Students have been making
national headlines
protesting controversial speakers
on campuses across the country.
That is at James
Madison University in Virginia.
Just on Wednesday,
students were demonstrating
against a conservative speaker
who they accused of spreading hateful
anti-transgender messages.
This month
alone, we've seen protests
like this from coast to coast, protests
that have led to a debate
over the state
of free speech on college campuses.
We've caught up with some students
and educators
at the University of Pittsburgh
after they protested an event
featuring a right wing commentator
That's conservative
podcaster Michael Noel
being burned in effigy
at the University
of Pittsburgh last week.
Knowles is most famous
for this one line in his speech at C-PAC
this year.
Transgenderism
must be eradicated
from public life entirely.
And he was brought to pit
by a conservative group to debate
whether the government
should regulate
what the group calls transgenderism.
But he was met by a
rowdy protest outside.
Such student protests
have sparked a bigger debate
about whether kids these days
no longer have the appetite
to debate controversial issues.
On campus
Is free speech dead on campus?
No. Obviously, he is speaking right now.
We are not shutting him down.
We don't want him to speak
Hopefully we can drown him out.
We are right now enacting our
right to free speech
just the way that he is.
You can't debate intolerance
If someone wants to inflict harm on you,
are you going to debate them?
Inflict harm on you?
Oh, thank you very much.
As we are
trying to fight for human rights,
here, that
as the debate started,
some protestors were removed.
Speakers who opposed trans
rights have sparked protests nationwide
at universities in Iowa.
Utah and New York just in April.
Last month, Stanford
Law students
heckled a federal judge
about his record on trans rights.
The law school's dean
scolded the students in a public letter,
but declined CNN's request
for an interview.
Do you think kids are less able to take
or listen to opposing views now?
No, I don't think they're less able
to listen to opposing views.
I just think they take less
crap as they get older
and realize that hate
speech is hate speech and free
speech is free speech.
And I do believe that two things
are very different from each other.
These speakers are often
brought to campus by outside
conservative groups
such as the Intercollegiate
Studies Institute
and the Young Americas Foundation.
Then the university has to figure out
how to deal with the backlash afterward.
Those groups
sometimes post
videos of the event
in which students are humiliated.
It's not a coincidence
that these events
keep unfolding the way that they do.
It's a deliberate strategy
on the part of these organizations
to try to find a controversial speaker,
try to provoke
the liberal students
into having a reaction
and making sure all of that gets filmed
and edited
in a certain way
that makes those students
look as bad as possible.
ISIS president told CNN
that it has no institutional strategy
to provoke backlash,
but it picks speakers
who are substantial and provocative.
Yes, I've said it bring speakers
who engage in healthy
exchange of ideas with students
with opposing views.
I think we do need to step back and say,
what do we want out of this conversation?
There needs to be some kind of reason
to put it in front of people.
And I think very often
what gets skipped in
these invitations is in place of value.
You get controversy.
More than 11,000 people signed an online
petition against Knowles
and two other conservative
speakers invited to Pitt.
The school went forward
with the events,
saying it upholds
the principles of protected
speech and expression,
though that speech can contradict
the school's values
Knowles had been scheduled
to debate Professor Deidre McCloskey,
who's trans.
But McCloskey pulled out the week
before,
telling CNN
that Knowles was not a serious person.
Then ISI,
the sponsor, offered trans writer
Charlotte Clymer $10,000 to seven.
She said, No, $10,000 is a lot.
Yeah,
$10,000 is a lot of money.
I would have paid off my car.
That's half a year of rent.
Have you ever been offered that much?
Not even close.
What does that sum say to you?
It says they're willing to pay anything
to grow their entertainment enterprise.
So I don't know why trans folks
are expected
to accept the premise
that our humanity is up for debate.
If it were a debate
on whether or not
to allow racial segregation
back in society,
we wouldn't have a debate about that.
That would be unacceptable to transmit.
Finally, gay
libertarian podcaster Brad Palumbo
agreed to debate Knowles.
Mr.
Palumbo, it's awesome
that you can come here
on such short notice.
I'm having so many people to do with
a lot
Knowles.
Through a spokeswoman
declined an interview with CNN,
and despite its emphasis on free speech,
ISI demanded
media
not feel more than
the debate's opening remarks.
But once the event got going,
no one ushered the media out.
Michael Knowles is a big speaker.
He should be able to speak
and have freedom of speech.
And sadly,
that's kind of
being shut down in modern society,
as you can see outside.
But would you have a panel
where someone spoke
about whether or not
there should be legal murder?
No, because because guess
murderers is objectively wrong
and you're killing someone.
But I would not put that on the same
side
as I said, about shutting down
free speech.
I think this is a very good example
of the fact that
clearly something's going on here
that Glenn was an incendiary device
set off outside the building,
according to a university statement.
No one was injured,
but some buildings were temporarily
shut down.
Do you think the point of this debate
is to try to convince people in this room
or to convince people on the Internet?
I think it's both.
I mean, the goal of the event
is not to make up
some uneducated, leftist kid,
you know, feel like an idiot.
I hope there's leftist people here
that ask questions, opposing goals
and are able to do so respectfully
So the protesters
burned Michael Nelson effigy,
which is protected speech.
It is. I wouldn't do that, though.
Why not? It's too violent.
It's too aggressive.
And in fact,
it's counterproductive
because what they do
is they take an image of that.
They spread it online and they say, see,
this is what the movement is
trying to do.
They are going to burn anyone in effigy
who disagrees with them.
She says this generation is different,
but not because it's more fragile.
As millennials,
you and me,
I think that we were taught to stand up
for what we believe in.
But we were also taught
that there is a certain amount of abuse
that we need to take in order
to push the ball forward.
And Gen Z, for them they refuse
to accept premises that are dehumanizing.
Why do these debates over rights
for minority
groups
always get converted
into debates over free speech?
When someone backs you
into a corner, says,
I don't like your ideas.
The easiest thing
for you to say is, Oh, well,
that's
because you don't like my free speech.
It's because you want to censor me.
And it's really the coward's way
of trying to deal with any argument.
Your answer should be,
Here's why my ideas are interesting
and why they're important,
not invoking some kind of quasi
constitutional gloss for what you
have to say.
And Larry
is here to talk more about this.
What is the kind of
industry of speakers
that is taking advantage of this
Yeah, I think it's important to notice
that it's not
the capital gains tax
that is sparking these protests.
It's not some scientist with a theory
about black holes.
It's a trans rights.
This year,
five years ago, it was white supremacy.
And so, of course, those issues
provoke an emotional reaction
because they affect
someone very personally.
And with the students are trying to say
it's like that's over the line.
That's not just a political debate.
I am not a thing to be debated.
Well, thanks so much for this.
It was a lovely report. Fascinating.