0:02

Welcome back to the DIR Today,

0:04

I want to talk about what happened at Stanford

0:07

Law School last week.

0:09

Many of you know about it already. A

0:11

federal judge who was invited by the federalist

0:14

society to speak was shouted down,

0:17

and the dean of diversity,

0:20

equity, and inclusion then took

0:23

the podium and basically justified

0:26

the students' decision

0:29

not to listen to him, to walk out,

0:32

and to protest. It's it's okay to protest.

0:35

Okay to walk out. It's not okay to drown

0:37

out. And then she,

0:39

you know, went on a little rant

0:41

about how much harm he had done and how people

0:43

shouldn't be invited to the law school whom I

0:45

hurt feelings minority students

0:48

and other students who she's basically

0:51

in charge of as the dean of diversity

0:55

inclusion and and equity.

0:58

The reason it's so important is that Stanford

1:00

is just the tip of the iceberg, not

1:03

even the canary in the mine, the canary in

1:05

the mine may have been Yale where this happened

1:07

previously or Georgetown. And

1:10

it will happen at every single

1:12

law school in the country. That has

1:14

a chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. The National

1:17

Lawyers Guild is hard

1:20

left form formally formally a

1:23

a communist oriented

1:26

organization. It

1:28

was taken over by communists

1:30

for period of time during its

1:32

early existence. It also had some very good

1:35

people in it. Arthur Goldberg was a

1:37

member of other

1:39

good people were members, but it's been

1:42

taken over by the hard hard

1:45

left. And and they have said

1:47

that they will disrupt any

1:49

speaker who essentially they disagree

1:52

with who comes to speak at

1:54

a law schools and ask what happens.

1:56

So you can see it as a video Kast through Stanford.

2:00

Just Google it. And and you'll see the video

2:02

of the Dean holding forth, you know, she paid

2:04

lip service to freedom of speech. Oh, her important

2:07

freedom of speeches. But Is

2:09

the juice juice worth the squeeze or is

2:11

the squeeze worth the juice? I don't remember which

2:13

way it goes. But she basically

2:16

said, should we be inviting people who will

2:18

hurt? The feelings of of other

2:20

people. Shouldn't we be trying

2:22

to change the Stanford rules and

2:24

not permit hate speech. This judge

2:26

was not gonna engage in hate speech. He was

2:29

gonna be talking about the role of

2:31

the supreme court and he where

2:33

he's argued and he was a lawyer. Gun

2:35

control gay rights and range of

2:37

other issues and probably would present a position

2:40

that would be quite controversial position,

2:42

which I would not agree with. I'm sure

2:44

would not agree with it. But if I were there,

2:46

I would have asked some polite questions.

2:49

That's not what happened. What happened was

2:51

Deane basically monopolized the

2:53

discussion. And by the time she

2:55

was finished, he didn't

2:58

really have time to make his presentation.

3:00

So he answered questions. The questions

3:03

reflected the quality of

3:06

of the people asking them. One,

3:09

I'll just read you from an article, the students appeared

3:11

to have little familiarity with Duncan's jurisprudence.

3:14

Some accused him of suppressing the voting

3:16

rights of African Americans. Duncan

3:18

said, only to cite a case

3:20

where Duncan had actually descended

3:23

from the majority. Oh, yeah. Except we were

3:25

on the wrong side of of the case.

3:27

But this is my favorite. This is a question

3:30

asked by a student. And when I read this question,

3:32

I wanna ask you, would you want

3:34

this guy to represent you as a lawyer?

3:37

Would you hire him if you

3:39

were hiring partner for law firm?

3:41

Would you hire him if you

3:43

were a judge who was looking for

3:45

law clerks, here's the question that

3:47

this man asked. Quote,

3:51

I fuck men. I

3:54

can find the prostate. One student

3:56

asked, why can't you

3:59

find the clip? That's

4:01

the question. And people

4:03

were shocked when the

4:05

judge used

4:08

himself a little bit of profanity where he

4:10

said that the real victims

4:13

here are are the students who

4:15

wanted to hear me speak. And he said

4:17

they were being treated like dog shit.

4:20

The judge was obviously a little angry

4:22

at the fact that he was not allowed to present.

4:25

His point of view. Again, let me emphasize

4:28

that heckling a speaker is

4:30

okay as long as it's brief

4:33

and doesn't shout out the speaker.

4:35

You can say, you're wrong.

4:38

You know, you're a racist. You can do any of

4:40

those things. And

4:42

you can walk out. You can

4:44

hold signs as long as you can block the

4:46

view of other people. All of

4:48

that's okay. What you cannot do is prevent

4:50

a speaker from speaking. And that's

4:52

what happened. Here, that's what happened at

4:55

Yale, that's what happened at Georgetown. And

4:57

now I'm gonna make a shocking statement. It's

4:59

in the form of challenge in some ways.

5:01

I two hundred Harvard for fifty years.

5:04

I am a liberal. I was

5:06

one of the most liberal members of the Harvard

5:09

law school faculty for the

5:11

fifty years. I was a national board member

5:13

of the American Civil Liberties Union. I

5:17

voted Democrat in every presidential election

5:20

and I defended Hillary

5:23

Clinton in the Court of Public Opinion.

5:25

Bill Clinton in front of in

5:27

his impeachment Ted Kennedy

5:30

and and Chapoquatic, I have all the credentials

5:32

of being a liberal Democrat. I

5:35

probably would be shouted down.

5:38

If Harvard were to invite me, the federalist

5:40

society were to invite me or some other group,

5:43

were to invite me to speak to a school

5:45

where I taught for fifty years over

5:48

ten thousand students, I bet

5:50

you, I would not be given an opportunity

5:52

to present my speech

5:55

without being shouted

5:57

down and being disrupted. I

5:59

don't mind that they'd be protests. That's okay.

6:01

You can protest me speaking, but allow

6:04

the people who wanna hear me. Speak

6:06

to speak. But the

6:08

point I want to make is it's not Stanford. It's

6:11

virtually every law school. In the United

6:13

States. Certainly every law school that has a

6:15

chapter of the national lawyers'

6:19

guild would probably stop

6:21

me from speaking. And

6:24

if they would stop me, who are they gonna allow?

6:26

They're only allowing people whose

6:28

views they approve of. And

6:31

that's not democracy. That's

6:33

not freedom of speech, you know, Stanford

6:36

and Harvard at private universities as is

6:38

a Georgetown. Pennsylvania University

6:40

of Pennsylvania. They're trying to fire a

6:42

professor, tenured professor. These

6:45

are all private universities,

6:48

and they have more rights to press free

6:50

speech than public universities

6:52

do, but some

6:55

states have state statutes. That

6:58

guarantee, freedom of speech, of

7:01

of of speakers who and

7:03

and of listeners. And people often

7:06

forget what triggered martial, great

7:08

justice reminded us. The first

7:10

amendment not only protects the freedom

7:12

to speak, but equally

7:14

it protects the freedom to hear and

7:16

to listen. And those are two

7:18

sides of the same coin as he said.

7:21

And people forget that when

7:24

you suppress a speaker, you prevent

7:26

his listeners from

7:28

hearing what he had to say.

7:31

Now recently, the president of Stanford, who

7:33

I know and who I respect very

7:36

decent guy. And the

7:38

dean of the law school apologized to

7:42

the judge, but they should have apologized

7:44

to the students. The ones that would

7:47

deny the right to hear judge

7:50

Duncan. And to question him, students

7:53

have right to ask hard questions

7:55

of speaker. He's not wearing his

7:58

robe at that point. He's like any other

8:00

speaker. And you can ask him hard questions.

8:02

You can even ask him the kind of stupid

8:04

dumb questions that these two

8:06

quoted students did.

8:08

One, citing

8:11

his saying he

8:13

he was on the wrong side of a case when,

8:15

in fact, he he was on the side, the students

8:18

were on for the most part, and the students

8:20

who who talked about the sexuality, their

8:23

sexuality and the sexuality of the

8:25

of the judge. You have a right

8:28

to be to ask dumb questions. You know,

8:30

I wouldn't hire you if asked a question like that,

8:32

but I'm entitled not to hire somebody

8:34

who is asking really, really

8:36

stupid questions. And

8:39

so the question comes up. And

8:42

that's that's what I wanna wanna really really

8:44

ask you and and ask for your letters

8:47

and opinions on

8:49

this. So the members of the National

8:51

Lawyers Guild publicized the names

8:54

of the members

8:56

of the society would invited Judge

8:58

Duncan to shame them and to

9:00

harass them. And

9:03

some of them were threatened. And

9:05

and and the dean has said, well, you

9:07

know, if you wanna see our

9:09

psychiatrists or our deans will

9:12

make you feel better. That's not the point.

9:14

The point is that the national lawyers feel

9:16

publicized the name of the people

9:19

who invited Judge Jenkins. So

9:22

what's fair is fair? Shouldn't

9:25

the names of the protesters, the

9:28

name of the jerk ass, the question about

9:30

sexuality, the name of the people who got the

9:32

descent and the majority confused, shouldn't

9:34

their names be publicized as

9:37

well. A couple of judges

9:40

mistakenly argued that

9:42

after the Yale Sitch situation. They would never

9:44

hire another Yale Law clerk or

9:46

maybe I'm biased. I was Yale,

9:48

law school graduate, and I was hired to be

9:50

a Law clerk by the Court of Appeals. And

9:52

the United States Supreme Court.

9:55

I think that's an overgeneralization. I'm

9:57

sure there are gonna be judges who will say I won't

9:59

hire anybody from Stanford. That's

10:01

a mistake because remember Stanford

10:03

students include the people who invited him

10:05

and included people who just wanted to hear

10:07

him speak and you shouldn't paint

10:10

with a broad brush. The same

10:12

thing is true. Of Yale, more

10:14

than half the students at Yale, I'm sure we're

10:16

objecting to the fact that a

10:19

speaker from the Federal Society was not allowed

10:21

to express her point of view. And

10:23

the same thing probably true of Georgetown, and

10:25

there was an article in yesterday's New York

10:27

Times, about Professor Wax

10:30

at University of Pennsylvania, who the

10:32

dean would like to see

10:34

disciplined or deny tenure deprived

10:37

of her tenure that she already has because

10:40

of views that they regard as racist.

10:43

She denied she's a racist. She

10:45

says she's a race realist,

10:48

but she does make statements that are very

10:50

provocative statements that I fundamentally

10:53

disagree with. For

10:55

example, she does basically say

10:57

that blacks are intellectually less

11:00

able than than than whites. I

11:03

I would urge her to go to Washington

11:05

Square Park and watch some

11:07

of these young black men who

11:10

play speed chess and

11:13

win every single game and

11:15

are absolutely brilliant at

11:17

chess. They beat they beat Grand Kast.

11:22

Nobody can persuade me that there are

11:25

inherent intellectual

11:27

differences based on race,

11:30

whatever differences there are largely

11:32

based on on culture and background. You

11:35

know, when the IQ test was first invented,

11:37

the Stanford Benet I think it was the earliest

11:40

Kast. It was administered

11:42

to a lot of immigrants, including lots

11:44

of Jews, and the initial

11:46

conclusion where their Jews were intellectually

11:49

inferior. They didn't do

11:51

as well on the test because the tests were culturally

11:54

biased. These were the Jews whose children

11:56

won the Nobel prizes and became professors.

12:00

I always love. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's

12:03

hypothetical question, what's the difference

12:05

between a woman who worked as bookkeeper

12:07

in the garment district and supreme court justice

12:09

and the answer is one generation. Her

12:12

mother worked as a bookkeeper

12:14

as did mine and

12:16

and in the same area, probably

12:18

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's mom and my mom knew

12:20

each other. They and and they both

12:22

had relatively successful children.

12:25

So I I don't believe that wax

12:28

is correct, but I wouldn't deny

12:30

your tenure, takeaway, your tenure, if

12:34

she's wrong correct or challenger,

12:37

if I were a student or a colleague, but

12:39

I wouldn't I wouldn't take away their

12:42

their tenure. So the question

12:44

remains, should

12:47

there be accountability for

12:49

students who deprive other students of their

12:51

right to hear controversial speakers.

12:54

Should there be consequences for Dean? Who

12:57

played an ignoble role

13:00

in this entire episode. And by the way,

13:02

the president is Stanford and the dean of Stanford,

13:04

the the the head dean of Stanford, did

13:07

gently criticize the

13:09

den the den of diversity and assure

13:13

that it would never happen again. Now it's gonna happen

13:15

again. They're wrong. It's gonna

13:17

happen again. Unless students are

13:19

held accountable. I wouldn't

13:22

expel students the first time it happened, but

13:24

if it happened again, after appropriate

13:26

warnings, if there were violations

13:29

of clear school rules. Yeah.

13:32

You know, when I was visitor

13:34

at Stanford. I was as very young

13:36

man, I was honored to become

13:39

a fellow at the Centre of advanced study

13:41

in behavioral sciences at Stanford University.

13:45

And I represented a

13:47

professor named Bruce Franklin who was a

13:49

terrible man. Hated his guts. He

13:51

was a Stalinist, but

13:53

he was being deprived

13:55

of tenure, and I I defended him.

13:58

And most

14:00

of the Stanford Law professors supported

14:02

denying him tenure. I

14:04

was the radical leftist in those days.

14:06

I was never that. I was the liberal.

14:08

I was the ACOU lawyer, in fact,

14:11

who defended Bruce Franklin, and most

14:13

of the faculty wanted him

14:16

fired, and he did some. He did

14:18

some bad things. He made a speech urging

14:21

students or at least inciting students

14:23

at least that was the argument. To

14:25

take over the computation center. I

14:28

think I remember his exact words. He said,

14:30

I think I think it would be

14:33

A good idea. A good idea if

14:36

people were to take over the computation center

14:39

and and destroy the war, complicity

14:41

that Stanford has in the Vietnam

14:43

War and the people then moved and took over the computation

14:46

center, and that was one of the charges.

14:49

Against them, he claimed it was an he

14:51

just said it would be a good idea. And I was

14:53

one of his lawyers, and so

14:55

I made that argument. But

14:58

that was Stanford University back then.

15:00

Today, it's quite different

15:02

today. It's a much a Walgreens

15:05

University though it also has the hoover

15:07

center, which is a conservative thing

15:09

tank. And I'm sure there are

15:11

many conservatives on the Stanford

15:13

campus who would like to hear

15:16

a variety of points of view. By the

15:18

way, going to hear a speaker, doesn't

15:20

mean you subscribe to their point of

15:22

view. I've gone to hear many speakers

15:24

who I disagree with and, you know,

15:27

think they're interesting. William Buckley

15:29

was one of the great speakers of my generation.

15:31

I disagreed with them with everything he

15:33

stood for. But I

15:36

wanted to hear what he had to say. And occasionally,

15:38

he would change my mind. And occasionally, I would actually

15:40

change his mind. And

15:42

so The question

15:44

is, what do you do? You're the president

15:46

of university. You're the dean of

15:50

a law school. And you have students

15:52

who just don't

15:54

wanna hear, don't wanna hear

15:56

these points of view. That's fine. You don't wanna hear

15:59

them, don't come, you know. My

16:01

idea of censorship has changed

16:03

the channel. You know, you don't

16:05

like my Kast, turn it off, but

16:07

don't try to stop me from having my Kast.

16:09

And that's what these intolerant

16:12

national lawyers' guild students

16:14

are are trying to do.

16:16

They're trying to prevent speakers

16:19

like Duncan from persuading open

16:22

minded students that maybe he has

16:24

a point. Look, I hope he doesn't persuade them.

16:26

I'm His views are not my views.

16:28

I I don't approve of many of

16:30

his decisions I have to admit.

16:32

I only know from whatever in the newspaper.

16:35

Is, but I'll give you one example. He

16:37

had a case involving apparently a transgender

16:40

child or anographer, who had some mouthful.

16:43

And he refused to call

16:46

that person by their

16:49

preferred pronoun. I don't remember which

16:51

one it was. But he called him he

16:54

and he was

16:56

much criticized the judge was for not allowing

16:59

somebody, well, I had an experience like that some years

17:01

ago, I was speaking at Yale College.

17:04

And I was speaking about the Wicki

17:08

Leak's case. And I mentioned Manning.

17:12

Remember Manning? He's the guy who gave

17:14

over the material. Ultimately,

17:17

he became a woman and it was Chelsea

17:20

Manning. But before that,

17:22

he was a man. And

17:24

so when I described the case to this large

17:26

audience, I said, he

17:29

stole secrets. And

17:32

people start yelling out. She she she

17:34

she she she she I said,

17:36

no, don't blame woman for what a man

17:39

did. He stole the secrets as a

17:41

man. He then may have divulged

17:43

them as a woman, but he were and

17:45

they said, no, he was always a woman, but

17:47

he didn't really make the change

17:50

or didn't know it, I don't remember which, but

17:52

no, I'm I'm truth

17:55

prevails over over preferences,

17:59

would I do the same thing today? Today,

18:01

I basically use the word today for everybody.

18:05

Pay did this, they did that. And I try

18:07

very hard not to focus

18:10

on gender words

18:13

probably little bit. Little bit

18:15

cowardly to do that. But, you know,

18:18

I I wanna I want to not

18:20

insult people. I mean, the fortuitously, and

18:22

if they want to be called, what they want

18:24

to be called. I'm happy to to do that

18:27

as long as it doesn't distort history and

18:29

doesn't distort reality. And

18:32

maybe doesn't distort grammar. But

18:35

I'm willing to distort grammar. They is the

18:37

plural, but it's now been used

18:39

to describe people

18:41

who don't don't want to be described

18:44

as either he or she, so you say they.

18:47

And that's okay. I'm I'm happy to distort

18:49

grammar little bit, not to make

18:51

people uncomfortable, but I'm not

18:53

happy to distort history. Chelsea

18:56

Manning was a man

18:58

at the time he stole the security

19:01

secrets and then he became

19:03

a woman that's history and

19:05

you can't distort that

19:07

history. And so Getting

19:11

back to Stanford for just a few moments,

19:15

I think it would be good idea to disclose

19:18

the names of the students, I think

19:20

that students should know in advance, that

19:22

if they participate in public

19:25

public advocacy

19:27

and and and public

19:30

attempts to take back advocacy.

19:32

Public attempts to silence

19:34

speakers, public censorship of

19:36

speakers. Their

19:39

names are in the public.

19:41

And it's a good thing,

19:43

not a bad thing to identify them

19:45

so that others are not held responsible. For

19:48

their views, you don't want students at Stanford

19:50

who did nothing wrong to be punished

19:52

for the few who did something wrong. So

19:55

I think publishing the names is is

19:57

probably a good idea.

19:59

You know, as somebody who lived during McArthurism,

20:02

I'm concerned about creating

20:05

any kind of a black Kast. But of course, the McCarthy

20:07

a black list was very different because those

20:09

were people who had been communists many,

20:12

many years earlier. Most of them

20:14

had given that up, and many

20:16

of them were, you know, very patriotic Americans,

20:19

but when you reveal their names and put them

20:21

on blacklist, they couldn't get jobs in

20:23

Hollywood. They couldn't get jobs in television. They

20:25

couldn't get jobs. In ordinary

20:28

places of work. And so, blacklists

20:31

were very bad. This is very different. These

20:33

are Students who are proud

20:35

to have disrupted the speaker, who are

20:37

prepared to give

20:39

interviews, and there's no reason why their

20:42

names shouldn't be. Disclosed. And

20:44

frankly, if I'm a judge, I wouldn't

20:46

hire a student who

20:49

was part of a disruption.

20:51

I wouldn't hire a student who asked the dumb question

20:55

like the question that was asked

20:57

by that student regarding

20:59

the judge's sexuality. I would at

21:01

least question a potential

21:03

local act applicant saying, well,

21:05

you you challenged this judge on an opinion,

21:07

but he wrote the dissent. Didn't you do

21:09

any research before you did that?

21:12

Would you do research for me if I asked

21:14

you to do a draft

21:16

of an opinion, or would you just express

21:18

your your bigoted views,

21:21

one-sided views or views that you heard from

21:23

somebody else? I wanna know who's working

21:25

for me. I had, you know, how I don't know how

21:27

many hundred research assistants over

21:30

my fifty years at Harvard, and I

21:32

never ever picked them on the basis

21:34

of anything other than merit. But

21:37

I'd want to know if a student was

21:39

part of a disruption on

21:42

which I regard as inconsistent with the

21:44

spirit of the first amendment. I'd want to know

21:46

those things. And so I'm

21:48

happy to see some accountability of

21:50

the Harvard's of the Stanford

21:53

students, Freudian slip. I think it will happen at

21:55

Harvard. And I wonder what will happen. If

21:57

I am invited,

22:00

and it would be interesting to see

22:03

other schools as well. So I

22:05

think this is the way for the future. think we're

22:07

gonna see more censorship. I think we're gonna

22:09

see less accountability. I think

22:11

we're gonna see more people like Nadine

22:15

of diversity who

22:18

have increased power universities and

22:21

students, radical, leftist,

22:24

woke, progressive, sensorial

22:27

students having more power. And

22:29

that means less power in the hands of

22:31

majority of students who just

22:33

want to go to school and learn and

22:35

become good lawyers or doctors

22:37

or engineers and want hear

22:40

different points of view. I mean, people

22:42

go to great universities to hear diversity

22:44

of points of view and yet no school

22:46

that I know of has a dean of intellectual

22:48

diversity. Only of racial diversity.

22:51

And that may be important, but

22:54

so is intellectual diversity. So

22:56

let's look at some questions

22:59

that came

23:02

in, in the last day or so.

23:04

Here they are. By the

23:06

way, in two days,

23:09

my new book is coming out.

23:12

It's called get Trump.

23:14

There it is. You can order it today,

23:17

and Amazon

23:20

will send it to you in a couple of days.

23:24

You know, it's a book about

23:27

how people are trying

23:29

to use, weaponize the law

23:33

in an attempt to prevent

23:35

Trump from running for reelection.

23:38

I don't plan to vote for him if he runs,

23:40

but I would like to make sure

23:42

that the law is not improperly

23:45

weaponized to prevent

23:47

him from running, and

23:49

I'm sure we'll have more shows on

23:51

that, but please get my book, get

23:53

Trump, and write me letters

23:56

about it. And once the book's out for a couple

23:58

of days and you've had a chance to read it,

24:00

I'll do another show on it,

24:02

and then we can get some letters and be

24:04

interested to hear what you have to say about

24:06

that. Okay. So let's now

24:08

turn to some questions. What

24:11

do you think about your friend

24:13

Chuck Schumer trying to push

24:15

Fox News not to broadcast the

24:18

videos of the January sixth of s.

24:20

I didn't know that, and I I I'm

24:22

gonna take you what you word that that's happened.

24:25

Of course, that's dead wrong. Everybody

24:28

should see the videotapes and

24:30

the government try to suppress them again.

24:32

Full disclosure I represent. One

24:34

of the young man a Kast student who was

24:36

arrested and and charged with a

24:39

felony for for going into

24:41

the capital at the behest

24:43

of a Felisa wave of men in the videotape

24:46

show that. And so it's very important

24:48

for Americans to see all sides

24:50

of an issue and not to accept the narrative

24:52

of one side. So if Chuck Schumer

24:55

said that. Chuck, sorry, I

24:58

don't agree with you on that one. Okay,

25:01

Trump will be indicted, and it's hard

25:03

to fathom any Republican being acquitted

25:05

in DC, let alone the MAGA

25:07

king, just this in America is dead.

25:10

Trump and the j sixers, the victims

25:12

of political witch hunt, and most Americans

25:14

just don't care what goes around

25:16

comes around, the day will come when the other shoe drops.

25:18

Well, I hope now. I hope we'll have

25:21

a day when there's equal justice. By the

25:23

way, He's being indicted

25:25

likely in New York,

25:27

not Washington DC. Now, can

25:29

he get a fair trial in New York?

25:32

That's a hard question. I

25:34

think it'd be more likely

25:37

he can get a fair trial. In New York,

25:39

then in Washington DC. He might also

25:41

be indicted in Georgia

25:44

and probably could get

25:46

a fair trial there. Kast about

25:48

diversity. You have a much more diverse jury

25:50

pool in Georgia than you do

25:52

in the District of Columbia and probably

25:54

in New York, more than in the District

25:56

of Columbia. So we'll wait and

25:59

see. What do you think about compelling

26:01

students to say the pledge of allegiance in school?

26:03

Let's assume when the guide has taken out, I still wouldn't

26:05

do I would recite

26:08

the pledge, and that's fine, but compel

26:10

students to do it. No. don't think so. I think

26:12

a student has the right not to

26:14

be compelled to declare

26:17

his support for

26:19

the United States. I hope they all do. I hope

26:22

students are patriotic, but one

26:25

of my sons refused to cite

26:27

the pledge during the Vietnam

26:29

War and I remember the principal

26:31

called me thinking I would be raped my

26:34

son and I, of course, I congratulated Evan

26:36

went to the school and told him I completely support

26:38

his right. Not to say the pleasure

26:40

of allegiance. I think today, he does say the

26:42

pleasure of allegiance, but I'm not sure. We he's

26:45

not in school. But I know he stands

26:47

for the national anthem as I do.

26:49

By the way, I was I went to

26:52

Walmart the other night Marlin

26:56

Park, what's called Home what's it called LoanDepot

26:58

Park now? Beautiful, beautiful ballpark.

27:01

And I stood at the National Antoms

27:04

both of them, but they weren't the United

27:06

States national anthem. One of them was the Israeli

27:08

national anthem, and the other was the Nicaragua

27:11

national anthem because it's the World Baseball

27:13

Classic and Nicaragua was

27:15

playing Israel. Nicaragua was heading

27:17

by nothing. VA Fending, and then Israel

27:19

had a rally and they won three nothing,

27:22

and I've had a great time at

27:24

the game, hot dogs and all.

27:26

Wow. And then I didn't

27:28

go to last night's game. And I think,

27:30

go I didn't go. Israel

27:33

made history but not in a good way

27:35

Kast night. They were the first team ever

27:37

in the American in the

27:39

world baseball classic to

27:42

be subject to not only a no hitter,

27:44

but a perfect game. Puerto

27:46

Rico, phenomenal pitcher,

27:49

pitched a perfect game.

27:51

Twenty four up, twenty four down. You're gonna

27:53

say, oops, flip to the tongue. It's twenty seven. No.

27:55

Twenty four. Because in the world baseball

27:57

classic, they have an interesting rule. If

27:59

one team is ahead, ten to nothing,

28:02

the game ends. And Puerto

28:04

Rico scored their tenth

28:07

run-in the last of the eighth

28:09

inning, so Israel never got

28:11

to be up in the ninth inning. So it was

28:13

twenty four to twenty four up, twenty

28:15

four down. So congratulations to

28:17

Puerto Rico. What a great game you

28:19

put on. And tonight, I'm gonna watch

28:22

the next two games that in the world

28:24

classic are Israel

28:26

versus Venezuela and Dominican

28:29

Republic, probably the two best themes.

28:31

In the World Baseball Classic. So

28:34

I'm I'm not holding out such great hope for Israel,

28:36

but I'm gonna cheer for them. Okay.

28:40

Final words. I can listen

28:42

to you all day. I learned so much. Thank you, professor.

28:44

That's so nice. That's so nice.

28:47

Another one, I am seventy four years old, and

28:49

I'm Jewish and I still remember the law's prayer

28:51

that we used to say in class in the New York Public

28:53

Schools before the law changed around nineteen

28:55

fifty four. Yeah. And it's

28:58

it's fine that you remember it. The problem

29:00

is the lost prayer as a Christian prayer. And

29:04

If you wanna say it, you should be free to say

29:07

it. And I'm sure, well, Christian

29:09

schools say it. Just like

29:11

Jewish schools say, Shamaiah Srahl,

29:14

and other Jewish prayers in Muslim schools

29:16

say and

29:19

that's all good. That's what diversity and

29:21

religious freedom and freedom of expression

29:24

in the first amendment is a little about the public

29:26

schools, are subject to the other

29:28

provision of the constitution Congress

29:30

shall make no law respecting an

29:32

establishment of religion, and the supreme court has

29:35

held appropriately in my view that

29:37

compelling prayer in

29:39

the schools is a

29:42

law regarding an establishment

29:44

of religion, and it shouldn't be permitted.

29:46

So Those are my views.

29:49

Oh, one more question. What about the

29:51

oath? Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but

29:53

the truth to help you god? I swear to

29:55

tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but I

29:57

don't say so help me. God, and

29:59

in fact, the United States constitution, which

30:02

has the oath of office for the president,

30:04

does not include so help me

30:07

god. So you can swear

30:09

under American freedom, you

30:11

can swear without saying so help me

30:13

god. And the oath is

30:16

just as relevant and

30:18

subjects you to perjury prosecution

30:20

if you lie, so you don't have to swear to god. In

30:23

order to be subject

30:25

to a perjury prosecution. And I think

30:27

that's the right approach. So

30:31

see you all tomorrow.