I agree that the focus of expression at a university should be inquiry, but were I looking for an example of expression that, while protected, is definitely not about inquiry, I'd go to people shouting "By Any Means Necessary!" while explicitly refusing to engage anyone in discussion.
Instead, your guest takes the opportunity to mention the overreach of the Trump administration (to which I stipulate) and implies that until that came along, the culture was fine and we just have to "reclaim" it. He sounds like the presidents at their hearings.
In another recent example from an earlier podcast, the panel discussed Trump's mistake in alienating Modi. The story is that he insisted Modi recommend him for the Peace Prize by stating that he stopped the fighting between India and Pakistan, and then got angry when Modi demurred. Now, that seems entirely plausible to me, but when your people say "It was reported by the New York Times," I have to think: This is the paper that recently splashed the picture of a starving Gazan child on Page One when it 𝗸𝗻𝗲𝘄 that it wasn't a starving Gazan child. Not only that, but it reported on starvation when it 𝗸𝗻𝗲𝘄 that its people 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗻'𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱 an actual starving child to photograph. And I have to wonder why your people aren't asking themselves, "Why on Earth should I believe anything it reports?" Do they think that the 'Times dug around for alternative explanations or looked for reasons why the story maybe 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻'𝘁 plausible? Or did it, more likely, latch on to a story that makes its staff, owners and readers happy and just leave things at that?
I enjoyed the discussion, but like most of your discussions, I'd enjoy it more if your people could keep their politics out of it. Take the following:
𝘐 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘺. 𝘐 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘨𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘍𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘐𝘯 𝘢 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘺. 𝘞𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘐𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘞𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘺.
𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘥𝘥 𝘫𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘶𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘶𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘢𝘴 𝘍𝘐𝘙𝘌 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘳𝘦𝘨 𝘓𝘶𝘬𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘚𝘰 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘴. 𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮 𝘢 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘺𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵.
I agree that the focus of expression at a university should be inquiry, but were I looking for an example of expression that, while protected, is definitely not about inquiry, I'd go to people shouting "By Any Means Necessary!" while explicitly refusing to engage anyone in discussion.
Instead, your guest takes the opportunity to mention the overreach of the Trump administration (to which I stipulate) and implies that until that came along, the culture was fine and we just have to "reclaim" it. He sounds like the presidents at their hearings.
In another recent example from an earlier podcast, the panel discussed Trump's mistake in alienating Modi. The story is that he insisted Modi recommend him for the Peace Prize by stating that he stopped the fighting between India and Pakistan, and then got angry when Modi demurred. Now, that seems entirely plausible to me, but when your people say "It was reported by the New York Times," I have to think: This is the paper that recently splashed the picture of a starving Gazan child on Page One when it 𝗸𝗻𝗲𝘄 that it wasn't a starving Gazan child. Not only that, but it reported on starvation when it 𝗸𝗻𝗲𝘄 that its people 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗻'𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱 an actual starving child to photograph. And I have to wonder why your people aren't asking themselves, "Why on Earth should I believe anything it reports?" Do they think that the 'Times dug around for alternative explanations or looked for reasons why the story maybe 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻'𝘁 plausible? Or did it, more likely, latch on to a story that makes its staff, owners and readers happy and just leave things at that?