April 17, 2025 • 39 mins
Amid the ongoing feud between Harvard University and the Trump Administration over demands for the school to make extensive changes to its governance, admissions and hiring practices, the Trump Admin. has moved to revoke the university’s tax-exempt status. The status designation allows many universities like Harvard to avoid paying federal income tax. The question is, does Trump have the authority to do that? Harvard University Professor Steven Pinker, a member of The Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, is concerned about the ongoing trend of government involvement over academic policy changes and joined us to discuss!
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray w b Z Constance Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I thought we're getting a second newscast there. Thank you
very much, almost did. You're right, no problem. I think
all of us are aware of the fact that there
is a titanic battle going on between the Trump administration
really in the person of the president himself as well
as the people who work for him at Harvard University,
(00:26):
a lot of other really important universities around the country. Uh,
there is a group that has combined from Columbia, Harvard, Princeton,
and others, one of whom has been a guest on
this program before, Professor Stephen Pinker, Professor of psychology at
Harvard University. Professor Pinker, welcome to Nights Out. I know
(00:48):
you have limited time, and I hope that the signal
holds for us here. If I were to characterize you
as someone who is not has not been happy with
some of the recent trends at Harvard University in terms
of intellectual diversity. You have been critical of the administration
(01:09):
on some of these issues, and yet you are just
as critical now of Donald Trump's administration as he threatens
to potentially even go as far as to take away
the tax exempt status of the university. Some people might
see those as inconsistent. I do not. I'd like you
(01:31):
to explain them.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Sure. Well.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
I've been a pretty vocal critic of Harvard. I wrote
a viral article a few years ago called the Trouble
with Harvard. I wrote an article for The Boston Globe
last year called a five point plan for Harvard to
save itself. I formed the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard,
with where two hundred faculty are pushing back against what
(01:54):
we thought of as not enough a commitment to academic freedom,
to intellectual diversity. But we've been pushing Harvard to reform.
I think we've had a number of successes. Harvard scrapped
the diversity statements that we did out out job applicants
who weren't woke ideologues. We got them to stop issuing pronouncements.
(02:18):
We've got them to just public commit to the idea
that diversity of viewpoints is a good thing and that
has to be fostered. Lots of stuff has been happening.
The latest list of demands the ultimatum from the Trump
administration on Friday night is it's just platently ridiculous, as
(02:39):
one of my colleagues said, it's an offer that Harvard
could not refuse. They would put government bureaucrats in charge
of maintaining viewpoint diversity in every department without saying what
viewpoint diversity means. Does this mean that government bureaucrats could
put creation in the biology department and anti factors?
Speaker 3 (03:02):
And the.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
It says that we've got to vet students, not in
any students who don't endorse American values. Well, you know,
I come from Canada, and I'm here to tell you
that a lot of Canadians say that the US has
too many guns and engages in stupid wars and that
doesn't have a good healthcare system. Are we supposed to
keep them out? The thing is, if the whole point
(03:27):
of the Trump pressure was to enhance freedom of thought,
academic freedom, viewpoint diversity. But if you've got a bunch
of government bureaucrats telling us who our professors have to be,
what kind of students we admit, setting up a by
the way, massive bureaucracy to audit every unit and file
(03:47):
reports with the government every three months, you know, I
don't even know if they were serious that Harvard could
ever accept this, because it really means handing over Harvard
to a hostile takeover. I suspect that they were kind
of setting up a confrontation.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Well, the other thing is that, you know, Trump obviously
overstating what he hopes to accomplish, so called art of
the deal. A lot of we talked about this last night,
and a lot of the demands on Harvard, by the way,
demands that Columbia in many ways acquiesced to another Ivy
League college, a lot of them, lawyers would say would
be vague, arbitrary and capricious. Again, and you've highlighted some
(04:28):
of those as to who would set up how what
standard would be used. And you know when they talk
about American values, well, different people have different explanations of
American values, Professor Pinker. We're joined by a mutual friend
of ours, Harvey Silverwade, and they just I know that
you're limited on time, and I want to make sure
Harvey has a chance to say hello. He says he
(04:51):
has a bit of a surprise, and Harvey always has
good surprises. So let's say, let's let's just bring Harvey
into the conversation. Harvey, welcome back. As always, you're on
with someone who needs no introduction to you, A colleague
and a friend, Professor Steve Pinker of Harvard University. Go ahead, Harvey.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
By coincidence, I wrote a letter two hours ago. I
dated in April eighteenth, because I planned to mail her
tomorrow morning a postal letter. It reads as follows, Alan
Garbe President, John Manning, Provost Harvard University. Dear Allan and John,
(05:33):
as you can well understand, I'm very pleased that Harvard
is standing up to Donald Trump. In my view, Trump
is associopath, a person with no moral compass. I realize
that taking this stand will be financially painful for Harvard
in the short term, but Trump will be gone in
a bid under four years. Parenthesis has claimed that he
(05:56):
can win the third term is legal and constitutional. Monson's
close parentheses. Harvard, on the other hand, is older than
our nation itself. It shall prevail. Congratulations for showing some backbone.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Harvey Silverglade and Harvey Silverglade, someone who's been critical of Harvard.
We seem to have lost Steve Pinker. Rob See if
you can bring Professor Pinker back, please, I think that
he just got into a bad cell zone. If you
can try to re establish that connection with him. I
know that he never would have hung up on us
(06:30):
or on Harvey. From a legal point of view, Harvey,
obviously you probably have the same view of I do
as I do, and as Professor Pinker described, you know, vague, arbitrary,
capricious demands. I look at it as if Donald Trump
is looking at this as a negotiation of real estate negotiation.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
That's how he looks at all these situations.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
I know you had some personal dealings with him over
the years, Professor Pinker back with us, rob Okay, Professor Pinker,
thank you. I think we lost you there for a
couple of minutes. Harvey has just written a letter to
the President of Harvard, President Garber, in which he commends
(07:15):
him for all of this. We were just to bring
you back into the conversation. We were just talking, Harvey
and I about this. Is Donald Trump unrestrained, who was
looking at this more as a real estate deal, saying, look,
you know, I want to buy this building, but I
also want to have to buy these other two buildings,
(07:35):
and that he's not looking at it as as a
as a leak. From a legal perspective, I think he's
just he's overreaching as he would in any so called
art of the deal. Are we far off on that,
Professor Pinker feel free again? Harvey's still with us on
the line.
Speaker 5 (07:54):
Yes, I don't think it's that, just because I.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
Don't think this is good faith negotiation. When it came
to Columbia, the ultimatum was you've got to do the
following things, and even if you do, we don't promise
to restore funding. And again with Harvard, where the demands
are far more extreme than what he usould with Columbia.
They're so over the top it's not good that Harvard
(08:20):
could could accept any of them. They're just not a
reasonable starting point for negotiations. Nor is there a promise
that if Harvard did them, then the universe that the
Trump administration we're back off as opposed to pocketing the
conceptions and concessions and upping the ante. So we're dealing
with someone, I think, who just wants to dominate, to
(08:40):
fully to humiliate. You know, we've seen that in his
other negotiating so called negotiations with Canada, with Denmark, with Ukraine.
So it doesn't seem like just real estate deal where
two parties try to hammer out an agreement and meet
somewhere in the middle.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Yeah. Well, I just think that his style is to
is to ask for more and then accept what he can.
Maybe there's nothing that Harvard would acquiesce to has anyone
from the administration recognizing that there are people who should
be aligned with them, not necessarily philosophically, but at least
(09:20):
on the broader issue of what was going on on
campuses a year and a year and a half ago
post October seventh. You know, some of the issuance I
know with Columbia was students no longer could be masked
to hide their identities. There was there was more, I thought,
outrageous behavior at Harvard at Columbia than at Harvard. I
(09:42):
know Harvard had some incidents. They seemed to me to
be less organized. If you if you understand what I'm
trying to suggest.
Speaker 4 (09:53):
Oh, absolutely, yeah, Columbia. Harvard was bad, Columbia was worse.
And you know, it was just a question of follow
your own rules, your own procedures of due process. If
students clearly cross the line from peaceful process protests to
intimidation and occupation, then apply the rules consistently. And neither
(10:16):
Harvard nor Columbia has done that, and if that was
the demand Harvard could easily have I've said yes, But
turning over the keys to hiring, admissions promotion to the
Trump administration in effect goes way beyond just enforcing rules
that are on the book that Harvard could easily have
lived with.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Okay, I want to ask a question when I come
back that I know is in the minds of some
of my listeners, and Professor Pinker, I know what We've
cut it at ten minutes. I'm just going to ask
the one question to both you and Harvey when we
come back. If that's okay, and that is you can
think about the answer. But I had people last night
who were saying to me, well, Harvard has a fifty
three billion dollar in doman, why do they need taxpayer money? Anyway,
(10:58):
I'd like to get a response from both both of you.
Do that, and then Professor Pinker, I will let you
get home with the rest of your evening, and Harvey,
I will I will thank you for your participation as well.
Could you both just give me a couple of minutes,
get through a couple of commercial messages, and respond to
that point, because that was a point that folks continued
to raise with me last night on the show. They
(11:18):
have fifty feet three billion, why do they need taxpayer money?
Fair enough, that's the question you'll ask. And okay, we'll
be back with Harvey Silverglate and Professor Stephen Pinker of
the Psychology Department at Harvard University. And if you'd like
to jump on board. They will be leaving us, but
I want to open up to your your thoughts as well.
Harvey may stay with us a little while, if that's possible,
(11:41):
six months, seven two thirty, six months, seven nine thirty
back right after this with a concluding segment with Professor
Stephen Pinker, and may or may not be a concluding
segment with Harvey Silverglate back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Right after this, It's Night Side with Dan Ray on
w Boston's News.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
We're joined by Professor Stephen Pinker of the Psychology Department
at Harvard University. In Harvey Silverglade, who is a frequent
guest and contributed to this program. So I want to
ask the question that I think in your absence a
lot of people would be thinking, that is, why does
Harvard needs need federal money when they have fifty three
billion dollars in endowments. Professor pinkerm, I'd like to start
(12:24):
with you, if that's okay.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
Sure, well, it's not just a piggy bank that it
can break open, and I use to support research indefinitely.
For one thing, a lot of those funds are earmarked
for buy their donors, for chairs, for professors, for scholarships,
for student athletic facilities. Without that money, Harvard could no
(12:46):
longer have the policy of not turning away any student
for lack of funds. No one has turned away.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
From Harvard because they can't afford.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
It, all right, Harvey, you common welfare.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
It's not kind of welfare. Harvard is giving the country
something in return, namely research on how the brain works
and how kids develop and cures for cancer. So without
that money, the Harvard couldn't support that research definitely. I
mean if it ate at seed Corn, at some point
it would be gone. And it's not just support again,
(13:20):
it is paying for research that benefits the entire population.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
All right, Harvey, let me get your response. I'm sure
you agree with Professor Pinker generally.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
I do, but I would go further. I don't care
what the money went for. I wouldn't care if Harvard
was throwing it down a sinkhole. You lose it under
a threat. That is the problem. If the White House
can threaten Harvard and this, they can virtually take over
(13:52):
and run the university. I don't agree with the Palestinian
point of view, but I believe that they be allowed
to demonstrate it's got nothing to do with what the
money was for.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
All right, gentlemen, I thank both of you. Professor Pinker,
you've stayed with us longer. I really do appreciate it.
Some night, when we get you in a room and
a chair, well we'll see if we get you for
an entire hour. But thank you very much. And again,
your scholarship is important. But your position here. The White
(14:28):
House would have been very smart, professor, to have reached
out to the leadership of this group that you have formed.
No one reached out to you and said, hey, gee,
we actually have people on college campuses who we can
form an alliance with on the issue of academic freedom
and a and some changes that might be necessary and acceptable.
Speaker 4 (14:52):
No, no, they did not. They don't have us on
speak dial unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Yeah. Well I think it's there. I think it's their loss, professor, think.
Thank you so much. We'll look forward to having you
back soon.
Speaker 4 (15:03):
Okay, thanks so much having me back, happy to speak
to you.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Thank you very much, Harvey Silver Glad. I'm gonna hold you.
We're gonna get some phone calls coming in here. Uh
as the as the as the evening goes on. Uh
and uh and I do appreciate uh you. I knew
this would be your reaction. It you know, you you
The line is pretty clear. The line is pretty clear
(15:31):
on all of these demands, and some of them. I
just wonder who wrote who wrote up this letter?
Speaker 3 (15:40):
Was it?
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Do you think it was Stephen Miller or someone like that.
I mean, it's just the letter goes way over what
I think any university would ever be able to commit to.
Your quick comment on the demands, Did we lose Harvey
some administration? Yes, towards towards Harvard. There are really there
(16:04):
are about eight of them, or I think you know,
they pulled them out of the letter. Uh. And they
they are very specific, and they're very broad, and they're
very far. They're very you know, they're they're such asks over.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
They wanted to take over. It was a non violent
takeover of Harvard University. They wanted to run the place.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Yeah, how is it that they that someone didn't look
at that? I mean, everybody there are people in the
White House are still smart people. How did not someone
look at the place and look that isn't ask that
is way beyond what we should be asking for.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
Maybe they did. Trump doesn't listen to anybody. He thinks
he's God's gifts to humanity.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
Yeah. Well, I mean, I know you've had personal dealings
with him across the table, and they can speak from
the can speak from some experience.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
You know.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
I'm going to be honest with your Harvey. I think
he's done some good things in his first eighty four
or five days whatever it is, including finally tightening up
the border. And I do think there have been some
things some of the executive orders were necessary, but this
to me seems like an overreach. I mean, the first
(17:31):
one has changed the government.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
Go ahead, even a clock that's not working is right
twice a day.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Fair enough. I'm just going to read a couple of
these change the governance of the leadership to reduce the
power of students, faculty, and administrations more committed to activism
than scholarship. I for the life of me, don't understand
what he means by that.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
Is why.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
Yeah, I mean, and it's impossible for me just gonna
respond to it. It is, it's unclear, it's it's beyond arbitrary,
vague and capricious. We'll be back with Harvey Silverglate in
phone calls. I only have one line open six, one, seven, two, five, four, ten, thirty.
All points of view are welcomed here, Okay. Do I
think that HARVD was adequate at the hearings in Washington,
(18:20):
d C. Fifteen months ago which resulted in the resignation
of the then president Claudion Gay, Absolutely not. Do I
think that they were responsive to the demonstrations that went
on on their campus, Absolutely not. Those those demonstrations never
rose to what went on at Columbia, and Harvey would
(18:41):
probably disagree with me on this one. But I was
appalled when I heard a Columbia professor say in the
wake of October seventh that the events of October seventh
left him with a feeling of exhilaration. When I come back,
I'm going to ask Harvey to comment on that stage.
Harvey is the ultimate free speech advocate here, I guess
(19:04):
have a right to be appalled. I'll see if Harvey
agrees or disagrees. Here comes the news. We'll be right
back with phone calls and Harvey Silverglade on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Night Side. Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
All right, Harvey Silverglade, you're familiar, I think with the
professor at Columbia who, in the wake of October seventh,
I think, used the phrase that he had never been
so exhilarated than when he watched that. That's a pretty
sick statement for anyone to make, never mind a college
professor that's molding the minds of young people. Does he
(19:43):
have a right to make that statement? Yeah, But I
think you also have to be responsible for what you say.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
Well, Columbia has been a disgrace. My son is an
alum of Columbia. He's very unhappy. What more can I say?
Speaker 2 (20:03):
So, I mean, you know, I guess what I'm what
I'm trying to say is I'm not asking that the
professor be fired for making that statement, because that obviously
because approachment in the First Amendment. But when you think
that somehow someone of that mentality, I'm not sure if
he's tenured or he's on tenure track or whatever, that Columbia.
(20:26):
That shows to me, within the administration of Columbia, you know,
a perversity that I don't quite understand how anyone. I mean,
I wonder what his reaction to seeing pictures of the
Holocaust would be.
Speaker 3 (20:41):
Well, all I could say is Colombia's standing in the
university world has fallen dramatically. They are going to have
a loss of donations. They're going to have a loss
of applications. It's going to destroy a previously great institute.
One decision is enough to destroy this great institution. It
(21:05):
shows how fragile reputation is.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Yeah, I guess, I guess. Let's let's get to some
phone calls here and again, folks, you have Harvey and me.
Professor Peaker had promised me ten minutes. He stay with
us longer than that. Let me go to Paul in
South Hamilton. Paul, thanks for getting the conversation going. You're
(21:31):
on with Harvey Silverglke right ahead.
Speaker 6 (21:34):
Okay, Dan and Harvey. I wish Stephen was on the phone. Also,
I'm just asking all of you to check your biases
at the door now. Harvey, do you know the arguments
of Noam Chomsky regarding what free speech is I do.
And in principle, it's if you're not for the right
(21:58):
of the speech that you despise, whether it's the speech
or the right of the person who you despise to speak,
then you're not for free speech at all. And I
think it's important that we remember this just two days
before the Revolution, in light of what the Bill of
Rights means and what an open society is. So I
(22:20):
do appreciate when Harvey you do discuss these issues in
a mature and responsible way. Dan, you're trying to go
to them with rather weak arguments, Lindsey Grahama the Senate.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
Do mean, don't accuse me of something that's inaccurate. I
think that the most interesting and probably the strongest argument
that the other point of view could raise, and was
raised last night in a couple of other context is,
and this is the way to sharpen the argument is
(22:54):
you're going to take taxpayer money from individuals who have
never been to Harvard, never had a chance to going
to Harvard, maybe never even drove by Harvard, and who
themselves have worked blue collar jobs and paid a lot
of taxes in their lives, and we're asking them to
support universities with which they disagree. It's one I don't
(23:17):
know that everyone in America is a is a disciple
of Noam Chomsky's positions on free speech, so I wasn't
trying to go to him. I knew that Harvey and
Steve Pinker would give very adequate answers, and I attempted
to give them that opportunity.
Speaker 6 (23:36):
Dan If I may just as a quick follow up,
on the floor of the Senate, Lindsey Graham spoke about
turning Gaza into a parking lot. It's the same principle
he exercises his free speech right to the floor of
the Senate.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
I get.
Speaker 6 (23:50):
It's the taxpayers pay for it, yep, just as a
college professor or foreign national student does when they're yelling
out at Harvard Square or on the.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
I think, well, again, I think when you get to
foreign nationals, you're you're in a different category here. And
Harvey may disagree with me on this, but if we're
accepting people who to come to this country to be
educated here and are foreign nationals, they're not US citizens,
they have certain rights. I'm not suggesting that they should
(24:22):
be summarily deported. No. But at the same time, I
do think that depending. I'm very troubled by the arrest
of the Turkish woman because I have seen no evidence
of her doing anything that was directly supportive of Hamas.
If all of a sudden you can show me evidence
that she was funneling money to Hamas, I'm going to
(24:43):
I'm going to be mightily convinced that I'd like to
see turn turned out of the country.
Speaker 6 (24:49):
Harvey follow up on speech versus materials support for terrorism
and also Harvey, please explain why when you're on United
States soil the Bill of Rights should apply to you
regards wardless of citizenship. Please speak about that jurisprudence, and
I'll take the answer off there.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Stay right, stay right there, Paul, because the Bill of
Rights does apply. However, people you would would you're not
going to take someone who commits a crime in the
US and who is a US citizen and say to them,
we're gonna we're going to deport you to El Salvador
and you're going to serve your prison in in Al Salvador. If,
on the other hand, someone has come here illegally and
(25:26):
they are they have committed a crime in this country illegally,
while here illegally, they become very deportable, Harvey, go right ahead.
Speaker 7 (25:35):
Yeah, I agree with you. I mean it is this
is a simple, a simple issue. It really is quite simple.
It doesn't matter what the ideological perspective of the person is,
and it's is as simple as that. Let me tell
you something. I had a.
Speaker 3 (25:55):
Client who has to be unnamed, who is a faculty
member of Columbia, and his free speech was This was
about twenty years ago. And I wrote to the General Council,
which is what lawyers have to do. They can't write
to the president directly ethically, and complained about this and
(26:20):
I got nowhere, and then I decided to write to
the Board of Columbia, and I wrote a letter to
the Board about this. General Council threatened to file a
ethics complaint against me. I told him to go right
ahead and do so. The next day, the chairman of
(26:42):
the Board contacted the President and instructed him to not
go after this professor, and the General Council never filed
an ethics complaint against me.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
That's a good result on all points. Let me ask
you this, Paul, if if if you were living here
in World War two and there was a German citizen
living in America uh and was funneling money back to
uh TO to the German army during World War Two.
Would they be deportable or or would you keep would
you keep them here?
Speaker 6 (27:18):
This is how I'll evaluate your hypothetical. First, is I
spoke about speech versus what's called material support.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
Dan right now, And I was just clarifying that that
I was appalled when the argument was made. I just
don't want you to mischaracterize my position. I was appalled
when when she was arrested on the streets for what
appears to have been an op ed piece in the
Toughs newspaper, a student newspaper. I'd like to see before
any action is taken against her, even the action that
(27:48):
has been taken, I'd like to see some proof. But
if the proof rises to a certain level, her due
process rights are not going to rise to the same
level as a US citizen.
Speaker 6 (27:58):
You know, Dan, and don't want a monopolis. But I
appreciate this back and forth. And we are so lucky
to live in a society where we can talk over
the radio freely about these issues.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
You're very lucky to have a program, I gotta tell
you're very lucky to have a program the quality of
Nightside where people like Harvey Silverglade are regular guests at
people like Stephen Pinker and last hour of the dean
of the University of Michigan Medical School. And we're lucky
to have listeners like you and calls like you, Paul, and.
Speaker 6 (28:25):
So if that made us follow up due process habeas
corpus the student from Columbia who are sent to the
detention center in Louisiana, can Harvey tell us if he
was charged with the crime.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
I don't know that he's been charged with the crime,
but I don't know what evidence they have at this point.
Speaker 6 (28:50):
Of course, are they over here to produce that evidence
to a judge.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
It's irrelevant because he would be presumed innocent.
Speaker 6 (29:11):
Right who convinces reminding? Thank you for reminding the audience
of the presumption of innocence and what a written constitution means,
particularly here in Massachusetts, which has the oldest living constitution,
in effect, the.
Speaker 3 (29:27):
Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights of the the
Bill of Rights of the US Constitution was actually patterned
entered the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, because the Declaration of
Rights is older than the Bill of Rights. Yes, thanks,
that's good.
Speaker 6 (29:45):
To remind me.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
Well, thank you very much, appreciate you call. Have a
great night. We will be back on nightside after this
very quick break. The only line of six, one, seven,
ten thirty. Let's have at it. Coming back on nightside.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
You're on night Side with on Easy Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Back to the phones we go, going to go to
Paul in Chicago. Paul, you were next on the night
Side with Harvey Silver. Go ahead, Paul, Phil. Excuse me, Phil,
I misreaded Phil in Chicago.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
Okay, here I am.
Speaker 5 (30:17):
I just want to say that I watched TV tonight
and Larry O'donnald with the Harvard and by the way
I found it, went to Boston, call it the Harvard.
That's a great show on the sky down. I'll sell
the GOP at the other Hi, Harvard grads that that's
on TV. Evan so well does Lawren. She called the
(30:38):
other day about this president, saying it will.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
Do me a favor. I have no idea if you're
talking into your cell phone, but I'm having trouble hearing you,
and I suspect Harvey might be having trouble in my audience.
So I want Rob to walk you through this and
get a better audio connection. Rob, just just get him
cleaned up for us a little bit. Let me go
to Sandra in Boston in the meantime.
Speaker 8 (31:02):
Go ahead, Sandra, Hi, Dan, thank you very much for
this topic, and I am.
Speaker 7 (31:07):
Glad that we can discuss it.
Speaker 8 (31:10):
And I too share your concerns about the Turkish students
from TOTS. This is such a complex issue. I think
a lot of these protests that are taking place on
our university campuses are not fully being operated by students
who are registered there. I think there are a lot
(31:33):
of outside vectors, you know, maybe some George source money
and other things.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
I think one of the.
Speaker 8 (31:45):
And some of what I think Trumps group may be
doing may be provocative to try to get some discussion
on the subject. I'm hoping that's kind of where what
it's about, okay. And part of that may be because
people like Peter Navarro went to prison. I mean, Peter
Navarro is a graduate of TOUGH and has a PhD
(32:07):
from Harvard. So I think this is a very complex issue,
and we look at the power structure in a place
like Boston. We have people paying property tax who have
virtually no power in electing their representatives. Anymore because the
university platforms are so powerful. I mean, look at we
(32:30):
have a senator from Oklahoma who was affiliated with Harvard.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
We have a.
Speaker 8 (32:35):
Harvard grad in the governor's seat. We have a law
student who came from Chicago, you know, via Harvard and
is the mayor, and my city councilor is affiliated with Harvard.
I mean, this is a very powerful platform that they
have to operate from. And if there's money coming from outside,
(32:59):
and if they're you know, perhaps some people who want
a certain agenda presented, it's complex.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
It's very it's very complex, and you've you've identified it
very well in my in my opinion, Sandra, where does
it take you at the end of the day on
the demands which what we're talking about, and the threats
by President Trumpell by the administration to take away Harvard's
tax exempt status.
Speaker 8 (33:31):
Well, you know how he does these things with tariffs.
You know, he kind of gets everybody edgy. It seems
to be he has this provocative style and then he
kind of reins it back in. I mean, the fact
is that Harvard has fifty three billion dollar endowment and
(33:55):
they can operate like a that's a that's the GDP
of a small country.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
Right, right. But you heard the question, and I asked,
I asked that that. I asked that question of professor Pinker,
who who is no fan of what has been going
on at Harvard for the last few years. Nor is
Harvey Silverglade a fan of what is going on at Harvard,
and he would identify with a lot of what you
just said. But they both responded, and Harvey can can
(34:22):
repeat his response if he wants that the fifty three
billion dollar endowment should be irrelevant to whether or not
it continues to receive a tax exemp status. It's one thing,
I guess to take money away from Harvard in terms
of holding back grants, et cetera. But then the next
(34:43):
step is to withdraw the tax exempt status, which means
Harvard then would have to pay tax rates. Harvey, do
you want to restate your position for Sandra in case
she missed it on that issue?
Speaker 3 (34:55):
My position is it right or wrong? Harvard state Harvard
has done the right thing. It's got nothing to do
with whether Trump is right or Harvard is right. It's
got to do with academic freedom and Harvard. Harvard will
be digging into its endowment it's taken a large loan,
(35:17):
and that's to get through this and to keep its
integrity and protect its academic freedom.
Speaker 8 (35:24):
At As a taxpayer, I've been paying taxes on a
property for forty years in the city of Boston, and
I am fully aware that over fifty percent of the
land in Boston is nonprofit and that my property taxes
have to have to make up that. And right now
(35:48):
I'm on the waiting list for a doctor. You know,
a primary care doctor that.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
Brings out last hour, that brings our last hour into
the conversation. I hope you listened to our last because
that's exactly what we were talking about. Harvey. Let me
give you final word with Sandra, and then I want
to go back and try to get Phil back in
the air hold on Sandra, Go ahead, Harvey.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
You can debate all you want whether or not universities
should have tax exemption. That is not the issue. The
issue is whether the tax exemption should be taken away
for a position that the university has taken. It's as
simple as that. To me, this is a very simple issue.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
All right, Fair enough, Sandra, thank you for your call
in your comments. I really do appreciate it. And I
hope you continue to call the show.
Speaker 8 (36:42):
Okay, thank you, thank you much.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
Let me go back Rob. Hopefully we got Phil lines
lying a little bit better. Phil, I hope we can
hear you a little bit more clearly.
Speaker 5 (36:50):
Go ahead, Hey damn it's Phil.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
Yep, Go ahead, Phil. I hope that that Rob has
approved your audio connection.
Speaker 5 (36:58):
Go right ahead. Their name is Bill. But anyway, I
see Lawrence on Donald on TV and he's one of
the best. On MSNBC. You don't see anybody like this
on Fox number two. Uh uh missus uh uh. Senator
(37:23):
was arguing with the dead president of doing away with
the him uh, the the guy in charge of money
for the fit of Reserve. How what foolish that would be.
But that's the kind of comments you get from Harvard people.
Speaker 3 (37:37):
The chat.
Speaker 5 (37:38):
They're great and I really enjoy it. And the the
other thing is that you know, uh, these other schools
like University of Texas, Alabama, Mississippi judge, what did they
do with their money? They got football teams and basketball teams,
that's all they want. Look at the basketball teams they
(38:00):
play they have, they're all black.
Speaker 3 (38:03):
They don't have U.
Speaker 5 (38:04):
I won't go into it, but it's it's it's it's
it's discussing what they do with their money.
Speaker 2 (38:10):
But well, athletics is a big is a big part
of the part of the university's bill. I think we're
venturing off into a different area here. A lot of
those schools get a great more support from their donors
because of they got a football team. And down in
Alabama football is bigger than the Red Sox and the Patriots,
the Bruins and the Celtics combined, probably.
Speaker 5 (38:30):
Because football is about if the money that have, it's
got habit's got money. They smack people gives to it.
They have reasons for giving them money. How did have
a hell of a football team, hockey, basketball, but they
decide to give them money to good cars? Is now
nothing done with that.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
They do have. They do have a good hockey team
and their football team is pretty good as well. Bill,
like I got a run.
Speaker 1 (38:58):
Part this year, I have no clue.
Speaker 2 (39:01):
I have no clue. I have no clue. I don't
I know it was either BCBU, Harvard or Northeastern that
I can tell you. One of those four teams won it.
Thanks Bill, have a great night, Harvey Silverglade. As always,
thank you, so much. I always appreciate your, uh, your participation,
and I'm glad that I could get both you and
(39:22):
Steve pinker On together because you're a couple of good guys.
Thank you so much. Did we lose Harvey?
Speaker 5 (39:31):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (39:31):
I think we I think we lost Harvey. No, okay, Harvey.
I had to say. We're heading to the eleven o'clock news.
We want to say thanks for joining us.
Speaker 3 (39:40):
It's my pleasure, my duty.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
Actually, all right, Paal, we'll talk soon, okay, thanks very much.
All right, all right, just phone calls you and me
between now and midnight. Join the conversation, your thoughts six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine three one ten thirty.
I got some open lines. Let's fill them up.
It's Night Side with Dan Ray w b Z Constance Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I thought we're getting a second newscast there. Thank you
very much, almost did. You're right, no problem. I think
all of us are aware of the fact that there
is a titanic battle going on between the Trump administration
really in the person of the president himself as well
as the people who work for him at Harvard University,
(00:26):
a lot of other really important universities around the country. Uh,
there is a group that has combined from Columbia, Harvard, Princeton,
and others, one of whom has been a guest on
this program before, Professor Stephen Pinker, Professor of psychology at
Harvard University. Professor Pinker, welcome to Nights Out. I know
(00:48):
you have limited time, and I hope that the signal
holds for us here. If I were to characterize you
as someone who is not has not been happy with
some of the recent trends at Harvard University in terms
of intellectual diversity. You have been critical of the administration
(01:09):
on some of these issues, and yet you are just
as critical now of Donald Trump's administration as he threatens
to potentially even go as far as to take away
the tax exempt status of the university. Some people might
see those as inconsistent. I do not. I'd like you
(01:31):
to explain them.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Sure. Well.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
I've been a pretty vocal critic of Harvard. I wrote
a viral article a few years ago called the Trouble
with Harvard. I wrote an article for The Boston Globe
last year called a five point plan for Harvard to
save itself. I formed the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard,
with where two hundred faculty are pushing back against what
(01:54):
we thought of as not enough a commitment to academic freedom,
to intellectual diversity. But we've been pushing Harvard to reform.
I think we've had a number of successes. Harvard scrapped
the diversity statements that we did out out job applicants
who weren't woke ideologues. We got them to stop issuing pronouncements.
(02:18):
We've got them to just public commit to the idea
that diversity of viewpoints is a good thing and that
has to be fostered. Lots of stuff has been happening.
The latest list of demands the ultimatum from the Trump
administration on Friday night is it's just platently ridiculous, as
(02:39):
one of my colleagues said, it's an offer that Harvard
could not refuse. They would put government bureaucrats in charge
of maintaining viewpoint diversity in every department without saying what
viewpoint diversity means. Does this mean that government bureaucrats could
put creation in the biology department and anti factors?
Speaker 3 (03:02):
And the.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
It says that we've got to vet students, not in
any students who don't endorse American values. Well, you know,
I come from Canada, and I'm here to tell you
that a lot of Canadians say that the US has
too many guns and engages in stupid wars and that
doesn't have a good healthcare system. Are we supposed to
keep them out? The thing is, if the whole point
(03:27):
of the Trump pressure was to enhance freedom of thought,
academic freedom, viewpoint diversity. But if you've got a bunch
of government bureaucrats telling us who our professors have to be,
what kind of students we admit, setting up a by
the way, massive bureaucracy to audit every unit and file
(03:47):
reports with the government every three months, you know, I
don't even know if they were serious that Harvard could
ever accept this, because it really means handing over Harvard
to a hostile takeover. I suspect that they were kind
of setting up a confrontation.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Well, the other thing is that, you know, Trump obviously
overstating what he hopes to accomplish, so called art of
the deal. A lot of we talked about this last night,
and a lot of the demands on Harvard, by the way,
demands that Columbia in many ways acquiesced to another Ivy
League college, a lot of them, lawyers would say would
be vague, arbitrary and capricious. Again, and you've highlighted some
(04:28):
of those as to who would set up how what
standard would be used. And you know when they talk
about American values, well, different people have different explanations of
American values, Professor Pinker. We're joined by a mutual friend
of ours, Harvey Silverwade, and they just I know that
you're limited on time, and I want to make sure
Harvey has a chance to say hello. He says he
(04:51):
has a bit of a surprise, and Harvey always has
good surprises. So let's say, let's let's just bring Harvey
into the conversation. Harvey, welcome back. As always, you're on
with someone who needs no introduction to you, A colleague
and a friend, Professor Steve Pinker of Harvard University. Go ahead, Harvey.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
By coincidence, I wrote a letter two hours ago. I
dated in April eighteenth, because I planned to mail her
tomorrow morning a postal letter. It reads as follows, Alan
Garbe President, John Manning, Provost Harvard University. Dear Allan and John,
(05:33):
as you can well understand, I'm very pleased that Harvard
is standing up to Donald Trump. In my view, Trump
is associopath, a person with no moral compass. I realize
that taking this stand will be financially painful for Harvard
in the short term, but Trump will be gone in
a bid under four years. Parenthesis has claimed that he
(05:56):
can win the third term is legal and constitutional. Monson's
close parentheses. Harvard, on the other hand, is older than
our nation itself. It shall prevail. Congratulations for showing some backbone.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Harvey Silverglade and Harvey Silverglade, someone who's been critical of Harvard.
We seem to have lost Steve Pinker. Rob See if
you can bring Professor Pinker back, please, I think that
he just got into a bad cell zone. If you
can try to re establish that connection with him. I
know that he never would have hung up on us
(06:30):
or on Harvey. From a legal point of view, Harvey,
obviously you probably have the same view of I do
as I do, and as Professor Pinker described, you know, vague, arbitrary,
capricious demands. I look at it as if Donald Trump
is looking at this as a negotiation of real estate negotiation.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
That's how he looks at all these situations.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
I know you had some personal dealings with him over
the years, Professor Pinker back with us, rob Okay, Professor Pinker,
thank you. I think we lost you there for a
couple of minutes. Harvey has just written a letter to
the President of Harvard, President Garber, in which he commends
(07:15):
him for all of this. We were just to bring
you back into the conversation. We were just talking, Harvey
and I about this. Is Donald Trump unrestrained, who was
looking at this more as a real estate deal, saying, look,
you know, I want to buy this building, but I
also want to have to buy these other two buildings,
(07:35):
and that he's not looking at it as as a
as a leak. From a legal perspective, I think he's
just he's overreaching as he would in any so called
art of the deal. Are we far off on that,
Professor Pinker feel free again? Harvey's still with us on
the line.
Speaker 5 (07:54):
Yes, I don't think it's that, just because I.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
Don't think this is good faith negotiation. When it came
to Columbia, the ultimatum was you've got to do the
following things, and even if you do, we don't promise
to restore funding. And again with Harvard, where the demands
are far more extreme than what he usould with Columbia.
They're so over the top it's not good that Harvard
(08:20):
could could accept any of them. They're just not a
reasonable starting point for negotiations. Nor is there a promise
that if Harvard did them, then the universe that the
Trump administration we're back off as opposed to pocketing the
conceptions and concessions and upping the ante. So we're dealing
with someone, I think, who just wants to dominate, to
(08:40):
fully to humiliate. You know, we've seen that in his
other negotiating so called negotiations with Canada, with Denmark, with Ukraine.
So it doesn't seem like just real estate deal where
two parties try to hammer out an agreement and meet
somewhere in the middle.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Yeah. Well, I just think that his style is to
is to ask for more and then accept what he can.
Maybe there's nothing that Harvard would acquiesce to has anyone
from the administration recognizing that there are people who should
be aligned with them, not necessarily philosophically, but at least
(09:20):
on the broader issue of what was going on on
campuses a year and a year and a half ago
post October seventh. You know, some of the issuance I
know with Columbia was students no longer could be masked
to hide their identities. There was there was more, I thought,
outrageous behavior at Harvard at Columbia than at Harvard. I
(09:42):
know Harvard had some incidents. They seemed to me to
be less organized. If you if you understand what I'm
trying to suggest.
Speaker 4 (09:53):
Oh, absolutely, yeah, Columbia. Harvard was bad, Columbia was worse.
And you know, it was just a question of follow
your own rules, your own procedures of due process. If
students clearly cross the line from peaceful process protests to
intimidation and occupation, then apply the rules consistently. And neither
(10:16):
Harvard nor Columbia has done that, and if that was
the demand Harvard could easily have I've said yes, But
turning over the keys to hiring, admissions promotion to the
Trump administration in effect goes way beyond just enforcing rules
that are on the book that Harvard could easily have
lived with.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Okay, I want to ask a question when I come
back that I know is in the minds of some
of my listeners, and Professor Pinker, I know what We've
cut it at ten minutes. I'm just going to ask
the one question to both you and Harvey when we
come back. If that's okay, and that is you can
think about the answer. But I had people last night
who were saying to me, well, Harvard has a fifty
three billion dollar in doman, why do they need taxpayer money? Anyway,
(10:58):
I'd like to get a response from both both of you.
Do that, and then Professor Pinker, I will let you
get home with the rest of your evening, and Harvey,
I will I will thank you for your participation as well.
Could you both just give me a couple of minutes,
get through a couple of commercial messages, and respond to
that point, because that was a point that folks continued
to raise with me last night on the show. They
(11:18):
have fifty feet three billion, why do they need taxpayer money?
Fair enough, that's the question you'll ask. And okay, we'll
be back with Harvey Silverglate and Professor Stephen Pinker of
the Psychology Department at Harvard University. And if you'd like
to jump on board. They will be leaving us, but
I want to open up to your your thoughts as well.
Harvey may stay with us a little while, if that's possible,
(11:41):
six months, seven two thirty, six months, seven nine thirty
back right after this with a concluding segment with Professor
Stephen Pinker, and may or may not be a concluding
segment with Harvey Silverglate back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Right after this, It's Night Side with Dan Ray on
w Boston's News.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
We're joined by Professor Stephen Pinker of the Psychology Department
at Harvard University. In Harvey Silverglade, who is a frequent
guest and contributed to this program. So I want to
ask the question that I think in your absence a
lot of people would be thinking, that is, why does
Harvard needs need federal money when they have fifty three
billion dollars in endowments. Professor pinkerm, I'd like to start
(12:24):
with you, if that's okay.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
Sure, well, it's not just a piggy bank that it
can break open, and I use to support research indefinitely.
For one thing, a lot of those funds are earmarked
for buy their donors, for chairs, for professors, for scholarships,
for student athletic facilities. Without that money, Harvard could no
(12:46):
longer have the policy of not turning away any student
for lack of funds. No one has turned away.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
From Harvard because they can't afford.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
It, all right, Harvey, you common welfare.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
It's not kind of welfare. Harvard is giving the country
something in return, namely research on how the brain works
and how kids develop and cures for cancer. So without
that money, the Harvard couldn't support that research definitely. I
mean if it ate at seed Corn, at some point
it would be gone. And it's not just support again,
(13:20):
it is paying for research that benefits the entire population.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
All right, Harvey, let me get your response. I'm sure
you agree with Professor Pinker generally.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
I do, but I would go further. I don't care
what the money went for. I wouldn't care if Harvard
was throwing it down a sinkhole. You lose it under
a threat. That is the problem. If the White House
can threaten Harvard and this, they can virtually take over
(13:52):
and run the university. I don't agree with the Palestinian
point of view, but I believe that they be allowed
to demonstrate it's got nothing to do with what the
money was for.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
All right, gentlemen, I thank both of you. Professor Pinker,
you've stayed with us longer. I really do appreciate it.
Some night, when we get you in a room and
a chair, well we'll see if we get you for
an entire hour. But thank you very much. And again,
your scholarship is important. But your position here. The White
(14:28):
House would have been very smart, professor, to have reached
out to the leadership of this group that you have formed.
No one reached out to you and said, hey, gee,
we actually have people on college campuses who we can
form an alliance with on the issue of academic freedom
and a and some changes that might be necessary and acceptable.
Speaker 4 (14:52):
No, no, they did not. They don't have us on
speak dial unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Yeah. Well I think it's there. I think it's their loss, professor, think.
Thank you so much. We'll look forward to having you
back soon.
Speaker 4 (15:03):
Okay, thanks so much having me back, happy to speak
to you.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Thank you very much, Harvey Silver Glad. I'm gonna hold you.
We're gonna get some phone calls coming in here. Uh
as the as the as the evening goes on. Uh
and uh and I do appreciate uh you. I knew
this would be your reaction. It you know, you you
The line is pretty clear. The line is pretty clear
(15:31):
on all of these demands, and some of them. I
just wonder who wrote who wrote up this letter?
Speaker 3 (15:40):
Was it?
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Do you think it was Stephen Miller or someone like that.
I mean, it's just the letter goes way over what
I think any university would ever be able to commit to.
Your quick comment on the demands, Did we lose Harvey
some administration? Yes, towards towards Harvard. There are really there
(16:04):
are about eight of them, or I think you know,
they pulled them out of the letter. Uh. And they
they are very specific, and they're very broad, and they're
very far. They're very you know, they're they're such asks over.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
They wanted to take over. It was a non violent
takeover of Harvard University. They wanted to run the place.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Yeah, how is it that they that someone didn't look
at that? I mean, everybody there are people in the
White House are still smart people. How did not someone
look at the place and look that isn't ask that
is way beyond what we should be asking for.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
Maybe they did. Trump doesn't listen to anybody. He thinks
he's God's gifts to humanity.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
Yeah. Well, I mean, I know you've had personal dealings
with him across the table, and they can speak from
the can speak from some experience.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
You know.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
I'm going to be honest with your Harvey. I think
he's done some good things in his first eighty four
or five days whatever it is, including finally tightening up
the border. And I do think there have been some
things some of the executive orders were necessary, but this
to me seems like an overreach. I mean, the first
(17:31):
one has changed the government.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
Go ahead, even a clock that's not working is right
twice a day.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Fair enough. I'm just going to read a couple of
these change the governance of the leadership to reduce the
power of students, faculty, and administrations more committed to activism
than scholarship. I for the life of me, don't understand
what he means by that.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
Is why.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
Yeah, I mean, and it's impossible for me just gonna
respond to it. It is, it's unclear, it's it's beyond arbitrary,
vague and capricious. We'll be back with Harvey Silverglate in
phone calls. I only have one line open six, one, seven, two, five, four, ten, thirty.
All points of view are welcomed here, Okay. Do I
think that HARVD was adequate at the hearings in Washington,
(18:20):
d C. Fifteen months ago which resulted in the resignation
of the then president Claudion Gay, Absolutely not. Do I
think that they were responsive to the demonstrations that went
on on their campus, Absolutely not. Those those demonstrations never
rose to what went on at Columbia, and Harvey would
(18:41):
probably disagree with me on this one. But I was
appalled when I heard a Columbia professor say in the
wake of October seventh that the events of October seventh
left him with a feeling of exhilaration. When I come back,
I'm going to ask Harvey to comment on that stage.
Harvey is the ultimate free speech advocate here, I guess
(19:04):
have a right to be appalled. I'll see if Harvey
agrees or disagrees. Here comes the news. We'll be right
back with phone calls and Harvey Silverglade on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Night Side. Dan Ray on WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
All right, Harvey Silverglade, you're familiar, I think with the
professor at Columbia who, in the wake of October seventh,
I think, used the phrase that he had never been
so exhilarated than when he watched that. That's a pretty
sick statement for anyone to make, never mind a college
professor that's molding the minds of young people. Does he
(19:43):
have a right to make that statement? Yeah, But I
think you also have to be responsible for what you say.
Speaker 3 (19:51):
Well, Columbia has been a disgrace. My son is an
alum of Columbia. He's very unhappy. What more can I say?
Speaker 2 (20:03):
So, I mean, you know, I guess what I'm what
I'm trying to say is I'm not asking that the
professor be fired for making that statement, because that obviously
because approachment in the First Amendment. But when you think
that somehow someone of that mentality, I'm not sure if
he's tenured or he's on tenure track or whatever, that Columbia.
(20:26):
That shows to me, within the administration of Columbia, you know,
a perversity that I don't quite understand how anyone. I mean,
I wonder what his reaction to seeing pictures of the
Holocaust would be.
Speaker 3 (20:41):
Well, all I could say is Colombia's standing in the
university world has fallen dramatically. They are going to have
a loss of donations. They're going to have a loss
of applications. It's going to destroy a previously great institute.
One decision is enough to destroy this great institution. It
(21:05):
shows how fragile reputation is.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Yeah, I guess, I guess. Let's let's get to some
phone calls here and again, folks, you have Harvey and me.
Professor Peaker had promised me ten minutes. He stay with
us longer than that. Let me go to Paul in
South Hamilton. Paul, thanks for getting the conversation going. You're
(21:31):
on with Harvey Silverglke right ahead.
Speaker 6 (21:34):
Okay, Dan and Harvey. I wish Stephen was on the phone. Also,
I'm just asking all of you to check your biases
at the door now. Harvey, do you know the arguments
of Noam Chomsky regarding what free speech is I do.
And in principle, it's if you're not for the right
(21:58):
of the speech that you despise, whether it's the speech
or the right of the person who you despise to speak,
then you're not for free speech at all. And I
think it's important that we remember this just two days
before the Revolution, in light of what the Bill of
Rights means and what an open society is. So I
(22:20):
do appreciate when Harvey you do discuss these issues in
a mature and responsible way. Dan, you're trying to go
to them with rather weak arguments, Lindsey Grahama the Senate.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
Do mean, don't accuse me of something that's inaccurate. I
think that the most interesting and probably the strongest argument
that the other point of view could raise, and was
raised last night in a couple of other context is,
and this is the way to sharpen the argument is
(22:54):
you're going to take taxpayer money from individuals who have
never been to Harvard, never had a chance to going
to Harvard, maybe never even drove by Harvard, and who
themselves have worked blue collar jobs and paid a lot
of taxes in their lives, and we're asking them to
support universities with which they disagree. It's one I don't
(23:17):
know that everyone in America is a is a disciple
of Noam Chomsky's positions on free speech, so I wasn't
trying to go to him. I knew that Harvey and
Steve Pinker would give very adequate answers, and I attempted
to give them that opportunity.
Speaker 6 (23:36):
Dan If I may just as a quick follow up,
on the floor of the Senate, Lindsey Graham spoke about
turning Gaza into a parking lot. It's the same principle
he exercises his free speech right to the floor of
the Senate.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
I get.
Speaker 6 (23:50):
It's the taxpayers pay for it, yep, just as a
college professor or foreign national student does when they're yelling
out at Harvard Square or on the.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
I think, well, again, I think when you get to
foreign nationals, you're you're in a different category here. And
Harvey may disagree with me on this, but if we're
accepting people who to come to this country to be
educated here and are foreign nationals, they're not US citizens,
they have certain rights. I'm not suggesting that they should
(24:22):
be summarily deported. No. But at the same time, I
do think that depending. I'm very troubled by the arrest
of the Turkish woman because I have seen no evidence
of her doing anything that was directly supportive of Hamas.
If all of a sudden you can show me evidence
that she was funneling money to Hamas, I'm going to
(24:43):
I'm going to be mightily convinced that I'd like to
see turn turned out of the country.
Speaker 6 (24:49):
Harvey follow up on speech versus materials support for terrorism
and also Harvey, please explain why when you're on United
States soil the Bill of Rights should apply to you
regards wardless of citizenship. Please speak about that jurisprudence, and
I'll take the answer off there.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Stay right, stay right there, Paul, because the Bill of
Rights does apply. However, people you would would you're not
going to take someone who commits a crime in the
US and who is a US citizen and say to them,
we're gonna we're going to deport you to El Salvador
and you're going to serve your prison in in Al Salvador. If,
on the other hand, someone has come here illegally and
(25:26):
they are they have committed a crime in this country illegally,
while here illegally, they become very deportable, Harvey, go right ahead.
Speaker 7 (25:35):
Yeah, I agree with you. I mean it is this
is a simple, a simple issue. It really is quite simple.
It doesn't matter what the ideological perspective of the person is,
and it's is as simple as that. Let me tell
you something. I had a.
Speaker 3 (25:55):
Client who has to be unnamed, who is a faculty
member of Columbia, and his free speech was This was
about twenty years ago. And I wrote to the General Council,
which is what lawyers have to do. They can't write
to the president directly ethically, and complained about this and
(26:20):
I got nowhere, and then I decided to write to
the Board of Columbia, and I wrote a letter to
the Board about this. General Council threatened to file a
ethics complaint against me. I told him to go right
ahead and do so. The next day, the chairman of
(26:42):
the Board contacted the President and instructed him to not
go after this professor, and the General Council never filed
an ethics complaint against me.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
That's a good result on all points. Let me ask
you this, Paul, if if if you were living here
in World War two and there was a German citizen
living in America uh and was funneling money back to
uh TO to the German army during World War Two.
Would they be deportable or or would you keep would
you keep them here?
Speaker 6 (27:18):
This is how I'll evaluate your hypothetical. First, is I
spoke about speech versus what's called material support.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
Dan right now, And I was just clarifying that that
I was appalled when the argument was made. I just
don't want you to mischaracterize my position. I was appalled
when when she was arrested on the streets for what
appears to have been an op ed piece in the
Toughs newspaper, a student newspaper. I'd like to see before
any action is taken against her, even the action that
(27:48):
has been taken, I'd like to see some proof. But
if the proof rises to a certain level, her due
process rights are not going to rise to the same
level as a US citizen.
Speaker 6 (27:58):
You know, Dan, and don't want a monopolis. But I
appreciate this back and forth. And we are so lucky
to live in a society where we can talk over
the radio freely about these issues.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
You're very lucky to have a program, I gotta tell
you're very lucky to have a program the quality of
Nightside where people like Harvey Silverglade are regular guests at
people like Stephen Pinker and last hour of the dean
of the University of Michigan Medical School. And we're lucky
to have listeners like you and calls like you, Paul, and.
Speaker 6 (28:25):
So if that made us follow up due process habeas
corpus the student from Columbia who are sent to the
detention center in Louisiana, can Harvey tell us if he
was charged with the crime.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
I don't know that he's been charged with the crime,
but I don't know what evidence they have at this point.
Speaker 6 (28:50):
Of course, are they over here to produce that evidence
to a judge.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
It's irrelevant because he would be presumed innocent.
Speaker 6 (29:11):
Right who convinces reminding? Thank you for reminding the audience
of the presumption of innocence and what a written constitution means,
particularly here in Massachusetts, which has the oldest living constitution,
in effect, the.
Speaker 3 (29:27):
Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights of the the
Bill of Rights of the US Constitution was actually patterned
entered the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, because the Declaration of
Rights is older than the Bill of Rights. Yes, thanks,
that's good.
Speaker 6 (29:45):
To remind me.
Speaker 2 (29:45):
Well, thank you very much, appreciate you call. Have a
great night. We will be back on nightside after this
very quick break. The only line of six, one, seven,
ten thirty. Let's have at it. Coming back on nightside.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
You're on night Side with on Easy Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Back to the phones we go, going to go to
Paul in Chicago. Paul, you were next on the night
Side with Harvey Silver. Go ahead, Paul, Phil. Excuse me, Phil,
I misreaded Phil in Chicago.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
Okay, here I am.
Speaker 5 (30:17):
I just want to say that I watched TV tonight
and Larry O'donnald with the Harvard and by the way
I found it, went to Boston, call it the Harvard.
That's a great show on the sky down. I'll sell
the GOP at the other Hi, Harvard grads that that's
on TV. Evan so well does Lawren. She called the
(30:38):
other day about this president, saying it will.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
Do me a favor. I have no idea if you're
talking into your cell phone, but I'm having trouble hearing you,
and I suspect Harvey might be having trouble in my audience.
So I want Rob to walk you through this and
get a better audio connection. Rob, just just get him
cleaned up for us a little bit. Let me go
to Sandra in Boston in the meantime.
Speaker 8 (31:02):
Go ahead, Sandra, Hi, Dan, thank you very much for
this topic, and I am.
Speaker 7 (31:07):
Glad that we can discuss it.
Speaker 8 (31:10):
And I too share your concerns about the Turkish students
from TOTS. This is such a complex issue. I think
a lot of these protests that are taking place on
our university campuses are not fully being operated by students
who are registered there. I think there are a lot
(31:33):
of outside vectors, you know, maybe some George source money
and other things.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
I think one of the.
Speaker 8 (31:45):
And some of what I think Trumps group may be
doing may be provocative to try to get some discussion
on the subject. I'm hoping that's kind of where what
it's about, okay. And part of that may be because
people like Peter Navarro went to prison. I mean, Peter
Navarro is a graduate of TOUGH and has a PhD
(32:07):
from Harvard. So I think this is a very complex issue,
and we look at the power structure in a place
like Boston. We have people paying property tax who have
virtually no power in electing their representatives. Anymore because the
university platforms are so powerful. I mean, look at we
(32:30):
have a senator from Oklahoma who was affiliated with Harvard.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
We have a.
Speaker 8 (32:35):
Harvard grad in the governor's seat. We have a law
student who came from Chicago, you know, via Harvard and
is the mayor, and my city councilor is affiliated with Harvard.
I mean, this is a very powerful platform that they
have to operate from. And if there's money coming from outside,
(32:59):
and if they're you know, perhaps some people who want
a certain agenda presented, it's complex.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
It's very it's very complex, and you've you've identified it
very well in my in my opinion, Sandra, where does
it take you at the end of the day on
the demands which what we're talking about, and the threats
by President Trumpell by the administration to take away Harvard's
tax exempt status.
Speaker 8 (33:31):
Well, you know how he does these things with tariffs.
You know, he kind of gets everybody edgy. It seems
to be he has this provocative style and then he
kind of reins it back in. I mean, the fact
is that Harvard has fifty three billion dollar endowment and
(33:55):
they can operate like a that's a that's the GDP
of a small country.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
Right, right. But you heard the question, and I asked,
I asked that that. I asked that question of professor Pinker,
who who is no fan of what has been going
on at Harvard for the last few years. Nor is
Harvey Silverglade a fan of what is going on at Harvard,
and he would identify with a lot of what you
just said. But they both responded, and Harvey can can
(34:22):
repeat his response if he wants that the fifty three
billion dollar endowment should be irrelevant to whether or not
it continues to receive a tax exemp status. It's one thing,
I guess to take money away from Harvard in terms
of holding back grants, et cetera. But then the next
(34:43):
step is to withdraw the tax exempt status, which means
Harvard then would have to pay tax rates. Harvey, do
you want to restate your position for Sandra in case
she missed it on that issue?
Speaker 3 (34:55):
My position is it right or wrong? Harvard state Harvard
has done the right thing. It's got nothing to do
with whether Trump is right or Harvard is right. It's
got to do with academic freedom and Harvard. Harvard will
be digging into its endowment it's taken a large loan,
(35:17):
and that's to get through this and to keep its
integrity and protect its academic freedom.
Speaker 8 (35:24):
At As a taxpayer, I've been paying taxes on a
property for forty years in the city of Boston, and
I am fully aware that over fifty percent of the
land in Boston is nonprofit and that my property taxes
have to have to make up that. And right now
(35:48):
I'm on the waiting list for a doctor. You know,
a primary care doctor that.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
Brings out last hour, that brings our last hour into
the conversation. I hope you listened to our last because
that's exactly what we were talking about. Harvey. Let me
give you final word with Sandra, and then I want
to go back and try to get Phil back in
the air hold on Sandra, Go ahead, Harvey.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
You can debate all you want whether or not universities
should have tax exemption. That is not the issue. The
issue is whether the tax exemption should be taken away
for a position that the university has taken. It's as
simple as that. To me, this is a very simple issue.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
All right, Fair enough, Sandra, thank you for your call
in your comments. I really do appreciate it. And I
hope you continue to call the show.
Speaker 8 (36:42):
Okay, thank you, thank you much.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
Let me go back Rob. Hopefully we got Phil lines
lying a little bit better. Phil, I hope we can
hear you a little bit more clearly.
Speaker 5 (36:50):
Go ahead, Hey damn it's Phil.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
Yep, Go ahead, Phil. I hope that that Rob has
approved your audio connection.
Speaker 5 (36:58):
Go right ahead. Their name is Bill. But anyway, I
see Lawrence on Donald on TV and he's one of
the best. On MSNBC. You don't see anybody like this
on Fox number two. Uh uh missus uh uh. Senator
(37:23):
was arguing with the dead president of doing away with
the him uh, the the guy in charge of money
for the fit of Reserve. How what foolish that would be.
But that's the kind of comments you get from Harvard people.
Speaker 3 (37:37):
The chat.
Speaker 5 (37:38):
They're great and I really enjoy it. And the the
other thing is that you know, uh, these other schools
like University of Texas, Alabama, Mississippi judge, what did they
do with their money? They got football teams and basketball teams,
that's all they want. Look at the basketball teams they
(38:00):
play they have, they're all black.
Speaker 3 (38:03):
They don't have U.
Speaker 5 (38:04):
I won't go into it, but it's it's it's it's
it's discussing what they do with their money.
Speaker 2 (38:10):
But well, athletics is a big is a big part
of the part of the university's bill. I think we're
venturing off into a different area here. A lot of
those schools get a great more support from their donors
because of they got a football team. And down in
Alabama football is bigger than the Red Sox and the Patriots,
the Bruins and the Celtics combined, probably.
Speaker 5 (38:30):
Because football is about if the money that have, it's
got habit's got money. They smack people gives to it.
They have reasons for giving them money. How did have
a hell of a football team, hockey, basketball, but they
decide to give them money to good cars? Is now
nothing done with that.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
They do have. They do have a good hockey team
and their football team is pretty good as well. Bill,
like I got a run.
Speaker 1 (38:58):
Part this year, I have no clue.
Speaker 2 (39:01):
I have no clue. I have no clue. I don't
I know it was either BCBU, Harvard or Northeastern that
I can tell you. One of those four teams won it.
Thanks Bill, have a great night, Harvey Silverglade. As always,
thank you, so much. I always appreciate your, uh, your participation,
and I'm glad that I could get both you and
(39:22):
Steve pinker On together because you're a couple of good guys.
Thank you so much. Did we lose Harvey?
Speaker 5 (39:31):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (39:31):
I think we I think we lost Harvey. No, okay, Harvey.
I had to say. We're heading to the eleven o'clock news.
We want to say thanks for joining us.
Speaker 3 (39:40):
It's my pleasure, my duty.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
Actually, all right, Paal, we'll talk soon, okay, thanks very much.
All right, all right, just phone calls you and me
between now and midnight. Join the conversation, your thoughts six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine three one ten thirty.
I got some open lines. Let's fill them up.
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!