Transcript: Divided We Stand | Sep 27, 2018

Steve sits in the studio. He's slim, clean-shaven, in his fifties, with short curly brown hair. He's wearing a gray suit, white shirt, and checked blue tie.

A caption on screen reads "Divided we stand? @spaikin, @theagenda."

Steve says RACE, DIVERSITY,
IMMIGRATION AND FREE SPEECH.
THEY ARE AMONG THE MOST DEBATED
TOPICS OF OUR TIME, WITH THE
POWER TO DIVIDE FRIENDS,
FAMILIES, EVEN NATIONS.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SO,
ACCORDING TO UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA LAW PROFESSOR JOHN A.
POWELL.
HE IS DIRECTOR OF THE HAAS
INSTITUTE FOR A FAIR AND
INCLUSIVE SOCIETY AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
BERKELEY, AND HE JOINS US NOW.

John is in his fifties, with receding curly white hair and a full beard. He's wearing a gray suit and a pale blue shirt.

Steve continues IT'S A PLEASURE TO MEET YOU.

John says GOOD TO MEET YOU.

Steve says THANKS FOR MAKING
TIME FOR US HERE.
I WANT TO START WITH SOMETHING A
LITTLE OFFBEAT.
I KNOW YOU HEAR THIS ALL THE
TIME BUT THIS WILL COME AS NEWS
TO OUR VIEWERS.
SHELDON, CAN YOU BRING PROFESSOR
POWELL'S SUPER UP, PLEASE?

The caption changes to "john a. powell. University of California, Berkeley."

Steve continues IS THERE WE GO.
THAT IS NOT A MISPRINT.
YOUR NAME IS SPELLED IN ALL
LOWER-CASE LETTERS.
TELL US WHY.

John says IT'S AN INTERESTING STORY, A
LONG STORY.
IN THE '60s, WHEN I WAS COMING
OF AGE, AFRICAN-AMERICANS WERE
CHANGING THEIR NAMES, WERE
RECLAIMING THEIR AFRICAN NAMES,
SHEDDING THEIR SLAVE NAMES, AND
I THOUGHT OF DOING THE SAME.
THE INFLUENCE BY A NUMBER OF
PEOPLE.
SO I STARTED LOOKING FOR AFRICAN
NAMES.
I WAS ALSO BECOMING AWARE OF
WHAT I CALLED... THAT PEOPLE
WERE DECENTERED IN THE UNIVERSE.
THAT IS, WE WEREN'T THE CENTRE
OF THE UNIVERSE.
THE IDEA WAS RECONNECTING WITH
MY ANCESTORS, MY PAST.
AND MY MOM WAS VERY DISTRAUGHT
BY THE IDEA.
I WAS NAMED AFTER HER FATHER.
AND SHE SAID THE NAME WAS GOOD
ENOUGH FOR HIM AND IT WAS GOOD
ENOUGH FOR ME.
AND EVEN IN MY YOUNG, YOU KNOW,
SORT OF DAYS OF YOUTH, IT STRUCK
ME AS ODD TO BE ALIENATING MY
PARENTS TO CONNECT WITH MY
ANCESTORS.
AND THEN I ALSO WAS READING EE
CUMMINGS.

Steve says WHO DOES THE SAME THING.
LOWER CASE.

John says HE APPARENTLY DIDN'T DO IT,
HIS PUBLICIST DID IT.
I DIDN'T FIND OUT UNTIL LATER.
I SAID WHAT IF I DROP THE CAPS?
SHE SAID I DON'T CARE.
AS LONG AS YOU KEEP THE NAME.

Steve says THAT WAS THE HAPPY
COMPROMISE.

John says YEAH.

Steve says ALL THESE YEARS
LATER, DOES IT STILL MAKE THE
STATEMENT THAT YOU WANTED IT TO
MAKE BACK THEN?

The caption changes to "john a. powell. Haas Institute for a fair and inclusive society."

John says IT'S INTERESTING.
YOU KNOW, MY DAUGHTER, OLDEST
CHILD, I WATCHED HER YEARS AGO,
MAYBE 20 YEARS AGO, I WATCHED
HER SIGN SOMETHING, AND SHE
SIGNED HER LAST NAME "POWELL."
WITH A LOWER "P."
AND I SAID, WHAT'S THAT ABOUT?
SHE SAID THAT'S MY NAME.
AND I'VE NEVER DISCUSSED IT WITH
HER.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S JUST
BECOME MY NAME.
ALTHOUGH I THINK THE INSTINCTS
CERTAINLY IN TERMS OF HUMANS,
AND THAT'S WHY I'M A HUMANIST,
NOT BEING THE CENTRE OF THE
UNIVERSE, IS AN IMPORTANT
STATEMENT TO MAKE.

Steve says SO SHE PICKED IT UP ON HER OWN.

John says SHE PICKED IT UP ON HER OWN.

Steve says THE ISSUES WE
REFERRED TO IN THE INTRODUCTION
ARE OMNI PRESENT AND FOR MANY
PEOPLE EXTREMELY TROUBLING.
WE SEEM TO BE MORE ANXIOUS ABOUT
THESE ISSUES TODAY THAN WE HAVE
BEEN IN THE PAST.
DO YOU KNOW WHY?

The caption changes to "Who is afraid of diversity?"

John says WELL, I THINK THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF REASONS.
BASICALLY THE WORLD IS SPEEDING
UP.
TOM FRIEDMAN, IN A BOOK HE WROTE
CALLED "THANKS FOR BEING LATE,"
HE TALKS ABOUT LIVING IN
ACCELERATED CHANGE.
AND I THINK THAT CHANGE HAPPENED
ALONG AT LEAST FOUR DIMENSIONS,
GLOBALIZATION, TECHNOLOGY, THE
ENVIRONMENT, AND MIGRATION.
AND WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS IS
THAT PEOPLE ARE CHANGING, THAT
WHO WE ARE COLLECTIVELY IS
CHANGING.
PEOPLE CAN ONLY PROCESS SO MUCH
CHANGE IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME
WITHOUT IT CREATING ANXIETY.
AND THAT ANXIETY CAN TAKE ON
DIFFERENT FORMS.
ONE OF THE FORMS IS A MORE
PERNICIOUS FORM, WHICH I CALL
BRAKING, WHICH SOMEHOW THE OTHER
IS THREATENING EXISTENTIALIST
BEING, WHO WE ARE AS A PEOPLE.
IT MAY BE THREATENING SOME OTHER
AREAS AS WELL IN TERMS OF OUR
ECONOMY.
THE OTHER ONE IS BRIDGING.
WHICH OF THOSE STORIES BECOME
DOMINANT DEPENDS ON LEADERS AND
STORIES AND NARRATIVES.
AND SO WHAT WE HAVE IS BREAKING
STORIES BEING TOLD ALL AROUND
THE WORLD, AND THE LIBERAL
RESPONSE, TO TRY TO SLOW THIS
DOWN, IS NOT VERY EFFECTIVE.
BECAUSE BASICALLY WE SAY, HMM,
OKAY, THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE
COMING TO CANADA OR THE UNITED
STATES OR GERMANY OR ENGLAND,
THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN
INDIA WHO ARE NOT HINDUS, BUT
THE LIBERAL RESPONSE
IS, "THEY'RE JUST LIKE US."
THAT'S NOT PEOPLE'S LIVED
EXPERIENCE.
SO THE RESPONSE IS NOT A
RESPONSE AT ALL.
SO ACTUALLY IN A SENSE WE HAVE
VERY FEW EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO
THE BREAKING STORIES.

Steve says SO THOSE FOLKS
MARCHING WITH THOSE TORCHES IN
CHARLOTTESVILLE, THEY DON'T
SEE... THEY CLEARLY DON'T SEE
THAT THEY HAVE ANYTHING IN
COMMON AT ALL WITH THE PEOPLE
THAT THEY ARE RAILING AGAINST.
YOU CAN'T SAY TO THEM, "THEY'RE
JUST LIKE US."

John says AND REMEMBER, WHAT THEY WERE
SAYING, THE JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US.
SO THEY WERE LITERALLY
THREATENING AN EXISTENTIALIST
THREAT, SAYING AS THE COUNTRY
CHANGES, I'M GOING TO CHANGE.
AGAIN, THE LIBERAL RESPONSE IS,
NO, THE JEWS ARE JUST LIKE YOU.
GAYS ARE JUST LIKE STRAIGHT
PEOPLE.
BLACKS ARE JUST LIKE WHITES.
MUSLIMS ARE JUST LIKE CHRISTIANS
CHRISTIANS.
AND THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER.
THIS OTHERING IS NOT SAMING,
IT'S BELONGING.
AS WE SORT OF WATCH COUNTRIES
FROM THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE
INCREASINGLY MOVE NORTH, WHICH
WE'RE SEEING THROUGHOUT EUROPE
AND WE'LL SEE EVEN MORE WITH
CLIMATE CHANGE, IT'S GOING TO
PUT STRESS ON NOT JUST POLITICAL
INSTITUTIONS BUT THE SENSE OF
WHO WE ARE.
WE'RE BECOMING SOMETHING
DIFFERENT.

Steve says WHEN YOU SAY WE'RE
BECOMING SOMETHING DIFFERENT,
THE PEOPLE CARRYING THOSE
TORCHES ARE NOT BECOMING
SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THEY'RE
TRYING TO, IT SEEMS TO ME, HANG
ONTO WHAT THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN.

The caption changes to "Othering and belonging."

John says YOU'RE RIGHT AND YOU'RE
WRONG.
WHEN TRUMP TALKS ABOUT MAKING
AMERICA GREAT AGAIN OR PEOPLE
ENTER THESE RIGHT-WING
NATIONALIST USUALLY ETHNIC OR
RACIAL NATIONALISTS TALK ABOUT
THE PAST, IT'S A MADE-UP PAST.
LET'S GO BACK TO WHEN?
IN THE UNITED STATES THEY DID A
SURVEY AND SOME SAID 1850.
SOME SAID 1900s WHEN THE
UNITED STATES WAS AN EMERGING
IMPERIALIST POWER.
NO ONE SAID BEYOND 1950s.
THEY HAD THIS IMAGE OF WHAT
AMERICA WAS: WHITE, PROTESTANT,
MALES DOMINATED, WE RULED THE
EARTH.
NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES.
AFTER WORLD WAR II, THE SIXTH
BIGGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD WAS
IN THE UNITED STATES.
WE'RE NOT GOING BACK TO THAT
TIME.
AND IN A SENSE THE TIME NEVER
WAS.
THE UNITED STATES NEVER WAS A
WHITE COUNTRY.
THEY FORGET ABOUT THERE ARE
NATIVE PEOPLE WHEN THEY GOT
THERE.
THE UNITED STATES HAS ALWAYS
STRUGGLED TO BECOME SOMETHING.
SO, YES, THEY HAVE AN IMAGE OF
GOING BACK TO A PERIOD OF TIME
AND STOPPING HISTORY.
NOW, I TALKED ABOUT FOUR THINGS
GENERATING THIS ANXIETY.
SO THERE HASN'T BEEN A MARCH
AGAINST TECHNOLOGY.
THERE HASN'T BEEN A MARCH
AGAINST ROBOTS.
THERE HASN'T BEEN A MARCH
AGAINST ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
THERE HAVE BEEN MARCHES ABOUT
CLIMATE.
BUT THE CHANGES ARE HAPPENING.
THE WORLD'S NOT GOING TO GO
BACKWARDS.
AND CLIMATE CHANGE IS GOING TO
CREATE MORE STRESS IN TERMS OF
PEOPLE FROM THE SOUTH MOVING
NORTH.
AND THE WAY WE DID IN THE WORLD
COLONIALISM AND IMPERIALISM WAS
IN THE SOUTH, EXTRACTING THINGS
TO THE NORTH.
THOSE PROCESSES ARE ACTUALLY NOW
BEING REPLICATED IN PEOPLE'S
LIVES.
SO THE PAST WAS NEVER REALLY THE
PAST.
THE QUESTION, CAN WE MAKE A
FUTURE FOR ALL OF US?

Steve says I DO WANT TO FOLLOW
UP ON ONE THING.
MIGRATION PATTERNS AND MIGRATION
AND THOSE OTHERS THAT ARE COMING
HERE, I UNDERSTAND FROM YOUR
EXPLANATION WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE
WORRIED ABOUT THAT.
DO THEY NOT SEE THAT ROBOTICS
AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND
AUTOMATION ARE EQUALLY, IF NOT
MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR ELIMINATING
THAT PAST THAT THEY SO
MISUNDERSTAND AND CHERISH?

John says NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
I THINK FOR MOST PEOPLE, EVEN AS
THEY CLAIM THAT THEY WANT TO GO
BACK TO THE PAST, THEY'LL BE ON
THE INTERNET, THEY'LL BE IN
SOCIAL MEDIA, THEY'LL HAVE THEIR
SMARTPHONE.
AND SO MOST PEOPLE JUST THINK OF
THAT AS A BACKGROUND.
BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.
I THINK THE TECHNOLOGICAL
CHANGE... AND ALL THESE THINGS
ARE INTERRELATED... IS ACTUALLY
IN SOME WAYS MORE
CHANGE-PRODUCING.
THE REALITY IS, CANADA, THE
UNITED STATES, EUROPE... YOU GO
TO LONDON, YOU GO HERE TO
TORONTO, IT'S A VERY DIVERSE
CITY.
AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING
IF IT'S DONE WELL.
AND SO... AND IT'S NOT JUST
DIVERSE IN TERMS OF PEOPLE BEING
HERE... I LIVE IN CALIFORNIA.
THERE'S A CONCEPT CALLED
INTER-FAMILIES WHERE ONE MEMBER
OF THE FAMILY IS OF A DIFFERENT
RACE OR DIFFERENT ETHNICITY.
BY SOME PROJECTION THAT NUMBER
WILL HIT CLOSE TO 50 percent OF NEW
FAMILIES BY 2025.

Steve says IN YOUR PART OF
CALIFORNIA?

John says IN CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.

Steve says IN ALL OF
CALIFORNIA.

John says CALIFORNIA IS THE FUTURE OF
THE UNITED STATES.
SO WE'RE SEEING THAT SOMETHING'S
HAPPENING.
AND I READ IN CANADA THE NUMBERS
OF INTER-FAMILIES IN THE LAST 10
YEARS IS UP ALMOST 40 percent.
SO IT'S HAPPENING HERE.
SO PEOPLE COME TOGETHER AND THEY
MAKE NEW PEOPLE.
THEY AFFECT EACH OTHER.
THEY INFLUENCE EACH OTHER.
NOT JUST IN TERMS OF FOOD AND
LANGUAGE, OUR SENSIBILITIES, BUT
IN TERMS OF LOVE.
IN TERMS OF RELIGION.
SO PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS... CULTURES
ARE ALWAYS FORMING.
THEY'RE NEVER STATIC.

Steve says LET ME FOLLOW UP NOW
ON THE OTHERING THAT YOU TALKED
ABOUT.
WE CERTAINLY SEE EXAMPLES OF,
FOR EXAMPLE, IN CHARLOTTESVILLE,
THOSE ANGRY WHITE PEOPLE
OTHERING JEWS, BLACKS, GAYS,
WHOEVER.
I WONDER WHETHER IT HAPPENS EVEN
WITHIN ETHNIC GROUPS.
DO ORTHODOX JEWS OTHER REFORMED
JEWS?
DO HIGHLY EDUCATED, YOU KNOW,
UPPER CLASS AFRICAN-AMERICANS
OTHER, YOU KNOW, BLACKS WHO LIVE
IN THE GHETTO, SO TO SPEAK?
I GUESS TAKE ANY ETHNIC GROUP
YOU WANT.

John says SURE, SURE.

Steve says DOES THAT KIND OF
OTHERING HAPPEN?

John says IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
IT HAPPENS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS.
IT HAPPENS INTERPERSONALLY, IT
HAPPENS INDIVIDUALLY, IT HAPPENS
AT A STATE AND INSTITUTIONAL
LEVEL.
YES, BLACKS OTHER OTHER BLACKS.
IN THE UNITED STATES SOMETIMES
THERE'S A FIGHT ABOUT, WELL,
MAYBE BLACKS FROM THE CARIBBEAN
ARE NOT THE SAME AS BLACKS WHO
WERE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES
OR BLACKS FROM NIGERIA OR RICH
BLACKS AND POOR BLACKS.
SO OTHERING HAPPENS ALL OVER THE
PLACE.

Steve says EVEN BY NICE
PROGRESSIVE PEOPLE.

John says EVEN BY NICE, PROGRESSIVE
PEOPLE.
THE ISSUE OF CATEGORIZATION
SEEMS TO BE PRETTY HARD-WIRED
INTO THE HUMAN MIND.
BUT THE WAY WE CATEGORIZE, HOW
HARD THOSE CATEGORIES ARE, HOW
FLUID THEY ARE, IS COMPLETELY
SOCIAL.
FOR PEOPLE IN THE WEST, SUNNI
MUSLIMS AND SHIA MUSLIMS,
THEY'RE BOTH MUSLIMS.
CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS.
THEY'RE BOTH CHRISTIAN.
SO, YEAH, WE FIND ALL KINDS OF
WAYS TO OTHER.
THAT'S THE BAD NEWS.
THE GOOD NEWS IS WE ALSO FIND
WAYS OF COMING TOGETHER.

Steve says HOW?

John says WELL, THINK ABOUT THIS.
CANADA IS A HUGE COUNTRY, I
THINK THE SECOND LARGEST COUNTRY
IN THE WORLD.

Steve says LAND MASS.

John says LAND MASS, RIGHT.
SO MOST OF THE PEOPLE HERE THINK
OF THEMSELVES AS CANADIAN.
THAT WASN'T TRUE 100 YEARS AGO.
THEY WERE COMING FROM DIFFERENT
PLACES.
THEY WEREN'T ALL CANADIANS.
YOU HAD A BUMP IN THE '70s AND
'80s AS TO WHAT WAS GOING TO
HAPPEN WITH QUEBEC.
MAYBE THAT'S STILL HAPPENING.
THE SAME IS TRUE OF ANY COUNTRY.
OR WHEN FRANCE BECAME A COUNTRY,
MOST OF THE PEOPLE DIDN'T SPEAK
FRENCH AND DIDN'T THINK OF
THEMSELVES AS FRENCH.
THAT'S A HISTORY THAT MOST
PEOPLE DON'T REMEMBER.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE UNITED
STATES, IN THE 1920s, MOST
PEOPLE WHO CONSIDERED THEMSELVES
WHITE RIGHT NOW WOULD NOT HAVE
CONSIDERED THEMSELVES WHITE.
THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN
GERMAN-AMERICAN,
ITALIAN-AMERICAN,
FRENCH-AMERICAN.
AND THERE WASN'T MUCH
INTERACTION, THERE WASN'T MUCH
INTERMARRIAGE.
AND THAT CHANGED VERY FAST.

Steve says THOSE DISTINCTIONS
SEEM VERY IRRELEVANT RIGHT NOW.

John says THAT'S MY POINT.
PEOPLE CONSTANTLY ARE
RECONSTRUCTING WHO'S THE "WE."
AND THEY TEND TO DO IT... NOT
UNEVEN, BUT THEY TEND TO DO IT
IN A WAY THAT THE WE IS GETTING
LARGER.
THERE ARE ABOUT TWO BILLION
PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WHO IDENTIFY
AS CHRISTIAN.
OR 1.2 BILLION OF THEM IDENTIFY
AS CATHOLIC.
SO 1.2 BILLION PEOPLE SCATTERED
AROUND THE WORLD THINK THEY HAVE
SOMETHING IN COMMON.
THAT'S KIND OF AMAZING.

Steve says I WANT TO PUT SOME
INFORMATION THAT YOU FOLKS AT
THE HAAS INSTITUTE HAVE DONE.
YOU SURVEYED CALIFORNIANS AND
THEIR VIEWS ON IDENTITY, RACE,
AND POLITICS.
SHELDON, IF YOU WOULD, LET'S
BRING UP THESE GRAPHICS RIGHT
NOW.
YOU DID THIS TOWARDS THE END OF
LAST YEAR.

A slate appears on screen, with the title "Othering and belonging survey. Percentage of 2440 responses, December 2017."

Steve reads data from the slate and says
68 percent OF RESPONDENTS SUPPORTED
RACE-CONSCIOUS POLICIES, SUCH AS
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.
66 percent REJECTED THE IDEA THAT THE
U.S.-MEXICO BORDER WALL IS AN
IMPORTANT IMMIGRATION POLICY
PRIORITY.
66 percent SAID IT'S IMPORTANT TO TAKE
IN REFUGEES FROM MUSLIM
COUNTRIES WHERE PEOPLE ARE
TRYING TO ESCAPE WAR AND
VIOLENCE.
49 percent SUPPORTED BANNING PEOPLE
FROM MAJORITY MUSLIM COUNTRIES
FROM ENTER THE U.S.
ABOUT A QUARTER SAID INCREASING
DEPORTATIONS IS VERY IMPORTANT.
AND ANOTHER JUST OVER A THIRD
SAID SUCH A POLICY IS SOMEWHAT
IMPORTANT.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S QUITE A
FEW CONTRADICTIONS IN HERE.
SO HOW DO WE EXPLAIN ALL THIS?

The caption changes to "john a. powell, @profjohnapowell."

John says THE SIMPLE WAY OF EXPLAINING
IS THAT PEOPLE ARE COMPLICATED
AND WE HAVE MULTIPLE, WHAT'S
CALLED SIGHTS, SOMETIMES
REFERRED TO AS... SOMETIMES
REFERRED TO AS CELLS.
JOHN WALZ TALKS ABOUT DIVERSITY
BEING AN EXTERNAL PROJECT,
MEANING WE HAVE DIVERSE PARTS OF
OURSELVES AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS
ALIGN.
AND SOMETIMES THEY DIRECTLY
CONTRADICT.
AND SO... AND PEOPLE... THIS IS
INTERESTING.
WHEN YOU GO BACK TO CALIFORNIA
IN THE 1990s, THESE NUMBERS
WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFERENT.
IT'S A NEW CALIFORNIA.
AND IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE
THEY'RE NEW PEOPLE.
CALIFORNIA IS CHANGING.
AND SO PEOPLE LIVING CLOSE TO
EACH OTHER, CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF
THE MOST DIVERSE STATES IN THE
UNITED STATES, ALONG WITH
HAWAII.
WE HAVE NO RACIAL MAJORITY.
THE LARGEST SINGLE RACE OR
ETHNIC GROUP ARE LATINOS.
SO THIS IS THE FEARFUL FUTURE
THAT TRUMP AND OTHERS ARE
WORRIED ABOUT, YET CALIFORNIA IS
THE FIFTH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE
WORLD, A FREESTANDING NATION.
MOST PEOPLE THINK CALIFORNIA IS
PRETTY COOL.
IT'S HOME OF A LOT OF TECH
COMPANIES.
SO THE DIVERSITY THAT LIVES IN
CALIFORNIA HAS NOT CREATED A
SORT OF A DEGENERATION OR THE
COLLAPSE OF THE ECONOMY OR THE
COLLAPSE OF CIVILIZATION THAT
PEOPLE WORRY ABOUT.

The caption changes to "Connect with us: Twitter: @theagenda; Facebook, agendaconnect@tvo.org, Instagram."

Steve says UC BERKELEY WAS A
HOTBED OF FREE SPEECH 50 YEARS
AGO.
IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT TODAY.
AND I WANT TO GO INTO AN EXAMPLE
HERE FROM THE NEW YORKER
MAGAZINE, THE NOTION THAT FREE
SPEECH IS A PRINCIPLE THAT
SHOULD BE DEFENDED AT ALL COSTS
IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.
HERE'S WHAT WENT ON AT BERKELEY...

A quote appears on screen, under the title "Yiannopoulos takes Berkeley." The quote reads "Milo Yiannopoulos convinced his supporters that he should be a poster child for campus free speech, a principle that is universally lauded in theory but vexingly thorny in practice. In the 2017-18 academic year, Politico reported, an unusually large number of universities struggled 'to balance their commitment to free speech -which has been challenged by alt-right supporters of President Donald Trump- with campus safety.' One expert on campus life called this 'the number one topic of the year.'"
Quoted from Andrew Marantz, The New Yorker. July 2, 2018.

Steve says BEFORE WE DIVE INTO
THIS, DID YOU WANT TO GIVE US A
BIT OF BACKGROUND HERE ON WHEN
MILO TRIED TO SPEAK AT BERKELEY
AND WHAT HAPPENED THEREAFTER?

The caption changes to "The right to speak your mind."

John says HE WAS SCHEDULED TO SPEAK
INITIALLY AND THERE WERE
PROTESTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS AND
THE UNIVERSITY CANCELLED IT.
AND THEN...

Steve says HE'S AN ALT-RIGHT
WING KIND OF GUY?

John says NOT JUST THAT.
THERE WAS A CASE THAT JUST WENT
TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, AND
ONE OF THE JUSTICES IN HER
DISSENT TALKED ABOUT WEAPONIZING
SPEECH.
AND IN A SENSE SHE WAS SAYING
LET'S NOT BE NAIVE.
I WAS THE LEGAL DIRECT AT THE
ACLU FOR ALMOST 10 YEARS SO I
CARE A LOT ABOUT FREE SPEECH.
BUT FREE SPEECH IS A COMPLICATED
SET OF CONCEPTS.
IT'S NOT ONE THING.
EVERY COUNTRY, INCLUDING
CANADA... CANADA HAS A MUCH MORE
ROBUST WAY OF ACTUALLY, WHAT WE
CALL, REGULATING HATE SPEECH
THAN THE UNITED STATES DOES.
THERE ARE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE CLASSIC ONE IS
YOU CAN'T FIRE IN A MOVIE
THEATRE, DARK MOVIE THEATRE.
ANOTHER ONE PEOPLE DON'T TALK
ABOUT VERY MUCH IS THE #METOO
MOVEMENT.
CERTAINLY THERE'S BULLYING AND
INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL ADVANCES
BEING MADE AGAINST WOMEN AND
OTHERS.
SOMETIMES IT'S JUST VERBAL.
NO ONE HAS DEFENDED THAT AS JUST
FREE SPEECH.
NO ONE HAS SAID, "I HAVE A RIGHT
TO ASK A WOMAN TO HAVE SEX IN
THE WORKPLACE.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?"
SO GOING BACK TO MILO.
MILO CAME BACK AND THE
UNIVERSITY FELT LIKE WE HAD TO
RECEIVE HIM AND HE ENDED UP
COMING BACK AND NOT HAVING A BIG
DEMONSTRATION.
HE SORT OF SELF REMOVED HIM.
HE DIDN'T GET A LOT OF SUPPORT.
THE RIGHT WING WAS VERY
DELIBERATE, NOT JUST WITH MILO,
BUT SENDING A LOT OF
PROVOCATEURS TO BERKELEY TO TRY
TO STIR THINGS UP.

Steve says I DO HAVE TO ASK YOU.
BERKELEY IN PARTICULAR, BUT
UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES IN GENERAL,
ARE I THINK SUPPOSED TO BE
PLACES WHERE, YOU KNOW, A
COLLISION OF IDEAS CAN TAKE
PLACE.
AND IT FEELS TODAY LIKE ON TOO
MANY UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES THAT'S
NOT ALLOWED ANYMORE.

John says WELL, I THINK WE'RE IN A
DIFFERENT PLACE FOR SURE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S QUITE AS DIRE
AS YOU SUGGEST.
SO SPEECH IS NOT JUST WORDS.
THERE ARE ALSO ACTS.
IN THE UNITED STATES THERE'S AN
IMPORTANT CASE CALLED CITIZENS
UNITED WHERE THE SUPREME COURT
OVERTURNED 100 YEARS OF CASE LAW
BASICALLY SAYING MONEY COULD BE
USED... MONEY IS SPEECH.
MONEY IS SPEECH.
AND YOU COULD USE MONEY TO FUND
ANY CANDIDATE, INCLUDING
CORPORATE MONEY.
THAT'S VERY INCONSISTENT WITH
150 YEARS OF U.S. JURISPRUDENCE.
AND IT CREATED QUITE AN UPROAR.
IS MONEY SPEECH?
IS MONEY NOT SPEECH?
IS CORPORATE MONEY SPEECH?
IS CORPORATE MONEY NOT SPEECH?
THERE USED TO BE SUCH A THING AS
ADVERTISEMENTS WHERE GOVERNMENT
COULD REGULATE ADVERTISEMENTS
BUT NOT POLITICAL SPEECH.

Steve says THAT'S NOT THE KIND
OF SPEECH I'M TALKING ABOUT.

John says THE CONCEPT IS A COMPLICATED
CONCEPT.
I TRIED TO SET THIS OUT IN AN
ARTICLE, SUCH AS THE ARTICLE YOU
JUST MENTIONED.
THE IDEA FOR SPEECH IN THE WEST
COMES LARGELY FROM THE WRITING
AND SPEAKING OF MILLS.
THERE ARE SELF REGARDING ACTS
AND OTHER ACTS.
THE SELF-REGARDING ACTS ARE
THINGS I DO THAT DOESN'T AFFECT
ANYONE ELSE.
AND OTHER REGARDING ACTS ARE
THINGS THAT AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE.
AND HE SAID THE GOVERNMENT HAD
NO BUSINESS BEING INVOLVED IN
SELF-REGARDING ACTS.
HE CONSIDERED SPEECH A
SELF-REGARDING ACT BECAUSE HE
ASSUMED THAT SPEECH COULD NOT
INJURE.
WE'VE ACTUALLY LEARNED THAT HE'S
LONG.

Steve says SPEECH CAN INJURE.

John says SPEECH CAN INJURE.
SOME SAID HE'S TALKING ABOUT
PHYSICAL ACTS VERSUS
NON-PHYSICAL ACTS.
WE'VE LEARNED THAT SPEECH CAN
CONSTITUTE A PHYSICAL ACT.
THIS IS SCIENCE, 21ST CENTURY
SCIENCE.
SO ONCE WE SAY THAT SPEECH CAN
INJURE.
SO WHAT MILLS SAID ABOUT OTHER
REGARDING ACTS, HE SAID YOU
DON'T OUTLAW THEM ALL BUT YOU
DON'T HAVE... FOR EXAMPLE, IF
YOU DRIVE A GASOLINE-USING CAR,
IT'S ACTUALLY HURTING THE
ENVIRONMENT.
BUT WE STILL LET YOU DRIVE IT.
BUT THAT'S NOT A RIGHT THAT YOU
HAVE.
YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DRIVE
A GASOLINE-PRODUCING CAR.
WE COME TO THE DECISION IT'S
IMPORTANT, IT SERVES SOME
BENEFIT, WE'RE GOING TO PUT UP
WITH THE POLLUTION.
MAYBE WE SHOULD NOT.

Steve says WELL, TELL ME
WHETHER YOU THINK... WHO WAS IT
THERE?
THE NEW YORKER AGAIN.
OKAY, NEW YORKER.
HAD THAT FESTIVAL.
IN WHICH THEY INVITED AND
DISINVITED STEVE BANNON, BECAUSE
I THINK THEY THOUGHT THE
POLLUTION COMING OUT OF HIS
MOUTH WAS A LITTLE TOO MUCH TO HANDLE.
SHOULD THEY HAVE DISINVITED HIM?

John says STEVE, THE THING IS, AND I'VE
TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT.
I THINK THE FOUNDATION FOR US
UNDERSTANDING FREE SPEECH IN
THESE DISCUSSIONS IS ACTUALLY
TOO THIN.
I'M NOT SAYING WHAT FALLS ON ONE
SIDE OR THE OTHER, I'M SAYING WE
NEED A PRINCIPLED WAY OF
UNDERSTANDING IT, AND THE
PRINCIPLED WAY THAT WE'VE BEEN
USING FOR THE LAST 100 YEARS IN
TERMS OF SOME THINGS INJURIES
AND SOME THINGS DON'T NO LONGER
HOLDS.
I'M NOT SAYING YOU BAN THEM.
I'M SAYING THEN YOU HAVE A
DISCUSSION AS TO WHY YOU
WOULDN'T ALLOW IT.
THE FREE SPEECH IN THE '60s
YOU REFERENCED WAS LARGELY
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.
THIS IS QUITE DIFFERENT.
WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT TIME.
AND SO... AND I WOULD SAY FROM
MY PERSPECTIVE, BEING AT
BERKELEY AND THE COUNTRY, THE
DEFINING ISSUE IN THE COUNTRY
TODAY, AND I SAY IN THE WORLD,
IS THIS ISSUE ABOUT OTHERING,
THIS ISSUE ABOUT TELLING SOME
PEOPLE THEY DON'T BELONG,
THEY'RE NOT HUMAN, THE KIND OF
FRAGMENTATION AND VIOLENCE
THAT'S HAPPENING ALL AROUND THE
WORLD.
AND I THINK SPEECH, THE
WEAPONIZED SPEECH, IS JUST ONE
ASPECT OF THAT.

Steve says HAVING SAID THAT,
MALCOLM GLADWELL, GOOD CANADIAN
KID, TWEETED THE FOLLOWING, WHEN
THE INVITATION TO STEVE BANNON
WAS RESCINDED BY THE NEW YORKER.

A tweet by Malcom Gladwell pops up.

It reads "HUH. CALL ME OLD FASHIONED. But I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THE POINT OF A FESTIVAL OF IDEAS WAS TO EXPOSE THE AUDIENCE to IDEAS. IF YOU ONLY INVITE YOUR FRIENDS over, IT'S called A DINNER PARTY."

Steve says IS HE ON TO SOMETHING THERE?

John says I THINK IT'S FACILE.
HE WRITES BOOKS.
HE'S NOT LIMITED TO TWITTER.
TWITTER MAY NOT BE THE PLATFORM
TO DEAL WITH COMPLICATED ISSUES.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MILO
WANTED TO DO WAS TO EXPOSE
STUDENTS AT BERKELEY WHO ARE
UNDOCUMENTED.
NOW, THAT'S NOT AN IDEA.
THAT'S BASICALLY SAYING TO ICE,
COME AND GET THESE PEOPLE.
THEY'RE SAYING THESE PEOPLE ARE
NOT SAFE.
THEY DON'T BELONG IN THE
COUNTRY.
GET THEM OUTTA HERE.
NOW, THE NEW YORKER, THEY CAN
UNINVITE WHOEVER THEY WANT TO.
THAT'S THEIR PREROGATIVE.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FREE SPEECH
WHICH IN THE UNITED STATES IS
ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH
ASSOCIATION, IT DOESN'T MEAN I
HAVE TO INVITE A GUY WHO
BELIEVES THE HOLOCAUST DIDN'T
EXIST AND THE GUY WHO BELIEVES
THE HOLOCAUST DID.
THEY HAVE A DEBATE.
NOT EVERY IDEA HAS TO BE PRESENT
AT EVERY CONVERSATION.

Steve says I GET YOU...

John says YES, YOU DO WANT A ROBUST SET
OF IDEAS.
BUT WHEN PEOPLE PROTEST BANNON
AND WHEN PEOPLE PROTEST MILO,
YOU KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING?
THEY'RE EXERCISING THEIR FREE
SPEECH.
THAT'S PART OF THE MIX.
AND SO IT DOESN'T MEAN FREE
SPEECH IS NOT JUST A POLITE
CONVERSATION, IT'S LIKE SAYING,
OKAY, WE'RE TRYING TO DO
SOMETHING IN A POLITICAL,
CULTURAL CONTEXT, AND THERE ARE
GOING TO BE DISAGREEMENTS.
AND SOMETIMES IT'S GOING TO HAVE
TO BE ORGANIZED.
SO I DON'T THINK... I DON'T FEEL
BAD FOR BANNON AND... IF I HAVE
A DINNER PARTY, YOU'RE INVITED.

Steve says THANK YOU.
I WILL ACCEPT THE INVITATION.
BUT YOU WON'T MIND ME ARGUING
WITH YOU...

John says I DON'T MIND AT ALL.
I WOULDN'T INVITE BANNON.
EVERY TIME I HAVE A DINNER
PARTY, IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE A
LIVELY DEBATE... AND I WOULD
EVEN SEE WITH BANNON IT'S NOT A
DEBATE.
IT'S BANTERING.
IT'S SOMETHING ELSE.
HE'S NOT... AND SO, AGAIN, I
THINK THAT THESE THINGS SHOULD
BE DISCUSSED IN MUCH MORE
SOPHISTICATED WAYS.
THE WHOLE FAMOUS TRIAL IN THE
UNITED STATES, THE TRIAL OF THE
NAZIS MARCHING THROUGH ILLINOIS,
WHERE HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS... THE
ACLU DEFENDED THE CASE.
I QUESTION THAT.
BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS NOT ABOUT
A CONVERSATION.
IT WAS TO INFLICT AN INJURY.
AND NOW WE KNOW THAT THEY
PROBABLY DID INFLICT AN INJURY.
SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED?
LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT
THAT.
BUT IT'S NOT A BLACK-AND-WHITE
CASE AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

Steve says PROFESSOR POWELL,
YOU WOULD FIT IN IN CANADA QUITE WELL.
OUR IDEAS OF FREE SPEECH ARE
MORE ALONG THE CANADIAN VISION...

John says I LIKE CANADA.

Steve says WE'RE DELIGHTED.
YOU SENT ONE OF YOUR SONS TO
MCGILL UNIVERSITY, SO YOU MIGHT
LIKE CANADA.

John says I'M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED HE
DIDN'T TAKE OUT CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP.

The caption changes to "Producer: Sandra Gionas, @sandragionas."

Steve says IT'S NOT TOO LATE.
WE'RE REALLY GRATEFUL YOU MADE
TIME FOR US AT TVO, THAT'S JOHN
A. POWELL, ALL LOWER CASE, FROM
THE HAAS INSTITUTE AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF BERKELEY.
THANKS SO MUCH.

John says THANK YOU.

Watch: Divided We Stand