·西爾弗格拉特：言論自由

Lex Fridman Podcast #377 – Harvey Silverglate: Freedom of Speech Machine transcription by Qwen3-ASR 0.6B (MLX, local, Apache-2.0). May contain recognition errors. The following is a conversation with Harvey Silverglade, a legendary free speech advocate, co founder of Fire, the foundation for individual rights and expression, and the author of several books on the freedom of speech and criminal justice, including *The Shadow University*, *The Betrayal of Liberty* on America's campuses. Harvey is running to be on the Harvard Board of Overseers this year with a writing campaign. So you have to spell his name correctly, Silverglade, promising to advocate for free speech and to push for reducing the size of Harvard's administration bureaucracy. Election is over this Tuesday, May 16th at 5 p.m. Eastern. To vote, you have to be Harvard alumni. So if you happen to be one, please vote online. It's a good way to support freedom of speech on Harvard campus. Instructions how to do so are in the description. As a side note, please allow me to say that since there are several controversial conversations coming up, I tried to make sure that this podcast is a platform for free discourse where ideas are not censored but explored and if necessary challenged in a thoughtful and pathetic way. It's by having such difficult conversations, not by avoiding them, that we can begin to heal divides and to shed light on the dark parts of human history and human nature. And now a quick few second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast. We got Factor for nutritious and delicious pre made meals, Simply Safe for home security and Athleta Greens for well delicious delicious health. Jews wise and my friends. Also, if you want to work with our amazing team, we're always hiring. Go to lexfreeman dot com slash hiring. And now onto the full ad reads. As always, no ads in the middle. I try to make this interesting, but if you must skip, please still check out the sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too. This show is brought to you by Factor, a ready to eat meal kit service that delivers nutritious and delicious meals straight to your door. They got keto, they got vegan, they got calorie smart, they got protein plus, and if you know me, you know which one I go with. I go with keto. For over a decade, I've been eating mostly carnivore keto, which when I don't have services like Factor, ends up me going to the grocery store getting some ground beef and just cooking that and eating that with a little bit of salt. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but there's downsides. One of the downsides is there's not diversity and flavor and richness and experience in the eating process, especially if I get to share that experience with somebody else. Second, it takes quite a bit of time, and so I think Factor solves these problems. They got such amazing meals, they're so delicious and they fit into my diet, my keto diet. And they allow me to share those meals with other people and really enjoy them. The full variety of it, it tastes delicious and it's fun and it's so easy to do. It fits into my day. You just heat the thing. I don't know how many minutes maybe like two minutes. And you just get to enjoy it. It's fresh, it's healthy, it's affordable. I love it. Get Factor and enjoy clean eating without the hassle. Go to factormeals dot com slash lex forty and use code lex forty to get 40 off your first box. That's factormeals dot com slash lex forty and use code lex forty. This show is also brought to you by Simply Safe, a home security company designed to be simple and effective. Thirty minutes setup, and you can customize the system for your needs. I have set it up. I feel like it took like less than 30 minutes. It was super fast. I have a ton of cameras. Everything is easy to use. It's one of the key components of my physical security systems. Of course, I take my cyber and physical security extremely seriously for many reasons. I have many ways in which I protect my security, everything from physical to cyber to mental, all that kind of stuff. But I think for most people and for myself, there should be this kind of low hanging fruit of make sure your home is protected with an easy to use, easy to monitor, easy to interact with, easy to set up security system. That's what Simply Safe is. Go to simplysafe dot com slash lex to get a free indoor security camera plus 20 off your order with interactive monitoring. And I do recommend you get the interactive monitoring. This show is brought to you by Athleta Greens and it's AG One Drink, which is an all in one daily drink to support better health and peak performance. I've been drinking it every single day, twice a day. It's the thing I break my fast with when I'm traveling. Got the travel packs. I mean, it's just it's a simple part of my day that makes me feel at home, that makes me feel happy, that makes me feel like I have a nutritional foundation to take on the day and do all the kinds of crazy stuff physical and mental that I do. Sometimes things become such an integrated part of your life that you start to take them for granted and you only realize how much they mean to you when they're gone. So the times when I run out of travel packs and I'm traveling or or there's a curveball where I have to travel unexpectedly all that kind of stuff I realize. Oh wow, there's these little parts of the day that bring me joy, and one of them is drinking an Athleta Greens drink. Maybe it can be part of your life in the same kind of way. They'll give you a free one year supply of vitamin D and five free travel packs with your first purchase when you go to athletagreens dot com slash lex. This is a lexfreeman podcast to support it. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here's Harvey Silverglade. You co founded the foundation for individual rights and expression, also known as Fire, a legendary organization that fights for the freedom of speech for all Americans in our courtrooms, on our campuses, and in our culture. So let's start with a big question: What is freedom of speech? First of all, the organization when I co founded it in 1999. Was called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. It focused on free speech issues on college campuses in academia. And only earlier this year did we decide to expand our reach beyond the campuses, which is why the name, although the acronym Fire remains. It's now the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. The E used to be education. The E used to be education. It's now expression. And we basically do a lot of the cases the ACLU used to do. The ACLU now more is. They're a progressive organization rather than a civil liberties organization. And and we've taken the the the role of dealing with free speech in in the society generally. And and now this is a particularly. And era prone to censorship. Everybody thinks they're right that people who disagree with them should not be able to voice their views. It's a very difficult period right now, both on campus and off campus. It's about as intolerant an era as I can remember. I'm going to be 81 May 10th. I was born on Mother's Day 1942. And I can't remember it being this bad. I was born during the McCarthy era. So that says a lot, and it sort of reminds me of that. Well, let's start with that almost a philosophical question, a legal question, a human question: What is this freedom that you care so much about that you fought for so much freedom of speech? It is the most important right that Americans have. It's not a coincidence or an accident that it's named in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Without it, no democratic society can be democratic for long. And I'm an absolutist. That is, I believe that for example, people say to me, "But what about hate speech? Well, hate speech is much more important than love speech, and the reason is I'm much more interested in knowing whom I should not turn my back on. " Than I am interested in figuring out who loves me or who likes me. So hate speech is the most important in my view, and yet it's it's banned in for example schools. It's unbelievable. Kids are not schooled into understanding the glory of the First Amendment when when schools say to them they shouldn't say things that are going to make somebody feel bad. Um, the purpose of speech is to express honest views that people have, and so I believe hate speech is as important as love speech, and my view is more important. So it should be brought to the surface rather than operate in shadows. Absolutely, absolutely. What is the connection between freedom of speech and freedom of thought? Well, in a free society, thoughts start in the brain and then they come out the mouth. So they're different ends of the same spectrum. So to you, the censorship of speech eventually leads to a censorship of thought. Of course, censorship of the mode by which other people know what you're thinking. So there's some aspect of our society that is that thinking is done collectively and without being able to speak to each other, we cannot do this kind of collective thinking. And out of speech, the theory is that ultimately out of speech comes truth. That isn't necessarily so. But I do think that when there's free speech, better decisions are made because people put their views on the table in a frank, accurate way. And then those views mix together and clash, and out of that usually comes the better the better decision. Not always, but usually more more often than not. But if somebody is not allowed to be a you know sit at the table of decision making, then the decision making process is poorer, less robust, less diverse, and ultimately less successful. So can you elaborate on the idea of free speech absolutism? So hate speech can be quite painful to quite a large number of people. Does this worry you? Yep, living in a free society requires that you expose yourself to some discomfort. You call it pain. It's maybe emotional pain. It's not physical pain. Um, but it's it's the price we pay for living in a free society. Every so often we're insulted, we're emotionally hurt. Think of the alternative. All the alternatives are worse. Nobody ever promised us a rose garden. We're lucky to be in a country that has the First Amendment. It's also the it's the most diverse country in the world because of immigration. I mean, my my grandparents, my father's side came over from Russia, my mother's side came over from Poland. I'm very happy that my grandparents came in from Russia. I would not want to be in Russia today. I'd probably be sharing a cell with a Wall Street Journal reporter. Um, so I'm I'm thankful that they came in. And this is a great country. It's got troubles right now, but our country doesn't. And we've had before we had a civil war, we had segregation, we had the decimation of the Indians. We're not perfect. But it's the best place in the world for somebody who values liberty. So you don't think that hate speech can empower large groups that eventually lead to physical action to physical harm to others. No, I don't. I think that that we have developed a culture in which it's understood that if you don't like what you hear, you talk back. You write, you write something. Um, we don't punch each other. We insult each other. Um, is insulting great? Well, I don't know, it's okay. I used to as a kid in Brooklyn, where I was born, I was born and raised in Bensonhurst. We used to say sticks and stones can break by bones, but names can never harm me. And it's absolutely true. What was true when I was five is true when I'm I'm almost 81. So I've lived a long time. I've seen it all, and I'm talking from experience as well as theory. It's what happens when you reach your 80s. I read that you had this line that you cannot be protected from being called an asshole. Correct, especially if you're an asshole. Well, that's but you don't have to be an asshole to be called an asshole. Correct, and I think the internet has taught me that. Well, the internet has posed a particular challenge to free speech absolutists because of some of the stuff that's on there is god awful. But I have no different rule for freedom of speech on the internet than I have in newspapers or in lectures or in classrooms or or conversations among people. What do you think about the tension between freedom of speech and freedom of reach as is kind of sometimes termed? So the internet really challenges that aspect. It allows speech to become viral and spread very quickly to a very large number of people. Yeah, well you know we've had we've had revolutions in in in the modalities of communication. After all, newspapers were the first challenge. Um, radio and television posed a new challenge. Um, the FCC tried, but ultimately gave up the attempt to control um obscenity, for example. Um, and the Supreme Court has been pretty close. The one thing that liberal and conservative Supreme Courts right now we're in a conservative era due to Trump nominations. Um, during the much of my life, we were the Warren Court. It was William O. Douglas or Brennan. It was the liberal court. One thing they agree on is free speech. They don't agree on much else, but they do agree on free speech. And I think the reason is that they recognize that well, my group is in the ascendence today, but it may not be tomorrow, and I want to have objective, clear rules so that when I'm in the minority, I'm able to voice my opinion. And so it's one of the few things that both sides of the political spectrum agree on. The only people who don't are the the people way over on the right that I call the fascists and the people way over on the left, who are the communists, but with respect to most people in this on the political spectrum. Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Libertarians, um, they agree on the primacy of free speech because it protects them when when protection is needed. So to you, even on the internet, free speech absolutism should rule. Yes, nobody's going to die. Remember, death threats are not are not protected. Nobody's going to die, so people are going to be a little bit insulted. That's the price you pay for living in a free society, and it's a small price. In my view, people some people don't have as tough a hide as others. Well, then develop it. I hope I don't I don't mean to sound cruel, but you know you're living in a free society, develop a tough hide. So that's the cost of living in a free society. Yep, there are there's a cost. The thing is, it it can really hurt at scale to be cyber bullied to be attacked for the ideas you express or maybe ideas you didn't express but that somebody decided to lie about you and use that to to attack you. Well, first of all, there are there are so there are some exceptions to the First Amendment. Libel and slander is an exception. Direct threats are an exception. You know if you if you say such and such, I will murder you. That is not lawful. If you say that somebody, if you say about somebody, oh you know you beat your wife, that that is not lawful. If in fact the person knows you don't beat your wife, there are some limits. Defamation is one, direct threats are another. Um, so it's not absolute. This is not the First Amendment is not absolute, but it is it's more absolute than it is in any other society, and it's pretty near absolute. Um, for example, fraud. If you sell somebody a car and you say, "Oh, this is in great running shape," and in fact it's an old jalopy and it's not going to make it more than 10 miles. That's fraud. That's not free speech. Um, so free speech is not absolute. There are these limits, but they're very narrow specific categories of limits. But there's gray area here because while legally you're not allowed to defame a person in the court of public opinion, especially with the aid of anonymity on the internet. Rumors can spread at scale. Thousands, hundreds of thousands of people can make up things about you. You have to defend yourself. Using more speech. We're big. We're through freedom of speech. We're big boys and girls. Um, you have to defend yourself. Um, you know in in in some societies if you say something, if you right now if you say something nasty about Putin, you'll end up in the Gulag. Um, you say something nasty about um Biden, you end up in the New York Times. Where would you rather be? Well, let's talk about the thing you've done for over twenty years. Which is fight for the freedom of speech on college campuses. So, why is freedom of speech important on college campuses? Well, it's important everywhere in the society, but it's most important on college campuses. Why? Because that's where we educate our young citizens. And if you are educated under a notion that some dean can can call you on the carpet because you say something which is considered racist or you can say something which is considered dangerous to to social cohesion. Then it's not a liberal arts college. Now the the theory that I used in in the shadow university. A book you've written, The Shadow University nineteen ninety eight nineteen ninety eight you were ahead of a lot of these things. I was I am afraid that as as a pessimist, I always saw the bad side of things. Betrayal of liberty on America's campuses. The shadow university, a book you co authored with Alan Charles. Yes, with one of my Princeton classmates, Alan Charles Coors, who's now a Meritorious Professor of Enlightenment History at the University of Pennsylvania. I only taught for one semester, and I can go into that later. The reason I did not continue to teach in colleges. It was Harvard Law School. I taught a course in mid nineteen eighties. But in any event, the college campuses are one of the most important of fora for free speech because it's where people get education. And if you don't really get a good education, if certain points of view are not allowed to be expressed because education comes from the clash of ideas. And you then have to decide this is the this is how you become a thinking adult. You have to decide which ideas make more sense to you, which ones you are going to follow. The college experience is transformative. And if there is censorship on campuses, it's highly destructive of the educational enterprise. And ultimately to the entire society. You know we have in the sciences, we have a scientific method. Scientific method is you try experiments and you see which ones work and then you develop theories based upon the results of experiments. Well, this is not much different from every other aspect of life. You have to entertain different views on different subjects. You hear all the views and you make a decision as to which one is accurate and which one is not. So scientific method I apply to to non science to history to journalism. To all of these things, so that scientific method includes ideas hateful ideas also. Correct. If you don't allow hateful ideas, I mean when when scientists do experiments, nobody says to them, "Oh, you know, don't don't do that experiment because it would be very bad if that turns out to be accurate that outcome. That's not the way it works. " Every every point of view is thrown into the marketplace, whether it's science or whether it's you know non science. And that includes the kind of ideas and the kind of discourse that might actually lead to an increasing hate on campuses. The the the First Amendment prohibits speech which is liable to produce imminent imminent violence. So for example, you know the the exception is yelling falsely falsely yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. A lot of people mistate it. They say, "Oh, the exception is yelling fire in a movie theater. " If there is really a fire, you are performing a real important function by yelling fire. Part, but it's falsely yelling fire. You would start a riot. People would be crushed trying to get out. So there are these that that's one of the exceptions that the First Amendment as the Supreme Court has defined it. There are very few exceptions, and defamation is an exception. I am I am not a fan of that exception frankly. But if you say something about somebody that has serious implications in their in their life and their ability to earn a living, if you say accuse somebody of being a pedophile but it's not true. That person can sue you. My own view is I think that's an unfortunate exception, but I am not on the Supreme Court. I think that I am with a friend of mine was Nat Hentoff. Nat Hentoff who wrote for decades for the Village Voice in New York. He was a friend of mine. He was a free speech absolutist. And he wrote a fabulous book called "Free Speech for Me, but Not for Thee." And he was an absolutist, and I am with I am with Nat Hentoff. Even on the defamation aspect, I mean I agree with you in some sense, just practically speaking, it seems like. That the way the best way in the public sphere to defend against defamation is with more speech. Correct. And through authenticity, through authentic communication. Of the truth as you see it. Yeah, you know at times the Boston Globe has said something about me that hasn't been accurate. They have variably published my letter to the editor. I am also not bashful about getting in in touch with the reporter. At the end of every column, they give the reporter's email address. And I know people say that I I have more access to the media than most people. But all that means is I get the fame more than most people. Can we also comment on from the individual consumer of speech? There is a kind of sense that freedom of speech means you should be forced to read all of it. Freedom of speech versus freedom of reach. We as consumers of speech, do we have the right to select what we read? We do, and nobody can force us to sit in the room and listen to a radio program that we don't want to listen to. Nobody can force us to read a book that we don't want to read. The whole notion of freedom of speech means that people have autonomy on their choices. In order to form a complete mind and complete human being, there is a kind of tension of that autonomy versus consuming as many varied perspectives as possible, which is underlying the ethic of free speech. So on college campuses, it seems like a good way to develop the mind is to get as many perspectives as possible, even if you don't really want to. Well, that's that is the theory. Academic freedom is the is supposed to be the highest degree of free speech. Yeah, you should be able to entertain all kinds of hateful, threatening ideas, and the way I put it is there is something wrong when you can say something with complete abandon without any fear in Harvard Square. Whereas on the other side of the fence, you can't say it in Harvard Yard. It should be the opposite. And what happens is universities from the best to the worst, from the most famous to the least well known, have been taken over by administrators. Administrators do not really subsume academic values. They know nothing about the constitution. They know nothing about free speech. They know nothing about academic freedom. They feel that their job is to keep order. And so they develop speech codes, kangaroo courts to enforce the speech codes. And these are very dire developments. I wrote about them in the shadow university in nineteen ninety eight. And try to deal with them in nineteen ninety nine when I started fire, co started fire. And I would fire the reason I am running currently for the Harvard Board of Overseers is what I'd like to do is convince the Harvard Corporation. The so called President Fellows of Harvard College, the Chief Governing Board of the University with the real power. The Board of Overseers is a secondary body, but quite influential. To fire ninety five percent of the administrators, it would have a salutary effect on the academics of the university. It would have a salutary effect on free speech and academic freedom. It would cut tuitions by about forty percent. And it would create a whole different atmosphere on the campus and the same set of MIT or any other place. I think administrators are a a very bad influence on American higher education. Can you sort of elaborate the intuition why this thing that you call administrative bloat is such a bad thing for a university? Well, first of all, just in terms of the the the cost. Maintaining there are more administrators in American higher education than there are faculty members. The cost is enormous. Number two, they are inimical to the the the teaching enterprise and and they feel that their job is to control things to make sure there are no problems that nobody's feelings are hurt. Being called you know before a dean because you said something. That insulted somebody is something that shouldn't happen in American higher education. Yet it happens because you have these administrators who think it's their job to protect people from being insulted. You you insult a a black student, you insult a woman. There is a disciplinary hearing. Well, there shouldn't be. Black people are accustomed to being insulted. Jews are accustomed accustomed to being insulted. Women are accustomed to being insulted, and it's very good to know who doesn't like you. It's useful. It is very it is essential information to know who doesn't like you. If everybody is forced to say I love you and nobody can say I hate you, you get a false view of what life is all about. Outside of the university, outside the university, I mean you do graduate eventually. And that's ultimately the mission of the university is to prepare you to make you into a great human being and to a great leader that can take on the problems of the world. Correct. And you don't do it by by treating you like a like a little flower. But what role does the university have to protect students to women, African Americans, anybody, Jews, anybody who gets can get could be victim of hate speech. They they they protect you from physical assault. If somebody physically assaults you, then they they get punished. But they shouldn't they shouldn't protect you against insult because that is a violation of academic freedom, the freedom of the insulator to insult you. And also as I said, it's very useful to know who doesn't like you. It's useful for the so called victim. I think it's as I want to know who doesn't like me. It's as important to me as knowing who who likes me. But do you also believe in this open space of discourse that the insulator will eventually lose? I think that's true. I think of the insulator eventually will wear out his or her welcome. I do, but I like to know who the insulator is because it gives you a deeper understanding of human nature. Yeah, and and usually by the way, by experience has been that the insulators have generally not been as smart as the people they have insulted. And that's probably one of the reasons they insult them because they they feel inferior. I mean I am not trying to be a a psychoanalyst here, but a lot of the people who are the haters are pretty low down on the intellectual scale. Anyway, ninety five percent of administration, you would fire your calling to fire ninety five percent of the administration. People should know. I think people that don't really think about the structure the way the universities work are not familiar. I think with the fact that administration there is a huge bloat of administration. You know when you think about what makes a great university it's about the students it's about the faculty it's about the people that do research if it's a research university. They don't think about the bureaucracy of meetings and committees and rules and paperwork and all that and all the people that are involved with pushing that kind of paper and there is a huge cost to that but it also slows down and suppresses the the beautiful variety that makes the university great which is the teaching the student life the protests the the the clubs all the fun that you can have in a university all the very kind of exploration which you can't really do once you graduate. Correct. It's the place. The university is a place to really explore in every single way. So let me just talk about this important thing because I am very fortunate to have contacted you almost by accident in a very important moment in your life. You are running for the Harvard Board of Overseers. What is this board? How much power does it have? And what would you do if elected? Okay, first of all, I have a prediction. Yes, that in about five years they're going to probably change the name because overseers reminds people of the slavery era and we're in a such a politically correct era now. That the English language is being restricted, corrupted the way I put it because certain words are are forbidden. We we have some problems in this country and I think part of the problem is the educational system. Has lost the sense of what academic freedom and free speech are all about, and and and I think it's essential that the educational system begin to take more seriously what free speech and academic freedom really are. That's why I am running for the Harvard Board of Overseers. So let me just linger on the the role of the administration in protecting free speech. So what often happens I think you've written about this is there is going to be a few, maybe a small number of hypersensitive students and faculty that protest. So how does Harvard administration? Resist the influence of those hypersensitive protesters in protecting speech, in protecting even hate speech. Harvard has done fairly well under the presidency of Lawrence Backhae. I have had a couple of meetings with Backhae. I like Backhae. I have donated to Harvard a print of my late my late wife took a picture of Bob Dylan and Alan Ginsburg when the Rolling Thunder Review got to Harvard Square. And it's a it's sort of an iconic photograph. It's she called it the music lesson because it's got Dylan teaching Ginsburg how to play the guitar. And I donated one of those to to Harvard. It's hanging in Backhae's office. He the new president, Claudine Gay is not known for respecting academic freedom and free speech. People have said to me, "Well, give her a chance." Well, I am going to give her a chance, but she does have a record. And she's a bureaucrat. I don't think she believes in free speech and academic freedom. I think she's a progressive, not a liberal. I am not happy with the the the appointment of Claudine Gay, and it has made more essential my attempt to get on the board of overseers. So let's talk about the board of overseers and your run for it. The specifics actually. Okay, it would be nice because I think you are a writing candidate. And the election is over on May sixteenth. Yes, and I think there are specifics. I'll probably give them in the intro. I'll give links to people, but the specifics are complicated. Let me just mention that you have to be Harvard alumni. So I have graduated from Harvard. You have to in order to run and in order to vote. In order to vote, and the process I imagine is not trivial, but this is done online. And if you are an alumni, you should have received an email from a particular email address, Harvard at mgelectionservicescorp dot com. And presumably there is a way to get some validation number from that email and then you go online. You enter that validation number and you vote. And you to vote for Harvey, you have to enter his name correctly, Harvey Silverglade and spell it correctly. Obviously, I am imagining this because I am MIT not Harvard. So I am imagining the process is not trivial. You have to click on things, you have to sort of follow instructions that are not trivial. And I'll also provide an email if the process is painful it doesn't work for you that you can email email Harvard and complain it help at Harvard.edu and so on. I'll provide all the links. But is there something else you can say about the voting process? What you are running on. This is my second run. The first time I got enough signatures to get on the ballot. Then the Harvard Alumni Association sent out a letter to all living Harvard alums. Recommending that they vote for the officially nominated candidates, that excluded two petition candidates of whom I was one. And I wrote to the alumni association and I said, "You have now sent out the curriculum vitae's and the policy positions of all the officially nominated candidates. There are two petition candidates on the ballot. I would like to be able to send out my." Positions to the voters. They wrote me back saying, "Our policy is to only send out the policy positions and the platforms of officially nominated candidates. Can you believe that?" Well, this is a liberal arts college, right? From the where from the clash of ideas, truth emerges. Well, really, this is what I call Harvard's not so subtle means of candidate suppression, not voter suppression, candidate suppression. And everybody can vote, but not everybody can run. It ill becomes a liberal arts college where you know the clash of ideas will produce the truth. We worry about the clash of ideas on the board of overseers. The board of overseers is important. It doesn't have the same power and authority as the Harvard Corporation of so-called President Fellows of Harvard College. But it's very influential and very important, and it would be a great perch for me to try to exert influence for the university to get back. To where it was before it was taken over by the administrators. Well, I am pretty sure that most of Harvard alumni, most of the students currently going to Harvard, most of the faculty at Harvard, probably stand behind the ideas and the ideals that you stand behind. Yep. The people that love Harvard and what it stands for. See, the alumni were educated in an era when these concepts were taken more seriously, and before the administration administrators took over. So I do think if I get my message out, I am going to win a seat, and if I win a seat, I will have a great perch for for trying to convince the real power that be, which is the Harvard Corporation. To do the things that I am suggesting, you know, get rid of ninety-five percent of administrators, get rid of the speech codes, reduce tuition by forty percent, all of these salutary benefits. Can you imagine if Harvard became the most affordable college in the United States? Well, the affordability is another aspect, but I think before that, the just the freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of thought. At America's greatest universities, I think is something that everybody would agree on. It would have it would have a tremendous effect on the whole country. And is there something to say about the details of how difficult it is for alumni to vote? Have experience with this. You could vote online or you can vote by paper ballot. You could request the paper ballot. Um and all I could say is that the the hard part is getting the message out. My name doesn't appear on the ballot because I couldn't get enough signatures. Um well Harvey Harvey Silverglate S I L V E R G L A T. You know that when my grandparents arrived from Russia, the the the name in Russian was something like Zilberglit. Yeah. And the immigration officer had several choices. He could have said Silvergate. Gate is a real silver and gate are real English words. He could have said Silverglade G L A D E. Those are real English words. That's how my name is often dispelled either Silvergate or Silverglade. Silverglate is a nonsense syllable. And why the immigration officer chose to transliterate Zilberglit as Silverglade? I will never understand, and it is the cause of endless mistakes. In my name, well the the fundamental absurdity of life, yes, is also the source of its beauty. Yes, anyway, we shall spell it out, and we shall get yell loud and wide that everybody who has ever graduated from Harvard should vote for you if they believe in the ideals of the great American universities, which I think most people do. Let me also ask about diversity, inclusion, and equity programs. You've been you've had a few harsh words to say about those. You know the idea of diversity, I think is a beautiful idea. You've said that Harvard's idea of diversity is for everyone to look different and think alike. Correct. Can you elaborate? And be comfortable, and be comfortable. Yeah, first of all, it is impossible if liberal arts education is taken seriously. It's impossible for students to feel comfortable. Why? Because one of the roles of colleges to challenge all the beliefs that they grew up with, which mostly are the beliefs inculcated by parents and by elementary school teachers. And the idea is to be able to challenge those thoughts, those ideas, and if you don't have free speech and academic freedom, those views get reified. They do not get challenged. So it is it it it violates the fundamental role of higher educational institutions to have any restrictions at all. That's number one. Number two, as I think I said earlier, if people students are not allowed to be frank with one another, they don't really learn about one another. And you know I I've given a lot of lectures in which I said and I think students now understand that. I am much more interested in hearing from the people who hate me than the people who love me. I am much more interested in knowing who disagrees with me than people who agree with me. That's how I learn, and that's how they learn the clash of ideas, which is the theory behind the First Amendment. That truth will somehow emerge, or if not truth, at least a better truth, a truer truth, a more useful truth, if ideas are allowed to clash. Especially in the structure of a university, where at least I would say there is some set of rules, some set of civility. I think I would rather read Mein Kampf. To understand people that hate, there is also quality to disagreement that we should strive for, and I think in university is a place where when disagreement