John Shattuck and I spoke to the Class of 1965 at the Yale Reunion in May of 2025. I spoke about freedom of expression on campus. See remarks below.

John Shattuck and I will offer some opening thoughts on the pressure universities are under these days and then open the floor for discussion. We want to hear your questions for Yale and thoughts about how it should respond- take the Columbia approach and compromise or follow Harvard and resist demands that would compromise the independence of universities and erode free speech and research on campus. 

John will talk about the pressure universities are facing and I will provide historical context from my experience at Yale and The New School. In my September 1990 Aims of Education address to first year students at the New School, I said “no one in this community should have to endure coercion, torment, ridicule, intimidation or exclusion or be subject to acts of enmity or insensitivity. Our university must be in the words of political theorist Amy Gutman, “a sanctuary of non-repression.” The question, I argued, went beyond free speech and I said policy “must not compromise the university’s commitment to freedom of expression.” 

In this difficult time, Yale has faired better than most universities in protecting freedom of expression and respecting and containing student demonstrations so they do not interrupt classes or speakers. 

The President and her team have given good leadership. But the key to why Yale has done better relates to its culture that is shaped by the Woodward Report and Yale’s respect for students of all backgrounds. Those values were cultivated in the late 1960s and 1970s 

I owe my intense commitment to the ability of any speaker invited to the New School to speak to my Yale experience and the Woodward Report. 

Kingman Brewster was my most important mentor and model in all the jobs I have had. 

He has conceded that he should have handled the Political Unions’ invitation to George Wallace in the fall of 1963 better. We were at Yale then and recall the controversy sparked by Kingman’s concern with what Wallace’s presence would mean to New Haven’s black community. That experience clarified his commitment for being sure that speakers invited by campus groups could speak. 

The next test that I recall was when I was in the President’s Office and was on the security team for William Westmoreland’s talk to the political union in April 1972. The crowd gathered in the Law School auditorium included many non Yale people prepared to disrupt the talk. In the judgement of Westmorland’s advance team Yale campus police were understaffed. Westmorland was having dinner at Mory’s and his staff recommended he not try to speak so he canceled. 

It was a national news story and Kingman wrote a letter of apology to which Westmorland responded that “I do not consider the actions of a few people to be a reflection of the attitudes of the student body, faculty and alumni of your distinguished institution.” He further said that at a reception and dinner that preceded the talk “I participated in open and candid dialogue that ranged over a wide spectrum of subjects- the exchange of views was quite rewarding.” He concluded by inviting 80 members of the Political Union to the Pentagon to continue the discussion. 

But the pressure on Yale built as William Rogers cancelled his speaking date at Yale in May. As you recall, alumni sentiment on Kingman was mixed given that he lead in admitting women, dropping the quota on admissions of Jewish students, and vigorous efforts to recruit more minorities. An alumni group Lux Et Veritas saw freedom of Expression as a good tool for attacking Kingman so it gave money to conservative students to invite controversial speakers likely to be shouted down starting with Harvard Professor Richard Herrnstein who studied the genetic transmission of human intelligence. Yale moved the event to Sprague Hall, had more police visible and the event was not disrupted. 

The next challenge was the nnvitation by the Political Union to Stanford Professor William Shockley who argued for genetic inferiority of blacks and proposed voluntary sterilization. The Black law student organization, The Black Student Alliance and others urged withdrawing the invitation and the political union voted 200- 190 to withdraw it. 

Next Lux Et Veritas re issued the invitation causing president Brewster to say “the use of free speech as game, the lack of sensitivity to others is reprehensible.” Lux Et Veritas backed down. Then another organization invited Shockley but also backed down. 

Not over yet. A new conservative student group “young Americans for freedom” invited him for an April talk. We picked 114 SSS as a place with few entrances, and a back door. We had police at the front door screening people as they entered. We spoke to Shockley telling him that there might a disruption and so he should sit down on stage while we quieted the audience. We assured him of our commitment to his safety and ability to speak. 

Sure enough there was a minority of the audience who shouted out. Sam Chauncy asked Shockley to sit down and sought to quiet the audience which eventually happened. Shockley was invited to resume his talk but instead went to the black board on stage and wrote “Shame on Yale” which caused even more people to shout out at the insult. Shockley turned to us and said “you see there is no free speech at Yale” Mission accomplished, he turned away and walked out the back door. 

The coverage on and off campus was painful. Kingman rightly thought we needed a process to clarify our free speech policy and commitment. He approved a blue-ribbon committee chaired by historian C Van Woodward that included Silliman Master Eli Clark, Bob Dahl, Marjorie Garber, Alumni leader Lloyd Cutler, as well as recent graduates and students. 

The committee documented the history I just summarized and was balanced in its evaluation of how Yale handled the challenges. It reaffirmed Yale’s commitment to a campus where outside speakers would be respected but also called for a deeper culture of Intellectual freedom where students could speak their minds and faculty pursue their research unfettered by internal or external pressures. 

And it got very specific about actions Yale should take. Some examples: 

1. Reeducate the community on Yale’s commitment to intellectual freedom and to discuss speech rights in every college and school 
2. There was no right to protest in the Yale building and disrupt an event. 
3. And if an event in lecture hall has dissenters they should not disrupt the event and stop when moderator asks
4. University should be better prepared- restrict attendance to potentially controversial events by requiring a Yale ID card for admissions, select venues easy to defend. Announce Sanctions in advance and implement them. Have a special tribunal to discipline disruptors

The Woodward report has guided Yale for a half century now- recommendations and principles still relevant. As a consequence, Yale has done better than most Universities in handling protests on key public issues and making Yale “a sanctuary of non repression” a culture where freedom of speech and thought are respected. Not perfect we know but clear in its policies and committed to following through. 

And a model for other universities. Let me give you a brief history of how I applied what I learned to the New School in New York where I was president for 17 years. In my early days, September 1982, marine recruiter were disrupted on campus and touched off a conflict between the undergraduates being recruited and the graduate students who disrupted the event. 

I was sorry to learn that the New School had no policies in place on free speech- and had learned nothing from the Woodward Report.

So, I appointed the New Schools’ own version of the Woodward committee chaired by Ira Katznelson, the new Dean of the Graduate Faculty. It began as a university in Exile in 1934 recruiting and rescuing Jewish intellectuals from Germany and elsewhere in Europe so protection of scholarly freedom was in its DNA. 

The Katznelson committee provided an excellent draft which I then circulated to the whole New School/ Parsons community and had 6 months of discussion so it would have wide community buy-in, including from students. Its central premise was “A University in any meaning sense of the term is compromised without unhindered exchange of ideas, however unpopular, and the assurance that both the presentation and congregation of ideas takes place freely and without coercion.” 

And the report was clear on specifics “we believe strongly that any bona fide faculty or student organization has the right to invite to the New School speakers representing any and all points of view; that the University has an obligation to provide available space… most important that all members of the Community share in the obligation to ensure such events and forums proceed without an abridgment of the right of the speaker to be heard.   

That policy worked well for 5 years until Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin came to speak in 1990. We knew the event could be subject to disruption so we cut off ticket sales several days in advance. Rabin’s security guards were on the stage behind a curtain, worried because anti Palestinian leader Meir Kahane had been recently assassinated in Brooklyn. 

As president I briefed Rabin on our free speech policy and asked him to yield the podium to me if interrupted. I introduced him and within minutes Palestinians scattered around the auditorium in the middle of rows shouted out. I tried to take the podium to give the warning to the crowd but Rabin pushed me away- on three separate tries. I sent a message to my deputy who was working with the police to send them in but they refused because Rabin was arguing with the crowd. So, I made a determined 4th attempt to move him not knowing he had decided to yield so we fell over clutching each other. I then asked for the police to come in which they did and quickly cleared the protestors so Rabin was able to give his full talk. 

I tell the story in detail to make a point. The Woodward and Katznelson reports don’t automatically work. When a controversial speaker or protest is predicted, a university team lead by the president needs to make detailed plan to choose a cite and configuration that makes it hard to assemble a protest and possible to break it up if it threatens to cancel the event. I favor having the president play a leading role. Happily, the New School never experienced any other instance when a speaker was prevented from speaking. 

That said, events like Rabin at the New School and on campuses this year do inhibit freedom of thought and speech. Self-censorship grows and some decide not to say or write what they think on an issue and controversial speakers are not welcomed. So the leadership of the university has to work purposefully to encourage students, faculty and organizations to invite whom they want to hear from and set up debates between opposing views. 

A vibrant democracy depends on the leadership of universities creating safe spaces where people can research, write and talk about issues they believe are important. Upcoming generations need to learn the art of civil disagreement and how to search for ways to bridge differences of views, backgrounds and political ambitions. 

I think Yale has done better than most universities in meeting this challenge owing to the leadership of Kingman Brewster, and the Woodward Report on building a culture that respects- even nourishes- freedom of thought and speech. I mentor many students at Yale and am encouraged by how they are navigating this difficult time- but also by their commitment to work directly to preserve and improve democracy.