Open Minds with Prof. Julia Mahoney and Prof. Joshua Kleinfeld - Part II

In Part 2, Professor Julia Mahoney joins Professor Joshua Kleinfeld to discuss freedom of thought in diverse professional worlds, from universities to law to corporations to medicine. Why have professional sectors become more ideological? Has concentration in the for-profit sector contributed to this development, and what are some possible solutions? What obligations do shareholders have to their employees? Join us for a conversation on market competition, government regulation, and more.
Featuring:

Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Joshua Kleinfeld, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to Open Minds, a freedom of thought podcast series
interviewing the people who bring courage and independent thought to
the challenges of today.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Welcome again to the Freedom of Thought podcast Slash Video Casts.

Speaker 3 (00:15):
My name is Josh Kleinfeld.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
I'm a law professor at Northwestern and George Mason Universities.
And you are the john S Battle Professor of Law
at the University of Virginia. Yes, so we are going
to have a conversation today about freedom of thought in
diverse professional worlds universities to law, to corporations to medicine.

(00:37):
And I thought I would set up our conversation with this.
There are some things you know when you feel of it.
You know when you're in love, you know when you're
having fun, and you know when you're free. As I
experienced the world, as so many people I know experience

(00:58):
the world, feel deeply unfree in America today.

Speaker 3 (01:05):
It's the sense of not being free.

Speaker 2 (01:08):
The sense of unfreedom is ideological, and it's interpersonal, and
it's institutional. It has to do with a set of
political attitudes and taboos, mostly centered around.

Speaker 3 (01:23):
Identity and ideology, and it has to do.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
A speech and thought. It has to do with this
sense of jeopardy, this sense that there are all around you.

Speaker 3 (01:33):
Sanctions, some interpersonal.

Speaker 2 (01:37):
You might be ostracized or shunned or spoken badly up
in ways that hurt your reputation.

Speaker 3 (01:44):
Some of them are.

Speaker 2 (01:46):
Reputational in the sense of your professional reputation. You might
lose out on various professional opportunities if you thought of
as one of the bad people in terms of your
thoughts and speech. Some of them are there's purely professional sections,
even formal sections here. You might get fired, you might
get disciplined, you might get a file written about you.

(02:07):
And they're all centered on this idea of breaking ranks
with a certain set of identity ideas and an ideology
and the taboos surrounding it.

Speaker 3 (02:18):
So part of the.

Speaker 2 (02:19):
Story here is just about power. It's about cultural and
interpersonal power, and the level of that power is just incredible.
A challenge to the orthodoxy doesn't just lead to disagreement,
which we all expect, right. It leads to enmity, it
leads to moral condemnation, it leads to ostracism.

Speaker 3 (02:41):
But the power is also institutional.

Speaker 2 (02:44):
It's pervasive in our schools and our universities, and it's
also pervasive in the professional settings where we work, our
hospitals and our law firms, and our government employers, and
all the other places where we carry on our lives.

Speaker 3 (02:58):
There's this sense that if you rake ranks.

Speaker 2 (03:01):
If you disagree with the prevailing or orthodoxy, there'll be
real consequences. You might get fired, you might get disciplined. Well,
you might just be passed over for promotions and other opportunities.

Speaker 3 (03:13):
So I want to think with you about this unfreedom,
but I want to do it in a certain way.

Speaker 2 (03:19):
Let's go sphere by sphere, start with the corporate sphere, and.

Speaker 3 (03:23):
Then the law firms, and then the.

Speaker 2 (03:25):
Universities, and then the nonprofits, and then the world of
science and medicine, and each one asking the same set
of questions. So let's start with the corporate sphere, and
here are my questions.

Speaker 3 (03:39):
Are we in fact on free?

Speaker 2 (03:41):
Is that feeling I describe that feeling of you know,
you know when you're in love, know whing you're having fun,
and you know when you're free and I know I'm
not free? It is that feeling justified? And why are
we in this situation? Why don't we feel free? Why
aren't we free in our in our in our workplaces
in the corporate sphere and what might you've done about it.

Speaker 1 (04:01):
So the corporate sphere has never been completely free.

Speaker 3 (04:05):
People have always.

Speaker 1 (04:06):
Expected and been expected to in effect focus on the job,
not bringing their political and ideological commitments to work in
a way that could distract other employees. So what has
changed is that a lot of people are reporting that

(04:27):
they feel constrained at work from doing the best job
that they can because they are because of possible getting
on the wrong side of someone. For example, So if
a corporation is a mark not a policy that workers
really some workers think reasonably is not the best interests

(04:48):
of the investors, sometimes they might hesitate to speak up.
And that's a very bad situation, because of course those
who run corporations are if they're publicly traded corporations or
if they have taken investors' money, if they're not the
sole owners of the firm, they are fiduciaries for others,
and they must act in the fiduciaries' interests. So to me,

(05:11):
this is a worries of development in society now. Obviously,
for a publicly traded corporation there is a market in
corporate control, and if those who run corporations are pursuing
ideological projects rather than acting as faithful fiduciaries, then they
should be taken over. Of course, the market for corporate
control is far from perfect, that might not happen. In addition,

(05:35):
those who if those who run firms are not focused
on developing good products, et cetera, et cetera, building a
good reputation, doing all the things we expect people who
competently managed firms to do, then they should should be
out competed by rivals. However, in a highly regulated society,
we know that it often occurred, it can occur that

(05:57):
competition will not act as quickly as we would like.

Speaker 3 (06:02):
Many ask them skeptical questions.

Speaker 2 (06:04):
That seems to be our rhythm is that I ask
the skeptical questions.

Speaker 3 (06:12):
Okay, sure, it was always.

Speaker 2 (06:13):
The case that in your corporate job you weren't supposed
to talk about politics all the time in ways that
interfered with doing the work or set.

Speaker 3 (06:22):
All the people around you.

Speaker 1 (06:24):
But now, actually there.

Speaker 2 (06:26):
Are a lot of people in corporate jobs who do
talk politics all the time, and as long as they
talk about them the right way, they actually get rewarded.
And if they talk about them in the wrong way,
they get really punished, and that does seem to be
a profound change. Yes, So if you go to your
job at a law firm, for example, which is probably

(06:48):
the corporate world I know best, but I think this
is equally true in many.

Speaker 3 (06:52):
Many other areas of.

Speaker 2 (06:57):
Big banks or other financial sector actors, or big tech
or whatever else. There's a set of beliefs that are
largely the beliefs of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
They're centered on identity and ideology and similar concerns, and

(07:17):
if you break ranks with those beliefs, you get punished.

Speaker 3 (07:22):
Now, I don't think it was always the case that
in the corporate sphere of America.

Speaker 2 (07:27):
They were unified behind a certain wing of a certain party,
and if you broke ranks with that party, you would
get in trouble at work.

Speaker 3 (07:36):
Maybe I'm wrong.

Speaker 2 (07:37):
I mean, is there precedent for this in American history
or there other instances where you know, all the law firms,
virtually all the law firms are virtually all the for
profit publicly traded corporations were on the same side in
terms of who they vote for, and if you break.

Speaker 3 (07:58):
Rank for that, you have professional conticqussess.

Speaker 1 (08:00):
Well, some would point to the red scare in the
nineteen forties and nineteen fifties, So I'd say that a
number of people were unfairly excluded from jobs because of
the mirror suspicion that they might have some entanglement with
or some serious interest in socialist principles. But moving onlong
to the world of today, it is a very bad

(08:23):
thing when the efficacy of a firm is compromised by
things that are not central to the mission. And it
may well be that we are seeing that. Now, what's
the solution. One solution, thinking about law firms, for example,
is other firms.

Speaker 3 (08:40):
And we have already.

Speaker 1 (08:41):
Seen some boutique law firms being formed by those who
no longer felt welcome at large relie law firms. We
may see more of that. We saw a great deal
of concentration in the law firm world, megafirms formed. Maybe
we're going to see now some in effect, some split up,
and that will provide a partial solution. Of course, you

(09:04):
may respond, I think accurately, well, that was take a while.
And meanwhile, we have a lot of flawyers, including a
lot of young lawyers, who feel that their careers may
depend upon putting up with stuff in the workforce, having
to pretend to go along with various idly ideological commitments
that really people shouldn't have to pretend to go along

(09:25):
with that work, And what do we want to do
about that? So we could, for example, have some kind
of regulation, although, as you know, something of a skeptic
that regulations along those lines could be effective.

Speaker 2 (09:37):
Yeah, So do you think there's been a change in
the corporate sphere that justifies this feeling of not being free?

Speaker 3 (09:45):
I mean maybe we felt we never thought completely.

Speaker 2 (09:48):
Free of work, right, we always had to put on
a professional face and behave in a certain way that
isn't how we behave at home, and that's to be expected,
but that there's something more like a ideology that you're
required at least not to disagree with to confront if
you want to advance in most of the work plax now,

(10:10):
and that really contributes to the sense of on freedom
if you agree with that.

Speaker 1 (10:14):
Well, many people are reporting exactly that, and their accounts
are credible. So this is not a universal experience, clearly,
but we have more people explaining that this is their
work life that they cannot speak up and it's not
just that they cannot speak up about their political convictions.
It's that they cannot speak up but they believe that

(10:36):
their firm is not doing the best job that it
could because it could get them into hot water in
some way. That is a very serious development and one
that in my view, demands attention.

Speaker 3 (10:48):
You have an additional question.

Speaker 2 (10:50):
So one way you're thinking about this is there's a
group of people who disagree but are afraid to say so,
and they're the ones whose freedom is a issue. Right,
So whatever percentage that is of like you know, students
join or.

Speaker 3 (11:05):
Want to join law firms, for example, they graduate from
law school, and some portion of them called it ten
percent to estimate fifteen twenty percent.

Speaker 2 (11:14):
Disagree with the ideology that's being espoused by the powerholders
or by the majority of their law firm and wish
they could say so, but they don't feel they can't.
And likewise in other corporate jobs, in a variety of
different sectors.

Speaker 3 (11:27):
I'm not a possibility.

Speaker 2 (11:28):
Then you think it's a freedom problem for that ten
or twenty percent.

Speaker 3 (11:32):
Well, another possibility is.

Speaker 2 (11:34):
That even the people who agree with this aren't completely free.
They're they're in an environment which is propagandizing them or
conditioning them, or demanding things of them that even if
they agree with some how their freedom isn't binged to,
or they don't.

Speaker 3 (11:48):
Even feel free notwithstanding the fact that they agree. And
I can't give my head around that. Are they un
free too?

Speaker 1 (11:54):
I think, of course they're unfree, so.

Speaker 3 (11:56):
But why I mean they don't.

Speaker 2 (11:58):
It's kind of like telling me I'm unfree because I
don't get to drive one.

Speaker 3 (12:01):
Hundred twenty miles an hour. I don't want to drive
one hundred twenty miles an hour, so I'm free in
so far as my preference is to.

Speaker 1 (12:07):
Be that they're unfree, because a crucial part of freedom
is the ability to listen, the ability to be exposed
to new ideas. Even if you agree with something at
this point, well, and even if that belief is true,
that belief might become false over the next couple of years.
And if you're not able to hear why I belief

(12:27):
you're held is no longer true, that's a problem I
would safe for your personal development, for your freedom if
you and you a personal change as a person, So
beliefs that fit you when you were eighteen, we'll have
to be rethought. Maybe we'll do a one hundred and
eighty degree turn, but you will certainly add nuance.

Speaker 2 (12:47):
So the thought is part of your freedom, whether you
know that you want it or not, or whether you
like it or not.

Speaker 3 (12:53):
Part of your freedom is hearing ideas you disagree.

Speaker 1 (12:55):
With, yes, and engaging with them, and not just disagree,
but hearing. You may sew to your current beliefs, roughly speaking,
but it is often hearing ideas that are not in
accordance with them that will allow you to strengthen your
own conditions.

Speaker 2 (13:13):
I think there's another I agree with that. I actually
think that's deeply insightful.

Speaker 3 (13:17):
But I think there's another factor. We tend to imagine
that people's.

Speaker 2 (13:22):
Beliefs are fairly stable elements of their I guess we
could say political personality or just personality read large.

Speaker 3 (13:30):
But that's really true.

Speaker 2 (13:31):
I mean, people go into these environments and they're shaped
by the environment around them. It takes a very unusual
personality to have virtually everyone around you saying this is
what is true, this is what is right and wrong,
this is you know, what good people believe, and to
think no I.

Speaker 3 (13:49):
Disagree, No, I disagree, No, I disagree.

Speaker 2 (13:51):
Most people are highly affected by what the people around
them believe. You can go so far as to say
most of what people think is what people around them think.

Speaker 3 (14:00):
That's just like sort of the human condition.

Speaker 2 (14:03):
And I also think that people are highly affected in
their beliefs by their accentive.

Speaker 3 (14:07):
So if going along with a sort of.

Speaker 2 (14:12):
Progressive set of ideas about identity, for example, is what
is required for you to get ahead at work, you
will tend to convince yourself of those because you have
an interesting getting ahead at work. I think, in other words,
people are formed by their incentives and by their social
environment to such a degree that even if they feel

(14:36):
a kind of a kind of alignment of their beliefs
and those that are espoused by their institution, they're not
necessarily free if they themselves were sort of formed in
those conditions.

Speaker 1 (14:51):
You could certainly put it that way. So the corporate America,
I think there has to be a main.

Speaker 3 (14:55):
Commitment to the mission, which commission is not though to.

Speaker 1 (15:00):
The mission to whatever the firm mission is the firm mission,
and an understanding that if there is a deviation from
that mission, that that is not in the interests of
the of those whose own money is being managed.

Speaker 2 (15:17):
One off things just say, our mission is to you know,
make widgets and.

Speaker 3 (15:22):
Do social justice. Our mission is to you know, build
power plans and do social justice. Our mission is you know,
et cetera.

Speaker 1 (15:30):
If their investors agree, that's fine. If it's clear to
those who have entrusted their money, then okay. But that
is often not the case. And even if an investor
is interested in social justice as that particular firm defines it,

(15:51):
there's still a difficulty in executing a dual mission. It's
hard to have one firm both make financial returns and
carry out altruistic projects or political projects. Perhaps not impossible,
But what this all gets back to for me anyway,
is are the investors in any profit seeking firm aware

(16:12):
of what's going on? If they have agreed to take
a lower return in exchange for some of their money
being spent on various political, ideological, altruistic projects, well okay then,
but everyone involved has to.

Speaker 3 (16:27):
Be absolutely clemar I think I have two points of down.
One is that.

Speaker 2 (16:35):
It is very difficult to prove that a profitable firm
would be still more profitable if it.

Speaker 3 (16:43):
Was not spending money on its ideological mission.

Speaker 2 (16:45):
There's usually an argument that can be made that the
ideological mission is either.

Speaker 3 (16:51):
Low cost or cost less, or even profitable. And it's almost.

Speaker 2 (16:56):
Impossible to prove the contrary, I think, tell me if
I'm wrong the other point.

Speaker 3 (17:00):
Doubt not almost impossible, they county hard. Let's I would say.

Speaker 1 (17:04):
Very firmly that they are two different issues. Right what
it is right for people to be doing, and the
degree to which they can be called to account for it.
They are two separate issues. We can say that we
can agree that there are many things that are happening
that are wrong, and also think that many of the
bad actors won't be called to account.

Speaker 2 (17:24):
But the way you're thinking of this is that the
the you know, there's this pervasive feeling of being unfree
of work, and as I said in our previous hour,
this is where most people encounter power.

Speaker 3 (17:35):
You know, some people have the experience of the police
pounding on the door and grabbing them, to be sure,
but most people encounter power at the places they work.
That's the power holders they relate to on a daily basis.

Speaker 2 (17:48):
Those are the ones who say staying oma COVID, come
to work on COVID. Those are the ones who say
you're going to make more money or less. Those are
the ones who say, here's our standards for your behavior
with regard to your.

Speaker 3 (17:58):
Most essential interests.

Speaker 2 (18:00):
There's this real encounter with power at work and this
sense amon freedom. I guess in accounting for it, you
go back to like betraying investors. Betraying investors, But what
about betraying employees? I mean, is it possible to just
say employees have a right not to be made to
feel this way?

Speaker 3 (18:21):
They quite apart from what's in the investors interest.

Speaker 2 (18:24):
But I'm going to be agnostic about what's profitable for shareholders.

Speaker 3 (18:29):
But employees have a right not to be made.

Speaker 2 (18:32):
To feel like expressing their political views or expressing a
contrary you to the dominant position at the firm will
cost them their jobs or their prospects.

Speaker 1 (18:42):
I mean, I think if the kind of discussion on
ourselves about what kind of society and we want to
live in that most people would be question is how
do you want to enforce it?

Speaker 2 (18:53):
Now?

Speaker 1 (18:54):
We're also talk about the nonprofit sector.

Speaker 2 (18:57):
We will in a moment, I'll get there, but I
just wanted to exhaust this one person. I do have
one more passion about the corporate America, focusing for just
a moment longer. On the shareholder problem, I pointed out
that the shareholder perspective might leave out the employee perspective.

Speaker 3 (19:14):
But here's the other thing.

Speaker 2 (19:17):
As I understand it, corporate ownership has gotten concentrated.

Speaker 3 (19:22):
And I'm sure you know this story much better than
I do.

Speaker 2 (19:25):
But as I understand it, six firms own much of
the stock in America, their Vanguard Black Rock, and a
handful of others, and essentially everyone's throw and K's or
those firms, and those firms are the activists and majority shareholders,
and a whole lot of publicly traded firms. So what
pleases shareholders is essentially what pleases the management teams at

(19:49):
six big firms.

Speaker 1 (19:50):
So it's a little more complicated than that, because there
is of course some past through voting and so on,
and those who So it's still so it's not that
it's not that these black Crop and state treatings on
actually control all these firms. So, but take your point
to be that what we are seeing in the United

(20:12):
States is enough concentration in the your profit sector that
there are serious questions about whether or not some of
the problems that we are discussing are actually going to
be competed away in the sense that knew that if
one firm is slacking by paying too much attention to
ideology and too little attention to delivering value as it

(20:34):
is supposed to do ideally, entrance will come, will emerge,
or will out compete them, and that term will be
in financial trouble, as the big three automakers in the
United States got new difficulty in the late nineteen seventies.
And you're right if there is the reasons to be
concerned about how well these pro competitive forces function. So

(20:57):
an enormous amount of good institutional design me is paying
careful attention to markets for cortporate control and how they
function to the extent they exist, and also paying attention
to pro competitive laws, regulations, social practices, etc. To be
that's where the solution, the easiest and fastest solution to

(21:22):
the problems we've can discuss. It will lot and then
there are social norms, So can.

Speaker 3 (21:25):
I be concrete about that? So one thing you might
hope for is.

Speaker 2 (21:30):
Some sort of intervention in the market for stocks that
give a lot of small firms more of the total
share of stocks, or a lot of individuals more of
the share of total stocks and fewer of these extremely
large institutional players like black Rock or Airguard.

Speaker 1 (21:52):
Well, you can certainly look carefully at financial regulation and
try to ensure that to the extent there are competitors,
actual and potential to these large firms that they are
able to offer services. Obviously, the financial sector is highly regulated,
but I believe it is probably too heavily regulated, so

(22:16):
heavily regulated that it is difficult for someone to compete
with Black Rock and State Street, and I think it
should be easier, And that to me is worth a
lot of attention. Why is it that we have this
concentration sometimes? Whether it sometimes concentration is the result of
other forces then excessive government regulation, of course, but in

(22:39):
the financial industry, it is highly plausible that a great
deal of the concentration we've seen is the result of
excessive or ill advised government regulation. Who should take a
careful look at that normal question.

Speaker 2 (22:51):
It would be worthwhile to sort of change laws to
free up lawsuits by shareholders by plaintiff terms that some
publicly traded corporation is violating it should fiduciary duty.

Speaker 1 (23:06):
Well, sure, I mean I think there should be such suits,
and there are such suits.

Speaker 2 (23:09):
The question is to redefine fiduciary duty in a broader
way so that a certain amount of activism counts as violation.

Speaker 1 (23:15):
Of I think. I think that the issue is bringing
the suits and having poorts understand that excessive commitment to
ideology can, in certain circumstances amount to a violation of
the duty of year. And I think that is absolutely true.
And I hope enterprising plaintiffs firms will think about bringing

(23:38):
these suits.

Speaker 3 (23:39):
And bring them.

Speaker 1 (23:41):
And you're right, they can be hard to demonstrate, but
in many cases it won't be hard to demonstrate, and
in those cases there should be suit and a lawsuit,
and unfaithful fiduciaries should should pay for not doing their jobs.

Speaker 3 (23:56):
Well, let's turn to.

Speaker 2 (23:58):
A piece of the one of these social spheres or
institutional spheres that is near and dear to both our hearts,
and that is law firms. It's the same question I have,
The same question I did with respect to their corpord sphere.
Will always be the same question. Always un free? Is
that feeling that I spoke of earlier? You know, when

(24:19):
you're in love, when you're having fun, and when you're free,
always on free in our law firms, and why has
that come to be the situation, and what should be
done in the law firm world, especially since they're not
by and large publicly traded corporations, they're privately held, they're
held by the partnership.

Speaker 3 (24:38):
Is there anything to be done about this feeling?

Speaker 2 (24:40):
For example, on behalf of my students who are conservative
or libertarian. I spoke of it in our last hour.
They're terrified of being outed at their law firms as
being sort of dissenters, of being conservative or libertarian or
disagreeing with the progressive moral vision. They feel that if
they are outed, there are prospects of advancement, of getting

(25:04):
good work, of becoming partners.

Speaker 3 (25:05):
Will all be deeply compromised. And they're scared. Are they
right to be scared? And is there anything that can
be done about.

Speaker 1 (25:12):
Well, if they say that they are scared, I believe them,
and I have heard similar things, not about every law firm,
but about enough for me to be very concerned. So
there are two things that I think we should consider.
First is social norms. The legal world is a relatively
small world, and if people like us speak up enough,

(25:35):
and there are many who share our worries, then there
is the possibility that there will be some kind of
change where things are going wrong and we are hearing
from our students that they are not at workplaces, are
in some way feeling that they hearing that this is

(25:58):
not all right, hearing the law object to it, and
will convince at least some people that this is not.

Speaker 3 (26:03):
The path of these resistance to go along.

Speaker 1 (26:05):
Second thing to look at very carefully is why is
it that the legal profession is so protected from competition.
We should look very carefully at the state bars and
consider allowing more people to enter the legal field. If
it turns out that those who are now in the
legal field are not in effect acting in the interest

(26:30):
of society, then maybe we need to rethink how we
select and maintain in our statemoars.

Speaker 2 (26:38):
I have to express a little skepticism of the social
norm solution, not that social norms are not powerful, they're
very powerful, but that there's any real prospect of criticism
essentially a factuating change in these firms behavior. You know,
you and I are kind of privilege in the position

(27:01):
that we occupy with respect to the social norms and
the legal profession. It's very nice to be a law
professor and be able to speak to students and law
firms and the whole judges and the whole.

Speaker 3 (27:10):
Profession really with some credibility.

Speaker 2 (27:13):
And we've been talking about this sort of issue for
years as that many people who agree with us, and
the snowball keeps rolling downhill, that is to say, the
progressive moral vision dominating these law firms and entering these
law firms, such as to you know, lead a headerodox
thinking law firm to fire excuse me, a headero doos

(27:35):
thinking partner or associated at a law firm to get fired.
Those things just keep getting more powerful, notwithstanding the criticism.
I think part of the reason is that we just
don't have the numbers. And part of the reason is
that for every criticism we make, there's ten criticisms the
other way, and so the social norms just don't seem
to be working after a lot of decades. I'm very skeptical.

Speaker 3 (27:56):
It just sort of you know, we have this podcast,
we have twenty more. Let's imagine we have a thousand more,
and suddenly the norms are different. I just don't think
there's any evidence of that work. You do You am
I getting this wrong?

Speaker 1 (28:09):
Well, some would criticize people like us for not being
strong enough, for not being loud enough, for not in
effect continuing to harp on the importance of the principles
that we hold dear.

Speaker 3 (28:23):
So I'm not giving up.

Speaker 1 (28:25):
I don't think it's impossible, but I don't know for
sure what it is that is going to change things.
But I think we have to try, and we have
to start somewhere, and the place to start is to
encourage very strongly those who are running law firms to
create workplaces where they're associates and young partners and someone

(28:47):
do not feel that they have to censor themselves to
persuade them that they will have a more effective workforce
if people are not so frightened. And I don't see
that that effort as yet been made in a serious,
vigorous way.

Speaker 3 (29:04):
I'm a little skeptical of the competition solution too, and
I guess the reason why is that what I'm actually
observing concretely is that a certain number of you know, my.

Speaker 2 (29:16):
Former students who are conservatives and libertarians go to their firms.
They're uncomfortable about the dominant ideological environment. They're worried that
if they are sort of outed or found out curiously
like the situation of homosexual men and women before the
sort of social revolution that.

Speaker 3 (29:38):
Led you more quality of treatment for them in the workplace.

Speaker 2 (29:41):
So my conservative and libertarian students are worried that if
they're outed or found out, their careers will be.

Speaker 3 (29:47):
Destroyed, and so a certain number of them leave and.

Speaker 2 (29:51):
They go for firm excuse, They go form their own firms,
They start new firms that become competitors in the landscape
that attract other conservatives and libertarians, until you have sort
of what ends up happening is that just means that
the big firms, the ones that have hundreds of millions

(30:13):
or billions of dollars in.

Speaker 3 (30:14):
Revenue every year and thousands of lawyers that are.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
Really moving mountains, they just get more left wing, more
progressive because the very few dissenters are made so uncomfortable
that they leave, and sometimes both they get fired. And
I guess competition will work in so far as those
startup firms get a certain number of clients who don't
find they find a chili reception, and the conventional firms

(30:39):
and you know, that sort of.

Speaker 3 (30:41):
Competition happens, but it doesn't change the big firms.

Speaker 2 (30:44):
It just means that the profession sort of bifurcates into
the big progressive firms and the little conservative firms.

Speaker 3 (30:51):
Is that wrong? Is competition doing more than that?

Speaker 1 (30:54):
I don't know, is the answer. I mean, I hope
that competition will be.

Speaker 3 (30:59):
Effective, effective at what exactly? Changing meanings?

Speaker 1 (31:03):
Isn't making it clear that there's a real market for
talent and someone But I don't know, I mean, and
it would be I hope that there will be a
serious inquiries, serious attempts to start with the facts on
the ground, because we do not know how many people
are in effect silent bystanders. I suspect that the reason

(31:24):
I think that I am more optimistic than you about
attempts to change social norms is that I think it
is quite possible that we could see a preference cascade.
I think a lot of people don't like this, They
don't like bullies, they don't like seeing people being fired
or not promoted or simply shunned for trivial reasons, and

(31:47):
that they are not one to lead the charge against it,
but they will quickly be part of a project to
prevent to change this. But we don't know the thing
about preference cascades is that one can think, I think
there's a big silent majority, or there could be a
silent majority, or there could at least be a big

(32:09):
chunk of people who want a different kind of life.
But you don't know until you try.

Speaker 3 (32:15):
And it also hasn't work so far.

Speaker 1 (32:17):
You don't know until I would. Many have said that
there has not been a serious effort yet to use
social norms to push back against some of the things
that we are hearing our students complain about.

Speaker 2 (32:28):
Last question, with respect to law firms specifically. You've talked
about social norms, and you've talked about competition. What do
you think about legal action some sort of governmentally sponsored.

Speaker 3 (32:43):
Requirement imposed on law firms.

Speaker 2 (32:45):
I guess it could come from state bar associations, or
it could come from a sort of.

Speaker 3 (32:54):
The American Bar Association.

Speaker 2 (32:55):
It could come, I suppose, from some sort of national
regulation of the professional or from simple liability rules.

Speaker 3 (33:01):
But somehow a legal change to make law firms more
politically non partis.

Speaker 1 (33:08):
I would say, I'm skeptical that wanted to learn more.

Speaker 2 (33:11):
Well, let's turn to another part of the world. We
mutually occupy the world, we centrally occupy.

Speaker 3 (33:17):
That's universities. So universities. I'll ask my questions, but then
I'm going to just answer them myself.

Speaker 2 (33:25):
You know, our students and professors and administrators in universities
programmatically unfree. Is that feeling that I'm not pre justified?
And my answer is a resounding yes. I mean the
ideological unification on the progressive side in big universities, swung universities,
high prestige universities, low pristige universities. It's just sort of

(33:48):
almost across the void. There are a few exceptions, to
be sure, but the level of unification and the punishments.

Speaker 3 (33:57):
Imposed on missenters is just don't overwhelm me.

Speaker 2 (34:00):
It's sort of visible to say that we're genuinely free
in our universities. I do really want to hear from
you about why that's happened, What happened in our universities.
Was there before when we were more free than we
are now? And how did we get from there to hear?
And what might be done about our university? And I'm
more interested in how we turn the page on this,

(34:23):
what we do next. I think it's hard to know
exactly why this has happened. It happened quickly, and we
have seen higher education fall in terms of public trust
in a precipitous way that ought to be setting off
alarm bells for everyone in universities. Now that said, a
lot of people, I think do not yet realize that

(34:44):
there is a problem.

Speaker 1 (34:46):
But there is. Look at the recent gallop bole that
showed in effect between twenty fifteen and twenty twenty three,
so many people, and across the political spectrum Democrats as
well as Republicans and independence have lost a lot of
trust in the universities. They are not perceived of as

(35:09):
pursuing truth. Universities are now perceived of as an effect
pursuing other objectives.

Speaker 2 (35:16):
To be clear, the problem isn't the loss of public
trust in itself. It's that universities warrant that loss of trust.
I mean, they're not pursuing they are quite a few contexts.

Speaker 1 (35:26):
They do warrant that loss of trust. And what question
is will the sudden loss of trust is convince anyone
that they need to in infection years we will see
and then very importantly, what is to be done?

Speaker 2 (35:40):
Yeah, in this public loss of trust, I just do
not see my passionately ideological colleagues and students who are
very very progressive or even hard to that.

Speaker 3 (35:52):
You know, it depends on who you're talking to.

Speaker 2 (35:54):
But the spectrum of opinion is kind of from European
social democrat on one end to.

Speaker 3 (36:00):
Hard left radical on the other end. And I just
do not see them reading a gallop pull and saying
we need to change.

Speaker 1 (36:09):
Yes, perhaps not. So it may be incumbent upon those
who are more heterodox thinking to organize and to put
together programs, and we are seeing that. I'm an active
member of the Heterodox Academy Chapter at the University of Virginia,
and we've had a number of very successful events. In addition,
the Academic Freedom Alliance, which I was a founding member of,

(36:32):
has protected the free speech rights of numerous faculty members,
which has certainly gotten a lot of universities to stand
down and to allow for freedom of expression and freedom
of thought. So I think that's an important beginning. In addition,
there are now some so called offshore entities that is

(36:53):
doing of those kind of satellite organizations, the Buckley Program
at Yale, the Blue Ridge Center the University of Virginia
that are committed to providing students with a wide variety
of ideas. Now, this is not a substitute for the
University of mending its place. I'm not suggesting that and
having more ideas actually on grounds, but it is a start.

(37:18):
And I think that the journey of a thousand miles
begins with a single step at all. That and to
have faculty to the extent that they can be committed
to the free exchange of ideas is utterly essential. And
it is And there are a number of self described
liberal and progressive faculty who are not happy with groupthink,

(37:41):
who are not happy with lack of freedom of expression,
who understand that a lot of students are reporting that
they don't feel free, and who want to be part
of constructive change. So, thinking back to getting back to
the University of Virginia's chapter of the Heterodoxy Academy, we
have a range of members. I would say that probably

(38:02):
certainly quite a few probably describe themselves as libertarian or
even conservative, but a lot would describe themselves as liberal
or even progressive. So I think it takes it takes time,
It takes a willingness to have a big tent, and
I am encouraged that if we are seeing more faculty

(38:24):
organizations we've seen them recently at Yale and at Harvard
and at Colombia. A faculty who get together and say,
we want to make sure that there is a true
freedom of thought and expression at this university, and that
so that, among other things, scholarly projects can be pursued
without the fear that if things come out the wrong way,

(38:45):
that they should never be published, and that very importantly,
students are able to look here ideas, experiment with ideas,
and develop the way that universities are supposed to develop students.

Speaker 3 (38:58):
I think those are really helpful. But at the same time,
you know, I'm in this world too, And what I
observe is little coalitions form between professors who are.

Speaker 2 (39:15):
Conservative or libertarian and strongly in favor of for sort
of free speech and free thought norms, with professors who
are progressives or liberals of various stripes but also really
agree with free speech and freedom of thought norms and
scholarly rigor forms.

Speaker 3 (39:34):
And the two groups come together and if they're energetic
enough coalitions and projects to do, maybe.

Speaker 2 (39:47):
Form a heterodox chapter heterodox society chapter, And of course
they bring in students and graduates, students some undergraduates who
belong to those same two networks they're either.

Speaker 3 (39:58):
You know, progressive democrats various stripes to.

Speaker 2 (40:01):
Just really believe in freedom of speech and freedom of thought,
or their conservatives who sort of desperately need freedom of
speech and freedom of thought. We see that happening, and
it's extremely welcome and much better than the alternative, but
we also see no real effect on the overwhelming book.

Speaker 3 (40:19):
Of professors and students who are growing in the same direction.
So in Northwestern you know where I've spent most of
my career, for example, you know, I don't know what
the numbers are exactly.

Speaker 2 (40:32):
I would project them based on personal experience and based
on some studies I've read, to be something in the
neighborhood of ninety five or ninety nine percent of faculty
to not agree with those initiatives and to be instructing
their students in ways that reflect you know, every class,

(40:53):
if it's in the humanities, is about colonialism and anti colonialism,
It's about racial.

Speaker 3 (41:00):
Supremacy and anti racism. It's got this kind.

Speaker 2 (41:04):
Of ideological orientation, and the students are selected for.

Speaker 3 (41:10):
Their agreement with that orientation and then are put in
a social environment, in an educational environment, where.

Speaker 2 (41:16):
They are trained to hold those beliefs, and they are
socially rewarded for holding those beliefs.

Speaker 3 (41:23):
And these efforts you're describing are.

Speaker 2 (41:25):
So small, these internal efforts, that it seems like they're
really futile unless they're accompanied by external.

Speaker 3 (41:33):
Pressure of a much stronger source than your imagining.

Speaker 1 (41:36):
There must be leadership changes, as in leadership matters, and
university leadership is ultimately going to be the solution to
some of the issues that we are discussing now. In
terms of the actual educational product at law schools and
other parts of the university, there is an enormous amount

(41:57):
of instruction and an enormous amount of research that is
going on. It is not ideological, and I think and
from that perspective there's a lot to be built on that.
In effect, there are many, many people in universities who
are committed to truth, that see truth as the end
of the universe, as the goal right of the university,

(42:20):
as the purpose of the university, not some kind of
ideological project. And so far this group, which may or
may not be a majority, have not been able to
ensure that they have leadership of universities who will be

(42:41):
committed to the idea that the purpose of a university
is to seek truth and to develop students along so
that they can be capable, so that they can have
fulfilling professional and personal lives. Harvard and University is searching
for a new president, so it was the University of Pennsylvania.

(43:04):
Those are private universities, and those new presidents will be
selected by very small groups of people who will be
at least, up to a point, amenable, or at least
will have to take into account what they hear from
others about how they should be selecting presidents. I think
it's a great time to let members of the Harvard

(43:25):
Corporation and other decision makers know what it is that
various constituencies, including alumni and including employers, for example, who
might be thinking about hiring the students from these schools.
This is a good time for these groups to speak
up and explain to those who are choosing these new
presidents what they believe these institutions need in a leader.

(43:46):
Now pivoting to public universities, which you and I have
talked about a lot over the years. Public universities are
politically accountable and in a way that private universities at
least are not directly accountable. Public universe with public universities,
I think it is absolutely essential that the politicians who

(44:08):
have control over these boards exercise it and in turn
that those who are members of the board's board of
visitors the case of the University of Virginia, but there
are other governance structors in other states, that the members
of these boards take their duties seriously. Too often, a
seed on a public university board is kind of a

(44:31):
benefit that's tossed out by a governor, maybe just a
too a long time supporter, and it hasn't been something
that has been considered to be.

Speaker 3 (44:40):
An absolutely crucial task.

Speaker 1 (44:42):
It will take an enormous amount of time and effort
and courage. Those days I think are gone absolutely essential
that everyone who is on a board, public or private
of a university be committed and we have the courage
to do to actually pursue the mission of the university.

(45:03):
And if we get the right leadership, and that means
of the right college and university presidents and the boards
of these institutions show focus and courage, and yes, I
think we will see significant changes moving to external pressures.
We've already seen a slight shift in the law reflecting

(45:28):
to universities in that there is now a small tax
on some indoptment income on the adowminent income of some institutions.
Obviously that tax could become a lot larger, and a former,
perhaps future President Trump has suggested the establishment of a

(45:48):
national online university financed by yes endowment taxes. And that's
pretty vigorous external pressure. If it becomes clear to the richest,
most influential university, most prominent, maybe I should say universities
in this country that they actually might end up making

(46:09):
themselves so unpopular that they will be subject to massive
taxes that may lead them to reflect and to understand
that they are in fact accountable up to a point
to the general population.

Speaker 2 (46:29):
Just one more question about this universities here before you
move on to the next one, and that is you
said it happened fast. This unfreedom happened fast, But it
doesn't seem like it happened fast to me. First of all,
I felt it acutely. I felt that there was a
sort of political consensus with social implications and professional implications

(46:55):
when I was going to college in the nineties and
early two thousands. I certainly felt it in law school
in the mid two thousands, and at that point at
this point, that's twenty five years ago and more. And
you know, for example, I use this example in our

(47:17):
Last Hour together. But closing of the American Mind, Alan
Boom's famous book about the sort of takeover of universities
by left ring ideas that use sanctions to back the
boss of persuasiveness.

Speaker 3 (47:31):
That book bears a copyright of nineteen eighty seven. And
the relevant ideas.

Speaker 2 (47:35):
About how university should operate in the hiring practices. You know,
you read the core text from like a Katherine McKinnon
or someone like that.

Speaker 3 (47:44):
Many of them were published in the seventies or early eighties.

Speaker 2 (47:47):
What we really see is more like a fifty year
project that has gained steam almost every year.

Speaker 3 (47:55):
A few reversals this year, but essentially.

Speaker 2 (48:00):
Ideological takeover of the universities that has extended over fifty years.

Speaker 3 (48:05):
That's not quick.

Speaker 1 (48:06):
What was what hasked quick has been the fall in
public confidence and public trust from twenty fifteen to twenty
twenty three, a steep falloff. And that twenty twenty three
figure is before predates the testimony of the three university president.

Speaker 2 (48:21):
That's very interesting, but that's Shamack suggests that universities can
behave very.

Speaker 3 (48:25):
Badly for decades before there's any sort of reckoning.

Speaker 1 (48:29):
What also changed, I think quickly. And one reason why
I think the public fall off and confidence is, as
we were discussing, very much deserved and it pains me
to say that, is that the ability of many perceived
self perceived ability of many in universities to challenge ideas
like you know, Katherine McKinnon. Okay, so she has interesting ideas.

(48:51):
Plenty of people thought they were ideas worth pondering, and
plenty of people that thought that they were ideas worth critiquing.
I agree with this, with that, et cetera, et cetera.
That's exactly how universities are supposed to function. Someone comes
up with some ideas that are novel, and then they're
taken seriously and they're subject to analysis. What I think

(49:13):
has fueled the precipitous drop in public confidence is our
reports that universities aren't functioning that way anymore, that a
new idea is advanced and then it has to be
accepted or people's careers or social lives or whatever are
in grave danger. That's cost I think the great fall

(49:34):
off in public confidence, and that's what I hope to
see reversed soon, and I hope universities will recognize and
that they actually could end up.

Speaker 3 (49:44):
Having adownlanced text.

Speaker 1 (49:46):
In addition, universities have enjoyed a privileged position because of
the system of accreditation, and there has been there have
been some very interesting and I think important reform proposals
advanced recently to remove requirements of accreditation or to change
the system of accreditation.

Speaker 3 (50:05):
I think that's something that deserves the great.

Speaker 1 (50:07):
Deal of attention.

Speaker 2 (50:09):
Certainly, pivot now to sort of a related sphere of activity,
but not identical.

Speaker 3 (50:14):
I guess I'll introduce it this way. A lot of
a lot of folks suppose that.

Speaker 2 (50:21):
These ideological activities are happening primarily in the humanities, maybe
in certain parts of the social sciences, but not in science,
not in physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and not in medicine, medicine. Like.

Speaker 3 (50:39):
The idea is that the way universities were, surely the
way they must work is that with respect to.

Speaker 2 (50:48):
The Sometimes they're called the soft disciplines, right, but that's where,
by the way I make my home, I'm a philosopher, lawyer.
In those disciplines, there might be a lot of ideology
kind of pretending to be truth seeking scholarship. But in
the areas of physics and math and medicine, universities are

(51:11):
doing what they always have done and should do, and
that is pursuing the best science possible. After all, it's
in empirical discipline. And I'd like to ask you about
this sphere, about this sphere of science and medicine. Are
is scholarship really happening, Is the best science really happening?

Speaker 3 (51:30):
Are people feeling unfree in those areas?

Speaker 2 (51:34):
And is the feeling of not being pre justified in
those areas and what might be done about that?

Speaker 3 (51:39):
If so?

Speaker 1 (51:40):
I think there are three main problems. The first is
that there has been a lot of work done which
is not listen scrutiny. The replication crisis in psychology is
such that many, many prominent findings just happened to be replicated,
and how everyone might want.

Speaker 3 (51:58):
To define that.

Speaker 1 (52:01):
There are also a number of prominent studies that have
had to have been withdrawn. Now, where science works this way,
there are going to be a lot of mistakes, and
what we want is to have a process where errors
are quickly corrected and so forth. But the fact that
the President of Stanford had to resign in part because
of very serious questions about about the conscientiousness of his work.

Speaker 3 (52:23):
We have had other kind of the president of Harber.

Speaker 1 (52:26):
There are those are are are very serious developments and
they and they are are areas where the universities where
science has got to be seen to be in effect
self monitoring in a way that it is simply not
your printing is very dedicant.

Speaker 2 (52:43):
But it's what you're saying fundamentally, that a lot of
false research is being produced in science, and maybe knowingly
false research, like corrupt research.

Speaker 1 (52:54):
There's a concern, and it's a real concern. The corners
have been cut with these who are as you know,
many scientific papers have many, many many authors, and so
there is no one sometimes who is actually taking the
time to make sure that everything lines up, that incentives
have been created such that those who come who come

(53:19):
forward with exciting breakthroughs will have their careers flourish. Those
who work very hard and find out what's not working will.

Speaker 3 (53:28):
Be rewarded less.

Speaker 2 (53:30):
So, okay, because an ideological entation, what I mean by.

Speaker 1 (53:33):
That is that's the next thing. So that's that's problem
number one. So just separating, just separating all this out.
Problem number one is a lot of research, not the
majority of research probably, but we really don't know, right,
A lot of research that has turned out to be
shoddy or worse problem number one. Problem number two is

(53:54):
the perception that some questions can't be asked because of
ideological veils.

Speaker 3 (54:00):
But surely that.

Speaker 2 (54:01):
Affects things like I don't know psychology and sociology, but
non physics.

Speaker 3 (54:07):
Right, are there questions that can't be asked in physics?

Speaker 1 (54:09):
I don't know, because right, what about in medicine? I
just don't know. In medicine absolutely, So what have some examples?
I think there are some questions that people are not
willing to ask, and I think we need to think
and I think that that or there are, as you know,
sometimes the studies that could be undertaken where there would
be a more popular and a less popular outcome. There's

(54:31):
a lot of concern that ideology leads to non publication
of results. For all every researchers or have done a
lot of projects and if something seems not to be
coming out a way that would be helpful to their career,
or something seems to be coming out in a way
that might cause the difficulty, there's an understandable temptation to.

Speaker 4 (54:51):
Just not go forward with Can you give me an example,
an example of sort of a question that can't be asked,
or a piece of research that was withdraw or or
something like something like that, just to understand this all about.

Speaker 1 (55:04):
I think anything that has to do with sex differences,
for example, is going to be be diflicant. I'm not
suggesting people proceed like bulls in China shops in different
to the feelings of.

Speaker 2 (55:15):
Sex differences in terms of like characteristic differences in men
and women, like personality differences and.

Speaker 1 (55:20):
Personality differences spatial reasoning.

Speaker 3 (55:23):
I mean, you name any kind offer, any kind of sex.

Speaker 1 (55:26):
Difference, and even if one is not making any kind
of claim as to whether or not something is nature
or nurture. The fact that Larry Summers, who was then
President of Harbor, got into difficulty when he speculated, which
perhaps was not wise to do, but still he showed up,
but speculated.

Speaker 2 (55:42):
About about represent This is a thought that, like the
bell curves for female abilities.

Speaker 3 (55:49):
Are flatter than or achieving are less.

Speaker 2 (55:51):
Flat than those for men's flat flatter, No men are,
so we just say there's more men that tales.

Speaker 1 (55:58):
Right, the more men at the tales exactly. The idea
that that speculating as to why we might see more
males at the tales of certain of measures of certain
abilities can be a very bad career move. I mean,
of course people will see that.

Speaker 3 (56:13):
I think that's unfortunate.

Speaker 1 (56:15):
So we have to think think about untangling untangling these issues.
And I think our third major problem is the loss
of a sense of scientific community, a sense that to
be a scientist is to engage in the pursuit of
truth and to in effect let the chips fall where
they may, and that in the event that someone comes

(56:36):
forward with a result that's unpopular, that other scientists will
back up that person.

Speaker 3 (56:47):
That's that's.

Speaker 2 (56:50):
It's all so interesting, and it's a little unfamiliar to me,
to be honest, it's I don't work in these in
these scientific world spreads.

Speaker 3 (56:56):
I have the following questions as I think about the
whole picture.

Speaker 2 (57:01):
Is it the case that you know you're getting ideologically
motivated research or shoddy research, or shutting down unpopular findings
in certain specific areas that touch on hot button issues

(57:22):
like sex differences or race or other other you know,
known quantities of hot button issues, but the rest of
science is doing pretty well or is the.

Speaker 3 (57:34):
Because then I feel like I could look at the
work of scientists and say it's actually going great.

Speaker 2 (57:39):
They're doing wonderful research on I don't know, neurology and
brain surgery, and uh, they're doing wonderful research on electrons
and quantum mechanics, or they're doing wonderful.

Speaker 3 (57:55):
Research on you name it.

Speaker 2 (57:56):
As long as it's not one of these hot button issues,
it's everything science should be. What is it more of
a global spread, like whatever is wrong is affecting even
the electron research, even the neurology research, and not just
the hotline issues.

Speaker 1 (58:11):
Well, the first set of problems we were discussing is
exactly that. That there is shoddy research, and maybe worse
than shoddy research that has either been careless or might
even in some instances be designed to deceive. That is
a huge problem. How big is the problem? No way
to know.

Speaker 2 (58:27):
I just have no idea whether that's ideological in character
or whether it's just science.

Speaker 1 (58:33):
I don't think it's I.

Speaker 3 (58:33):
Don't think it's ideological in character.

Speaker 1 (58:36):
I would say, if you wish to look at incentives,
follow the money and in terms of addressing the problem
of shoddy research or even fraudulent research, figure out ways
to incentifize scientists to do good, honest research. You don't
want to have the grant money flowing only to people

(58:56):
who have come up with spectacular results.

Speaker 3 (58:59):
So some of the shoddy research might have to deal
with where brants are coming from.

Speaker 1 (59:03):
Absolutely well. I mean humans will be motivated by clothes
of money. We've seen this from time to time, So
that shouldn't surprise anyone that if spectacular research is rewarded
and kind of good mule like research is not rewarded
so much that you aren't going to be creating.

Speaker 2 (59:21):
When you say spectacular research, you mean research that comes
not that it's spectacularly well done.

Speaker 3 (59:26):
It's not Einstein's breakthrough breakthrough, yeah, but breakthroughs that you
think are false.

Speaker 1 (59:32):
Right, yeah, but apparent yes. But so that's a quality
control issue, and I think issues like that could be
addressed through crafting of incentives. Ideology is a bit tougher,
the idea that certain things. The second set of issues
we were discussing, the idea that certain research projects can't
be pursued or shouldn't be pursued, or if the wrong

(59:54):
results if they are or something delegate is pursued if
the wrong result is coming out, maybe a study about
the effects of you know, long hours in daycare on
chiltern or something that's something that could have be a
political hot issue that researchers will not want more trouble
and will decide to simply the project wildly.

Speaker 2 (01:00:17):
D So those are some that we've been talking about
in universities, a phenomenon ideological research and ideological education.

Speaker 3 (01:00:27):
I guess my conclusion is from what you've said here,
is that it's not just in the humanities or in
the relatively soft social sciences.

Speaker 2 (01:00:36):
It's actually spreading into the hard sciences and into medicine.

Speaker 3 (01:00:41):
And it's not necessarily comprehensive in all of those areas.

Speaker 2 (01:00:44):
There might be spaces you can go where you're just
doing science at the highest level that's that's available today,
but there are significant areas within the hard sciences that
are affected by this overarching ideological story we've been.

Speaker 3 (01:01:04):
Telling about not being free. I think it's plausible.

Speaker 2 (01:01:06):
Yeah, Okay, Well, we have one more sphere to cover,
and that is nonprofits. And here I'm not speaking of
nonprofit universities, which we've just discussed, but nonprofit foundations, the
Big Ford Foundations and MacArthur Foundations.

Speaker 3 (01:01:20):
In these areas, one can reasonably think that there's a diversity.
There are conservative foundations and there are liberal foundations.

Speaker 2 (01:01:30):
There's the Koch Brothers Foundation and there's the MacArthur Foundations,
and so there's real money on both sides.

Speaker 3 (01:01:37):
And this is an area where I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:01:40):
Maybe you're not completely free to speak your mind if
you're employed at Coke Brothers or if you're employed at.

Speaker 3 (01:01:47):
The Ford Foundation.

Speaker 2 (01:01:48):
But in choosing which one of these institutions to go to,
you can get a reasonable kind of freedom to speak.

Speaker 3 (01:01:55):
You you can align yourself with one where you can
speak your mind at that institution.

Speaker 1 (01:02:00):
Is that right?

Speaker 3 (01:02:01):
Or is this a sphere of life where.

Speaker 2 (01:02:05):
Like all the others, people don't feel free, and they
don't feel free with good reason.

Speaker 1 (01:02:09):
Well, there is definitely a perception that a lot of
the major foundations have an ideological event that I think
that's unfortunate because I think that they have a very
important role to play in society. To be sure, big
foundations are large concentrations of money, and there has always
been a regular and anxiety that with an enormous amount

(01:02:29):
of money comes potentially political power, and that these private
foundations might be politically active without accountability, and I share
those concerns. That said, the foundations are free to engage
in a lot of research, explore a lot of ideas
that would be tough for elected representatives possibly to explore.

(01:02:52):
They can do, for example, pilot programs and education and
health and so on that it might be harder for
a less well finance or less subtle institution to undertake.
So with all that, I guess I could say that
the private foundations that you're speaking of have a very
potentially very beneficial role to playing or in society where

(01:03:14):
they appear to be have been subject to ideological capture
such that their statements of factual findings become suspect. At
that point, I think there is.

Speaker 3 (01:03:27):
A huge problem with respect to nonprofits and foundations.

Speaker 2 (01:03:31):
One thing that I've observed is that a lot of
their activities formerly are classified as five O ONEC three activity.

Speaker 3 (01:03:39):
That's an IRS classification, and what it means is that
they're engaged in.

Speaker 2 (01:03:44):
Charitable, educational, scientific, or related kinds of activities and therefore
enjoyed certain tax advantages. And that's in distinction to five
oh one C four which is another kind of organization
under the IRS regulations, which is a political advocacy organization
or a social welfare force or social social welfare organizations

(01:04:08):
which can include more political advocacy.

Speaker 1 (01:04:10):
Than for the five oh one C three. Five oh
one C threes can receive contributions that are tax seductible
up to a point to their donors.

Speaker 2 (01:04:20):
And so one PSU in contrasts, what's the regulation uh
governing five to one C four.

Speaker 1 (01:04:26):
If you give a million dollars to five O one
C four, you do not get any tax deductions.

Speaker 3 (01:04:30):
Okay, So there's a different treatment if they're engaged.

Speaker 2 (01:04:33):
In a political advocacy or social welfare kind of program,
there are different treatments.

Speaker 1 (01:04:38):
And then there are another there are other nonprofits that
are not five O one C fours or five O
one C threes. So, as a society, we have given
preferential tax treatment to organizations that, as you say, are
engaged in charitable, educational, scientific, et cetera purposes and denied
them to organizations that are sent to be not straight

(01:05:01):
up advocacy.

Speaker 2 (01:05:02):
Or political worry is I mean everyone's allowed to form
a foundation to promote whatever ideas they want to promote.

Speaker 3 (01:05:10):
But the worry is that five O one C three
and five O one C four are getting co opted.

Speaker 2 (01:05:17):
So that is to say, an organization is formed with
the tax advantages of five O one C three status
and then engages in a kind of advocacy where it
properly should be seen as five O one C four
or some third classification altogether.

Speaker 1 (01:05:29):
And that is the worry with a lot of our
big foundations. So if five O one C three's they
have enjoyed enormous tax advantages, which we can discuss whether
or not there should be such tax advantages and so forth,
but the fact is there are. And in exchange for
having dramatic, considerable tax advantages, they are supposed to be
limiting their activities to the charitable, to the educational, and

(01:05:53):
so forth, and not to be political actors.

Speaker 3 (01:05:56):
Now to be sure nine be maintained.

Speaker 2 (01:05:59):
I mean, it's so it's hard to figure out what
is what is an educational enterprise and what is a
species of advocacy.

Speaker 1 (01:06:08):
They're so connected, true, and the fact that there is
bound to be a ray area is an argument for
overhauling the system and not having five oh one C threes,
saying it's so hard to differentiate politics from charity that
we are simply going to no longer offer these special
tax advantages and allow firms to be five oh one

(01:06:32):
C three's because we simply can't figure out which five
oh one C three's deserve the five oh one C
three status and which do not. But given our current system,
it seems to me we should at least make a
good faith effort to distinguish firms that are behaving the
way that five oh one C three's are supposed to
behave from those that have crossed a line and have

(01:06:55):
become political actors.

Speaker 3 (01:06:56):
Now what concretely would that mean that there were sort of.

Speaker 2 (01:06:58):
A team of the IRS viewing five O one C
three applications to see if they're engaging in advocacy and
making judgments about what counts as advocacy.

Speaker 1 (01:07:06):
There is a team in the IRS that is charged
with a charge with assessing firms as to whether or
not they deserve five O one S two to get
or maintain five O one C three status. Now, I mean,
I'm open frankly to a number of different leader regimes
in this area, but I'm not open to the idea
that firms can get special tax advantages, claim five O

(01:07:30):
one C three status and then not act as a
five oh one C three And when we discuss all
not five oh one C three is including leading universities,
that is a to me any way, we no problem.
And these organizations must be run in a way so
that they are not in effect political actors. They need

(01:07:51):
to be run in a way that as long as
we have five on one C three status available, they
are in compliance with the requirements.

Speaker 3 (01:07:58):
Of five on one C three status.

Speaker 2 (01:08:00):
If they were evident it was that, let's say some
threshold more than ninety percent of employees at a five
O one C three are of the same political party.
Does that have any kind of case, even a prima
facia case for saying this can't possibly.

Speaker 3 (01:08:14):
Be an ideologically neutral organization, sort of like you prema
facial lose five oh one.

Speaker 2 (01:08:20):
C three status as soon as ninety percent of your
employeees of one party.

Speaker 1 (01:08:23):
No, I do not think that, No, absolutely not, because
I think a large number of people are able to
separate their jobs from their voting and will do what
they're supposed to be doing at work and will not
be pursuing any kind of political project.

Speaker 2 (01:08:42):
I actually find that hard to believe myself that let's
say that you're you're a five O one C three
working on a criminal justice reform and ninety let's imagine
it's very extreme, ninety eight percent.

Speaker 3 (01:09:00):
Of your employees are.

Speaker 2 (01:09:04):
Democrats, are not just Democrats, but sort of like passionately
involved in progressive projects in criminal justice. For maybe all
former criminal defense lawyers who are former public defenders, who.

Speaker 3 (01:09:20):
Are passionate about taking down the system they think is corrupt.

Speaker 2 (01:09:25):
I just can't fathom how they could carry forth their
mission in a way that didn't invent a certain political bias.
And by the way, same on the other side, I
just can't see how that works sociologically.

Speaker 1 (01:09:36):
Well, there we disagree, because I can imagine employees of
such an organization devoting their time to doing research, not
shoddy research, not fraudulent research, but real research about how
about the effects of saying different pilot programs and then
collecting and analyzing the research in a responsible way and
examinating it. I mean, sure, the people undertaking this project

(01:10:00):
might be drawn to it for the same reasons that
they are drawn to vote for a particular political party
that makes eminente sense. But it doesn't mean that in
doing work that is not its nature some kind of
retail political work, that they are inevitably promoting a retail
politics agenda. I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:10:21):
I mean, essentially, what you're saying is methodology is the
solution to ideology, that if people are rigorous about the research,
then their politics become irrelevant because the methodology sort of
insulates the findings from their ideology. But I don't think
that's how research generally works, or at least it's extremely
hard to accomplish.

Speaker 1 (01:10:43):
That. It's hard to.

Speaker 3 (01:10:44):
Methodology is.

Speaker 2 (01:10:46):
Extremely manipulable, and I've almost never seen a case where
it is immune from strong assumptions, especially when those strong
assumptions are sociologically reinforced.

Speaker 1 (01:10:58):
Well, I'm not claiming that this is more will work perfectly,
but I certainly think it can work well enough, and
that it is not inevitable that a group of employees,
even if ninety eight percent of them contribute to the
Democratic Party will visa or vice versa, will inevitably end
up producing work that furthers the interests of the major

(01:11:22):
political party they happen to be supporting, not at all.
I think that there are facts. I think that they
are discernible. Often. I think that there are better ideas
and worse ideas in the public policy realm. I think
that many people will be intellectually honest enough to explain things.
And I also think it's very important to note that

(01:11:43):
when you look at the relationship between these same nonprofits
that are hypothetically overwhelmingly staffed by devin by members of
or supporters of one political party, it's a two ways
treat that what the major political party ends up with
as its program can be influenced by the organizations by nonprofit,

(01:12:06):
non political organizations. It's not that the people working for
these nonprofits are eager to do the bidding of those
running the political parties. Those running the political parties will
pay attention to the work being done by nonprofits. And
it's true that someone who is in charge of or
working in a serious policy job for a major political

(01:12:29):
party might well be more interested in the research that
is being carried out by a nonprofit that they know
is staffed by those who are likely to sympathized with them.
It's not inevitable, right, not inevitable that that's going to
be the only source that they look to. We have
seen over time political parties in effect change their policies,

(01:12:54):
change their objectives, change their arguments, and sometimes that's in
response two ideas put forth by parties, by individuals and
firms that are more associated with the other side.

Speaker 2 (01:13:10):
When do we see the welfare Okay, can you talk
about nineties?

Speaker 1 (01:13:16):
I mean you can think the Democrats in nineteen nineties
adopted welfare reform. They adopted a lot of ideas that
or at least pre sympathetic to a lot of ideas
that have been developed and by some of the major
think tanks that were thought to be more quotu conservative.

Speaker 2 (01:13:36):
And so your vision is of one where we use
the five O, one C three apparatus to essentially enforce
a genuine commitment to helping others order truth seeking and
not engaging in political advocacy.

Speaker 3 (01:13:52):
And the difference between political.

Speaker 2 (01:13:53):
Advocacy and truth seeking is fundamentally about the rigor of
ones methodologies.

Speaker 1 (01:13:58):
And there will be a gray area, and.

Speaker 3 (01:14:00):
There will be a grey area, you know, suggesting.

Speaker 1 (01:14:02):
That you can draw a right line, but I do
think there is a gray area, and I do think
that there are a number of things that we don't
have any trouble identifying.

Speaker 3 (01:14:09):
As being in colony or in common being right.

Speaker 1 (01:14:13):
Also, criminal justice reform. We are seeing a number of
Republican politicians very interested in criminal justice reform, and a
lot of the ideas that they're at least willing to
explore have seats or at least arguably some origins in
more quote left wing organizations. I think this is all healthy.
It's exactly to me anyway.

Speaker 3 (01:14:32):
How the system is supposed to work well, Julia, I
always love talking with you. I always learned something, I
always find something, you know.

Speaker 2 (01:14:41):
I think at a number of points in the conversation
you've been more optimistic than me about the prospects for
things getting better.

Speaker 3 (01:14:49):
And I guess what I want to say about that is,
I really hope you're right. I've never will wanted to
be wrong than in talking with you. I am optimistic.

Speaker 1 (01:14:56):
So I'll end with a bull prediction. Okay, I think
it is more likely than not the greatest days of
the United States of America my ahead.

Speaker 3 (01:15:06):
Thank you again. I fervently hope you're right.

Speaker 1 (01:15:11):
Thank you.