[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE STATE OF INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM IN AMERICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
AND CIVIL JUSTICE
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-68
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-122 WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JERROLD NADLER, New York
Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
DARRELL E. ISSA, California HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
JIM JORDAN, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia TED LIEU, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
MATT GAETZ, Florida VALDEZ VENITA ``VAL'' DEMINGS,
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana Florida
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
JOHN RUTHERFORD, Florida
KAREN HANDEL, Georgia
KEITH ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff and General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice
STEVE KING, Iowa, Chairman
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
KAREN HANDEL, Georgia JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Steve King, Iowa, Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Civil Justice................................. 00
The Honorable Steve Cohen, Tennessee, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil..................... 00
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 00
The Honorable Jerry Nadlar, New York, Ranking Member, Committee
on the Judiciary............................................... 00
WITNESSES
Dr. Mike Adams, Professor, University of North Carolina at
Wilmington
Oral Statement............................................... 00
Dr. Peter Wood, President, National Association of Scholars
Oral Statement............................................... 00
Mike Simkovic, Professor of Law and Accounting, USC Gould School
of Law
Oral Statement............................................... 00
Dr. Tim Groseclose, Professor, George Mason University
Oral Statement............................................... 00
Jim Hoft, Founder and Editor, The Gateway Pundit
Oral Statement............................................... 00
Adriana Cohen, Syndicated Columnist, Boston Herald Radio Host
Oral Statement............................................... 00
Jeremy Tedesco, Vice President of U.S. Advocacy, Alliance
Defending Freedom
Oral Statement............................................... 00
Ari Waldman, Professor of Law, New York Law School
Oral Statement............................................... 00
Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq., Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc
Oral Statement............................................... 00
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
The Honorable Steve King, Iowa, Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Civil Justice, Questions for the Record.
This material is available at the Committee and can be
accessed on the committee repository at:
https://docs.house.gov/ meetings/ JU/JU10/ 20180927/108458/
HHRG-115-JU10-20180927-SD004.pdf...........................
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Letters Submitted by the Honorable Steve King, Iowa, Chairman,
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. This
material is available at the Committee and can be accessed on
the committee repository at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ JU/JU10/20180927/ 108458/
HHRG-115-JU10- 20180927-SD003.pdf..........................
THE STATE OF INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM IN AMERICA
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2018
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:38 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve King
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives King, Goodlatte; Cohen, Nadler,
and Raskin.
Staff present: Joe Graupensperger, Minority Chief Counsel,
Subcommittee on Crime; James Park, Minority Chief Counsel,
Subcommittee on the Constitution; David Greengrass, Minority
Senior Counsel; Matthew Morgan, Minority Professional Staff
Member; Veronica Eligan, Minority Professional Staff Member;
Akhil Thodari, Minority Intern.
Mr. King. The Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil
Justice will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on, ``The State of
Intellectual Freedom in America,'' and I now recognize myself
for an opening statement.
When anyone is silenced, the result is censorship. That is
plain and simple. But it takes a more sinister form,
particularly in settings that claim to champion open discourse,
and when it is performed quietly behind closed doors, it also--
in many cases, only the person who is censored knows what's
happened. And even then, the person often doesn't know how or
why it has happened.
Fortunately, Americans are beginning to recognize this
quiet trend in our society in which one group or another
systemically silences another's beliefs with which they
disagree. On college campuses, the academic freedom at an
institution is threatened when professors feel retaliation or
administrative sway for what they choose to research or teach
or even discuss in a casual setting.
Fear in turn results in exclusion, which can produce a
chilling effect in academia that affects the credibility of
entire bodies of research. And that would include scientific
research once thought immune to political influence.
For example, in an April 2018 report issued by the National
Association of Scholars titled ``The Irreproducibility Crisis
of Modern Science,'' political groupthink in a scientific
culture biased towards producing positive results are among the
factors contributing to a shocking number of scientific results
in fields ranging from medicine to social psychology that
additional research can't reliably reproduce.
The report states, and I quote, ``Groupthink inhibits
attempts to check results since replication studies can
undermine comfortable beliefs. An entire academic discipline
can succumb to groupthink and create a professional consensus
with a strong tendency to dismiss results that question its
foundations. The overwhelming political homogeneity of
academics has also created a culture of groupthink that
distorts academic research since researchers may readily accept
results that confirm a liberal worldview while rejecting
conservative conclusions out of hand.''
Without objection, the report will be made a part of the
record. The focus of today's hearing, however, isn't limited to
college campuses. Indeed, this committee continues to hear from
Americans who are being discriminated against on the basis of
their politics, and also on the basis of their interests and
their beliefs on social media platforms.
In some cases, tech companies claim that they act with good
intentions. Silicon Valley's censoring of hate speech, for
example, has ostensibly become their latest effort to combat
terrorism. But as pointed out in a National Review article
published earlier this year, ``Moderate Muslims and critics of
Islam as political ideology found themselves subject to bans
and restrictions on social media for articulating reasonable
ideas and criticisms that deserve debate rather than
restriction.''
YouTube, for example, restricted video presentations by
people such as Kasim Hafeez, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Quram Dara.
In 2017, Facebook restricted posts by an organization called
Ex-Muslims of North America. They oppose radical Islam and they
seek to comfort apostates. How Facebook and Google actions are
intended to combat radicalization defies reason.
As we continue to explore this issue, I find it significant
that the problems occurring on the platforms are also occurring
inside the social media companies themselves. Testimony
submitted by one of our witnesses today indicates that these
companies are targeting employees with opposing views, even
extending its bias beyond just political beliefs. Indeed,
according to today's testimony, men, whites, Asians,
Christians, those with conservative family values, are daily
punished for who they are and for what they believe.
And I would add to this statement an observation that was
made to me over in Western Europe as I was seated with a number
of their leaders. And I pointed out to them that they need
American-style First Amendment freedom of speech rights all
across that continent. That open dialogue is not taking place
there, and it is inhibiting their ability to move their society
forward because of this groupthink.
And they looked at me and said, ``We have more freedom of
speech in Europe than you have in America.'' A pretty stunning
statement, and I did my best to rebut that, and pointed out
that they are locking people up for violating freedom of
speech--or for exercising freedom of speech. And they said, we
seldom lock anyone up. But you have deposed founders of
companies, CEOs of companies, for making a political donation
that is disagreed with by the groupthink here in this country.
When they made that point, I have got to rethink mine. Our
constitutional rights need to be protected. They need to be
expanded. They need to be respected, not only in law but in our
culture.
And so with that, today's hearing will expose--explore some
of these problems, among others, and in greater detail. With
that, I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here
today. I look forward to your testimony, and I now recognize
the ranking member, Mr. Cohen of Tennessee, for his opening
statement.
[The statement of Mr. King follows:]
**********COMMITTEE INSERT**********
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we are here today, and
I am sure no one is watching because everybody is watching Dr.
Blasey Ford's testimony, which I was able to watch some of, and
what a heroic, brilliant, and honest woman that is, who has
gone through unbelievable attacks for coming forward and
talking about a sexual assault that she suffered that has
suffered--made her suffer for years.
Some have suggested she is doing it for fame, possibly for
getting in--a movie contract, or some future benefit. That is
despicable. She is doing it because she is a victim who knows
she needs to come forward and let the American people know the
type of person who is being nominated for the Supreme Court of
the United States.
Meanwhile, we are here. And what is the purpose of this
hearing? It is the last week before midterms, and the last
opportunity Republicans have to waste precious subcommittee
time, which is limited, and which we have spent no time looking
into the problems that we have seen about the last election and
the fault of--the lack of--the attacks on elections and voting
rights, and the Emoluments Clause violations, et cetera.
It is a longstanding tactic of Republican political
strategy to relentlessly push the narrative that conservatives
are the victims of an oppressive cultural elite that tries to
suppress conservative views, almost making a fetish out of
their own supposed victimhood. And in the statement of the
chairman, he said something about stopping people from speaking
who have family values. Well, there are a lot of people who
have family values who are not conservative. That is not
something conservatives have to themselves. Mr. Greengrass back
here has a son, Ben. I guarantee that David Greengrass has
family values.
This argument is belied by the fact that Republicans
currently control all of the elected components of our national
Government as well as a majority of State governments. That is
hardly evidence that conservative views do not get a fair
opportunity to shape public opinion. Indeed, conservatives
enjoy the support of a vast and thriving right-wing media
machine ranging from talk radio, to where the only thing you
can get on AM these days is talk radio of the right,
conservative ilk or sports talk, to Fox News, to a host of
conservative websites and social media outlets like Breitbart,
Daily Caller--I don't know what their names are. I don't read
them or listen to them. But I see their tweets, oftentimes
making awful pejorative statements, some of which have
questioned my religion, or some of their followers have, and
said, yes, we are not surprised his name is Cohen.
One of our witnesses later is going to be Cohen. She
doesn't think anything like I think. But a lot of those people
say, we are not surprised his name is Cohen, suggesting I have
some kind of dual alliance with Israel, which of course I
don't, or other nefarious thoughts.
And notable conservatives have held and continue to hold
prestigious positions in academia. Just one prominent example
is Judge Anton Scalia, who prior to being appointed to the
Federal bench was a law professor at the University of Chicago.
Stanford University is home to the Hoover Institution, a
respected conservative think tank that has served as a place of
scholarship for such prominent Republicans as Condoleezza Rice,
Donald Rumsfeld, and George Shultz, as well as conservative
scholars like Thomas Sowell and Niall Ferguson.
As was clearly established during two prior full committee
hearings on social media content and moderation practices,
there is no credible evidence that social media companies
intentionally target conservative content for censorship.
Indeed, similar complaints have been raised by certain liberal
activists about the way social media companies apply their
content moderation policies.
Moreover, even if social media companies were actually
intentionally discriminating against conservative viewpoints,
it would be so well within their rights to do so, just as Fox
News and Breitbart and Sinclair do.
In short, there is no merit to the majority's principal
argument underlying the hearing. What we should be dealing with
are the fact that we are living in a time when the rule of law
is under grave threat by the actions of Trump, who appears to
have little respect for constitutional or democratic norms,
whether the issue is the separation of powers, respect for the
judiciary, respect for women, and a free press or a government
free of conflicts of interest and ethical lapses.
We are living in a time when the right to vote is being
undermined by voter suppression tactics ranging from voter
identification laws to elimination of same-day registration and
prohibitions on nonviolent ex-offender voting, tactics that
disproportionately affect African Americans and other minority
groups. We are living in a time when the truth itself is under
attack.
We are living in a time when hostile foreign powers like
Russia continue their efforts to meddle in our electoral system
to discredit and erode confidence in democracy itself. We are
living also in the time of the Me Too movement, where women who
have been victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault are
bravely stepping forward, as Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is doing
now, and confronting their victimizers. They are just a few of
the many other issues that are far more worthy of the
subcommittee's time than today's political gimmick of a
hearing. The American people deserve better.
[The statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
**********COMMITTEE INSERT**********
Mr. King. The gentleman's time has expired, and the chair
would now recognize the ranking member of the full committee,
Mr. Nadler of New York.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purported subject
of today's hearing is the state of intellectual freedom in
America. Despite this lofty title, however, the hearing's
actual purpose is to reinforce the bogus narrative that
cultural institutions and those that run them are arrayed
against conservative people and ideas.
We start with an old favorite of the right-wing media
sphere, which is the assertion that colleges and universities
are dedicated to persecuting conservative scholars while
brainwashing students into becoming liberal activists. Simply
put, however, there are plenty of conservative academics
teaching at colleges and universities, including at least three
sitting before us today.
And as if a hearing on the topic of liberal academics alone
was not already a waste of taxpayers' dollars, today's hearing
will also feature a panel on a right-wing conspiracy theory of
more recent vintage, namely, that social media companies are
intentionally supressing conservative viewpoints.
This would now be the third hearing that the House
Judiciary Committee has held this year on so-called anti-
conservative media bias, anti-conservative social media bias.
At no point in the previous two hearings have we been presented
with any credible evidence that social media companies are
censoring conservatives for ideological reasons.
But even if they were, so what? They are private companies.
They are entitled, if they want, to propagate or favor whatever
views they--they favor, liberal, conservative, or whatever; as
do Fox, right-wing talk radio, and Sinclair. They are
unabashedly right-wing. They have a right to be.
Or are the people who are running this committee and the
people on the right-wing who are propagating this nonsense, do
they favor bringing back the fairness doctrine abolished by
Ronald Reagan's FCC? If they do, maybe we can talk about that,
and then Fox will be forced to broadcast liberal viewpoints for
every conservative viewpoint they broadcast. So will Sinclair.
So will right-wing talk radio. Right-wing talk radio probably
wouldn't exist. We'll be able to kiss Glenn Beck and Rush
Limbaugh goodbye. And maybe some people think that's a good
idea, and maybe not, but in the absence of bringing back the
fairness doctrine, what are we even talking about?
Instead of indulging in conservative talking points, the
subcommittee could be holding a substantive hearing about the
use of social media. For instance, we could be holding a
hearing on the undisputed fact that the Russian Government used
social media to wage a disinformation campaign to attack our
democracy during the 2016 election. Indeed, in light of the
upcoming midterm election, such a hearing would be timely.
The Wall Street Journal, a publication not exactly known
for its liberal bias, reported just last month that U.S.
intelligence officials warned of a ``pervasive'' effort by
Russia to disrupt the 2018 election. Yet rather than focus on a
real topic of critical concern, protecting the integrity of our
elections against foreign interference, the majority has now
wasted three hearings on meritless claims of anti-conservative
social media bias by private companies that have every right,
if they wish, to favor liberals' or conservatives' views or
anything else they want to.
This hearing is remarkable in one sense. The majority seems
to have reached a new low in terms of who it has chosen to
invite as witnesses. Many of the majority witnesses here today
are not just notable for their fringe ideological positions,
but for their extreme conduct, their peddling of false
conspiracy theories that hurt innocent people, their outright--
and their outright animus and bigotry toward the cries of gays,
lesbians, and transgender people.
For example, Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit website, in an
attempt to discredit the courageous efforts of the survivors of
the horrific shooting at Parkland High School in Florida in
support of reasonable gun regulations, helped to propagate the
false story that these shooting survivors were not real victims
but were instead trained ``crisis actors.''
After Mr. Hoft's website published that story, sponsors of
a panel on the topic of suppression of conservative views on
social media at the Conservative Political Action Conference,
an annual gathering of leading conservative activists, demanded
that Mr. Hoft be removed from the panel, and ultimately the
panel was cancelled as a result.
In short, Mr. Hoft's association with the ``crisis actor''
conspiracy theory was too much even for CPAC, which describes
itself as the birthplace of conservativism. Yet Mr. Hoft has
been invited here today to testify before this subcommittee, to
disgrace the subcommittee by his presence. Apparently, this
subcommittee is less scrupulous than the organizers of CPAC.
As if this were not enough of an embarrassment to our
committee, Professor Mike Adams, another majority witness, a
professor, has a history of harassing students and making
remarks disparaging LGBTQ persons. When challenged about his
behavior, Professor Adams tried to hide behind the claim that
his statements were mere ``satire'' or exaggerations meant to
anger liberals.
We should, however, listen to just some of Professor Adams'
statements. He mockingly asked whether a 19-year-old student
was on a ``queer Muslim jihad'' and wrote, ``Her claims to be a
queer Muslim are probably part of an act designed to fit into
as many victim categories as possible.'' This by a professor
against a student. He referred to transgender people as
``mentally ill,'' and he said that ``Gay couples do not deserve
equal benefits because they do not equally benefit society.''
Political correctness run amuck? No. Simple bigotry.
Also invited to testify here today is Alliance Defending
Freedom, an organization that represented Professor Adams in
his free speech claim against his university, and which
continues to advance the outrageous argument that the
Constitution's free exercise clause permits business owners to
discriminate against LGBTQ persons or other people they choose
to discriminate against. I must note that their willingness to
represent Professor Adams calls into quantity the integrity of
the argument that they are simply defending religious liberty
rather than invidious discrimination.
Finally, the majority's argument that conservative views
are being suppressed is undermined by the fact that the
witnesses appear to have a wide audience for their views. For
instance, both Mr. Hoft and Professor Adams have had no problem
leveraging the internet, and in Professor Adams' case his
taxpayer-funded perch at a public university, to connect with
like-minded followers.
The very fact that we are holding this hearing today
refutes the claim that conservative viewpoints are not being
adequately heard by society or reflected by American political
institutions. Today's hearing is being held because
conservative Republicans currently control the House of
Representatives, not to mention the Senate, the presidency, and
the majority of State legislatures and governorships. This is
hardly evidence of the suppression and victimization of
conservatives or their views.
But many conservatives conveniently ignore these facts. The
truth is that despite conservatives' dominance of our
Government, they continue cultivating the notion that they are
the true victims, and honing resentment of ``cultural elites'''
among their base, a cynical tactic that has undergirded
conservative political strategy for decades. In the process,
they are only too happy to lob insults and criticism at
students, universities, or technology companies, and to
complain about the fact that members of historically
marginalized groups seek redress for their real victimhood.
And so here we are today, at what must--at what must be the
most expensive taxpayer-funded safe space ever to listen yet
again to conservative complaints about their purported
victimhood. This hearing is truly a disgrace as well as a waste
of time.
I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Nadler follows:]
**********COMMITTEE INSERT**********
Mr. King. The gentleman's time has expired. And now we'll
look forward to the cost-benefit analysis at the conclusion of
this topic.
I recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
Goodlatte, for his opening statement.
Chairman Goodlatte. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
before I give my prepared remarks, I just want to say that I am
pleased that here in this hearing today we're going to have the
kind of open discussion of differing points of view that it
seems that some on the other side of the aisle would like to
suppress even here.
At one time there was likely no other place in the United
States that had at one time or another received more praise
than Silicon Valley or an American college campus for being
bastions of free and open expression. Some time in our recent
past, however, this praise has faded, and today there are few
settings in America that can identify as being more homogeneous
in political thought and belief.
According to data cited by the Heterodox Academy, college
professors went from leaning left to being almost entirely on
the left some time in the years between 1995 and 2010.
Likewise, according to a working paper based on a survey by
political scientists at Stamford University, Silicon Valley, in
terms of voting, is one of the most strongly Democratic-leaning
areas in the Nation.
However, I would be less concerned about which party is
most represented in these settings if there wasn't also a
glaring absence of competing viewpoints. Indeed, in their
present state, these settings appear to be examples of what
happens when homogeneous groups of people begin to purposefully
root out people who challenge their beliefs.
Silicon Valley, for example, has been called a self-made
echo chamber. Greg Lukianoff, who has testified before this
committee, and professor Jonathan Haidt, have both identified a
movement on college campuses to scrub campuses clean of words,
ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give
offense.
The trend towards uniformity in thought and belief, and the
means to enforce it, should be alarming to all of us as
individuals and collectively to us as a Nation. College is a
time for students to learn, to appreciate viewpoints that may
be different from their own, and we as a society will suffer if
colleges are allowed to filter the views of their professor,
proffer and relegate student expression to obscure designated
areas on campus. Likewise, if social media platforms are
allowed to filter content that does not comply with the
company's beliefs, society will suffer from a less tolerant and
misinformed populace.
Today's hearing will offer insight into this problem and
will certainly bear on how Congress addresses these issues.
With that, I want to thank all of our witnesses in
attendance today, and I look forward to their testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Chairman Goodlatte follows:]
**********COMMITTEE INSERT**********
Mr. King. I thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
Goodlatte, and the other members of the committee for their
opening statements. Without objection, other members' opening
statements will be made part of the record.
I will now introduce our first panel of witnesses. Our
first witness is Dr. Mike Adams, a professor at the University
of North Carolina at Wilmington. Our second witness is Dr.
Peter Wood, the president of the National Association of
Scholars. Our third witness is Mike Simkovic, a professor of
law and accounting at the University of Southern California
Gould School of Law. And then our fourth witness is Dr. Tim
Groseclose, who is a professor at George Mason University. So
all doctors and I think all professors.
The light switch will turn from green to yellow. It will
indicate that you have a minute left in your five minutes of
testimony. And it is the tradition of this committee to ask the
witnesses to stand and be sworn in. So if you would please
stand, our four witnesses, and raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give
before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative. You may be seated. Thank you, gentlemen.
And I now recognize our first witness, Dr. Adams, for five
minutes.
Dr. Adams, you may start with your rebuttal, if you prefer.
TESTIMONY OF MIKE ADAMS, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH
CAROLINA AT WILMINGTON; PETER WOOD, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARS; MIKE SIMKOVIC, PROFESSOR OF LAW AND
ACCOUNTING, USC GOULD SCHOOL OF LAW; AND TIM GROSECLOSE,
PROFESSOR, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
TESTIMONY OF MIKE ADAMS
Dr. Adams. Well, thank you. It is an honor to testify
before you here today.
The reason I am here before you is that I am a veteran of a
7\1/2\-year First Amendment lawsuit in which I ultimately
prevailed against my university.
In 1993 I was hired as a leftist and an atheist by a
liberal Department of Sociology and Criminology at the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington. I won my first
teaching award in 1996. I won Professor of the Year in 1998,
and I was easily awarded tenure later that year.
But later things changed. In 1999, I became a registered
Republican, and I also returned to Christianity in the year
2000 after winning my second Faculty Member of the Year award.
After 9/11, I was involved in a free speech battle that
drew some national media attention. That controversy began when
I was accused of violating one of our numerous unconstitutional
speech policies at the university.
And pursuant to that complaint, the university searched
through some private emails looking for evidence related to the
alleged violation. After the Foundation for Individual Rights
in Education intervened, the university lied about the
inspection of those private emails, and that's when I decided
to start fighting back.
In 2003, I started writing a column for TownHall.com that
focused on exposing threats to free speech on college campuses.
In 2005, I started speaking for the Young Americas Foundation.
The speeches often encourage students to make legal challenges
to unconstitutional speech policies on their campus.
In 2006, I applied for and was denied promotion to full
professor. When I requested an explanation for the denial, I
was told that I was deficient in each and every single area of
evaluation--teaching, research, and service. In a nutshell,
before my change in worldview and the decision to criticize
unlawful university policies, I was showered with awards;
afterwards, I was considered deficient in every possible way.
Thus, with the encouragement of the Alliance Defending
Freedom, I sued for First Amendment retaliation. After
discovery was completed, we had direct evidence of viewpoint
discrimination. For example, the university chancellor actually
attempted to change the criteria for promotion in order to
penalize me for criticizing university policies and practices.
Secret investigations were launched in order to determine
whether I was engaged in transphobic speech in the classroom.
And my avowed Marxist feminist department chair actually
tampered with faculty evaluations of my fitness for promotion.
In the face of direct evidence of viewpoint discrimination,
not to mention evidence-tampering, the university should have
settled the case. Instead, they argued that they had the right
to engage in viewpoint discrimination.
The university claimed that my speeches for YAF and my
articles for TownHall.com were transformed from protected
speech into official duties as soon as I mentioned them on my
promotion application. Thus, they argued that it was
permissible for them to engage in viewpoint discrimination.
Initially, unfortunately, the district court agreed and the
judge dismissed my case. But next we decided to appeal our case
to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, and there
we won a unanimous opinion stating that my columns and speeches
retained the full protection of the First Amendment. So 7 years
into the conflict, we finally had a jury trial. And it took the
jury less than 2 hours of deliberation to rule in my favor. I
was awarded promotion to full professor and $50,000 in back
pay. My attorneys were awarded $710,000 in legal fees.
As bad as my ordeal was, students on the campuses that I
visit have it much worse. They are routinely confined to
unconstitutional speech zones, and within them they are
routinely punished under unconstitutional speech codes.
Generally speaking, they don't know that the university is
violating their rights. And to make matters worse,
administrators routinely deceive the students about the scope
of their constitutional rights.
And this brings me to my central point in the testimony,
which is the need for accountability for universities that
knowingly violate the Constitution. During the Obama
administration, we saw something that was absolutely
unprecedented. Under the guise of enforcing Title 9, the
Department of Education actually made the receipt of Federal
funding contingent upon depriving students accused of sexual
assault of basic constitutional protections.
Now I believe it is time for us to reverse course and make
the receipt of Federal funding contingent upon honoring the
constitution rather than violating the constitution. And I hope
that the discussion on specifically how to do that will begin
today. That is why I am here.
I look forward to your questions.
[The written statement of Dr. Adams follows:]
**********COMMITTEE INSERT**********
Mr. King. Thank you, Dr. Adams. We appreciate your
testimony.
The Chair will now recognize Dr. Wood for your five
minutes.
Dr. Wood.
TESTIMONY OF PETER WOOD
Dr. Wood. Thank you. Intellectual freedom is the bedrock of
our republic. Now, as someone who uses words carefully, or at
least tries to, let me say right away that that is a metaphor.
Intellectual freedom is not literally bedrock or any kind of
stone.
What I really mean is that intellectual freedom is the
foundation of other essential freedoms: freedom of the press,
freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of having our
own opinions, and freedom of inquiry. Without intellectual
freedom, voting makes no sense. If we can't think for
ourselves, we are just engaged in making empty gestures. And
without intellectual freedom, education is just indoctrination.
Bedrock, a metaphor. But the name foundation doesn't much
advance things. Foundation is a metaphor, too. In fact, it is
very difficult, maybe impossible, to talk about intellectual
freedom without metaphors. Now, why is that?
I am an anthropologist, not a philosopher, so I have only a
guess. Intellectual freedom means the ability to step outside
your village, or in your imagination to separate yourself at
least a little from your own tribe long enough to ask whether
the things you have always been told are true are actually
true.
Now, those things might actually be true. But if you step
far enough outside the village to meet people who believe
something else, the world suddenly becomes a more complicated
place. In 1776, a handful of British colonists stepped far
enough outside the village of England to question whether they
really needed a king. The rest is, as they say, history.
America has been born in skepticism as well as idealism,
and intellectual freedom is the combination of those two
things: skepticism that all the important questions have
already been answered adequately; idealism that people of good
will and determination could ask the questions for themselves
and seek better and perhaps more truthful answers. That is why
intellectual freedom is the bedrock or the foundation of other
freedoms of our republic as a whole.
We have even developed a specialized institution to advance
intellectual freedom on behalf of the rest of society. That is
the university. Intellectual freedom, however, like any other
powerful force, has to be used wisely. You don't step outside
your village to plunge off a cliff or into quicksand.
Now, one of the biggest dangers that comes with
intellectual freedom is that it implies the freedom to turn
against itself. It rejects an old doctrine as mere bigotry or
idol worship, and the next minute it has a brand-new bigotry
and a shiny new idol. That, I fear, is where we are right now.
It is where we have landed today, especially in our
universities.
In my written testimony I reviewed 15 recent cases of
college professors and other prominent intellectuals who were
shut down on campus because they ran into this new bigotry and
idol worship. Some of 15 have prevailed, as has Professor
Adams. I am pleased that professor John McAdams, his namesake
at Marquette University, is back on the job after the Wisconsin
Supreme Court reprimanded Marquette for suppressing McAdams'
academic freedom.
But in most of the other cases that I've mentioned, the new
academic tyranny continues to dominate. It's a tyranny with
many weapons at its disposal. Some have already been mentioned,
but let's say speech codes; bias response teams; labeling free
speech as micro-aggression or as hate speech; imposing trigger
warnings on teachers; waving the flag of cultural
appropriation; attacking people for implicit bias; free speech
zones; and beyond that; disinvitations or noninvitations;
deselection of conservatives from faculty searches; forced
withdrawals of published papers--we've had several of those
recently; negative tenure and promotion decisions.
Beyond that, groupthink; trial by accusation, which might
sound familiar; labeling as racist any opinion with which you
disagree. And beyond that, treating intellectual freedom itself
as a form of illegitimate privilege that favors whites or the
majority or the powerful or somebody other than me.
The new tyranny or the new tribalism has been on college
campuses and nurtured there. It is its home ground, but it
hasn't stayed there. The claims of victimhood and the rule by
accusation that are its chief characteristics have spread to
the wider culture and, it is now all too clear, become part of
our politics. They drive the polarization of our culture.
The answer to this, I will concur with Professor Adams, is
a new constitutionalism. Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Wood follows:]
**********COMMITTEE INSERT**********
Mr. King. Thank you, Dr. Wood.
The Chair will now recognize Professor Simkovic for his
testimony.
Professor Simkovic.
TESTIMONY OF MIKE SIMKOVIC
Mr. Simkovic. Thank you for the opportunity to share my
thoughts on intellectual freedom and the role of universities
in civil society. I am expressing my individual views and not
those of my employer, the University of Southern California.
Albert Einstein once described universities as ``temples
of--of science,'' where a finely tempered nature longs to
escape from the painful crudity of everyday life into the world
of objective perception and thought. This may be compared to
the silence of high mountains, where the eye ranges freely
through the still, pure air and finally traces out the restful
contours apparently built for eternity.
There is no such thing as right-wing or left-wing physics
or chemistry or mathematics. Universities do not and should not
strive to track the shifting median policy positions between
competing political parties or kowtow to the preferences of
donors or political leaders.
Universities instead must strive to promote rigorous,
objective research using the best data, the most qualified
personnel, and the best analytic tools available. To help
protect researchers' independence and insulate them from undue
pressure, universities grant academic tenure. Nothing
comparable is available to think tank researchers or
journalists, who can be and have been fired for their views. To
help academics correct our own mistakes, we use peer review,
replication, internal debate, and other checks.
Universities' efforts to expand human knowledge have
contributed to innovation and economic growth, and to rising
levels of prosperity and longevity. Education boosts earnings
in employment, reduces burdens on public services, and helps
fund the government by increasing payroll and income tax
revenues.
Ideology and political representativeness are not part of
academic institutions' mission. Academia is inherently
skeptical of dogma or party platforms. Scientists believe in
the pursuit of objective knowledge and truth in adherence to
standards of rigor and fairness, and in the elevation of facts
above ideological or political priors.
There is no such thing as liberal or conservative science.
Universities seek to foster critical thinking, communication
and problem-solving skills, not to indoctrinate students into a
particular set of political beliefs.
Disagreement between knowledgeable scientific experts and
median political views often do not suggest political bias on
the part of scientists, but rather an effort by think tanks,
media organizations, interest groups, and politicians to
inappropriately politicize science and scientific issues.
For example, the causes and consequences of climate change
are scientific issues. The likely economic harm from such
changes and the costs of preventing or mitigating them are also
scientific issues. So are the adverse health consequences from
air and water pollution, or the health effects of smoking. So
is the question of whether tax cuts can generate enough
economic growth to reduce the debt to GDP ratio.
While scientific questions can have political and policy
implications, scientific inquiry should not be politicized. The
best evidence should be analyzed with the best methods, and the
implications and degree of uncertainty honestly convey to
policy-makers and the public. But according to scientific
experts, many scientific issues have been inappropriately
politicized when scientific evidence threatens private sector
profits or government budgets. This includes the causes and
effects of climate change, the health risks of pollen, and the
dangers of tobacco use.
According to a Pew survey, nearly 80 percent of scientists
believe that previous Federal administrations suppressed
government scientists' findings for political reasons. Many
scientists worry that to sustain scientific findings for
political reasons is becoming more common.
Note that the Pew sample consists overwhelmingly of natural
or hard scientists in fields such the medical sciences,
chemistry, physics, and geosciences. Pew's sample included
those who work in private industry as well as those who work in
government and universities.
Recently there have been systemic efforts by some Members
of Congress to weaken the role of science in informing agency
rulemaking, and increase the role of political actors. Some
politicians have also sought to prevent government agencies
from collecting basic data about demographics, the environment,
health and safety, and the economy, even if de-identified to
protect individual privacy.
Today threats to academic freedom can come from powerful
donors, political leaders, and outside pressure groups, who
sometimes seek to subtly, or not so subtly, influence
ostensible neutral and unbiased academic research to further
their own business interests or other political preferences.
The best way to protect universities from undue influence
may be to secure and expand revenue sources that are
indifferent to or cannot sway the conclusions of academic
research. This is analogous to the approach we take to try to
protect independence of members of the Federal judiciary or the
Federal Reserve. Thank you.
[The statement of Professor Simkovic follows:]
**********COMMITTEE INSERT**********
Mr. King. Thank you, Professor Simkovic.
And the Chair will now recognize Dr. Groseclose--
Groseclose--for his testimony.
Doctor.
TESTIMONY OF TIM GROSECLOSE
Dr. Groseclose. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Tim
Groseclose. Since 2014, I have been a professor of economics at
George Mason University. Before that, for 11 and a half years,
I was a professor of political science at UCLA.
Two research projects that I have conducted are especially
relevant to the problems within academia that I plan to discuss
today. One of those projects examines media bias and tries to
measure it quantitatively. The main conclusion of my research
basically was that conservatives have been largely correct on
this issue. According to many findings, almost all mainstream
media outlets really do have a left-of-center bias.
The second research project sprang from some administrative
work that I did at UCLA. From 2005 to 2008, I was a member of
the university's Faculty Oversight Committee for Undergraduate
Admissions. I saw some suspicious and possibly illegal activity
while on the committee. I asked members of the admissions staff
to give me data so I could test my suspicions. They refused.
I consequently resigned from the committee in protest, and
eventually I wrote a book which is now entitled, ``Cheating: An
Insider's Report on the Use of Race in Admissions at UCLA.'' My
written statement lists eight anecdotes. Let me give, in the
interest of time, quick summaries of just three of those
anecdotes.
Anecdote 1: A young professor from another university gave
a seminar at UCLA. Afterward, I told them, ``You know who would
love your results? Ann Coulter. I kind of know her. Would you
mind if I send her an email? I bet she might write about your
research.'' The young researcher quickly replied, ``Oh, please
don't do that. That could only hurt my career.''
Anecdote 2: At UCLA, I was denied what I thought would be
an automatic promotion. I am convinced that the reason was due
to my research on media bias and UCLA admissions, specifically,
because the results of those research projects displeased--
because they displeased progressives. If the data just would
have produced the opposite results, ones that would have
pleased progressives, I am certain that I would have been
granted the promotion. Because of that promotion denial, my
wife and I decided it would be best if I left UCLA. We could
see that I would not be treated fairly if I remained at UCLA.
Anecdote 3--however, it is listed as Anecdote 4 in my
written statement: Two friends who are political science
professors examined the extent to which Barack Obama's skin
color affected voters' decisions. They found, perhaps
surprisingly, that his skin color had a net positive effect.
That is, although some people voted against Obama because he is
black, more people voted for him because he is black.
The two professors presented the research at a conference
of political scientists where they received an extremely
hostile reaction. They eventually abandoned the research. They
never published it, and they no longer list the working paper
on their websites. Although one should always be careful in
trying to assess motives, I strongly suspect that the
professors abandoned the research because they knew it could
hurt their careers.
Conclusion: I believe that these anecdotes illustrate some
general principles of academic reason. First, if you are bold
enough to report results that displease progressives, there is
a good chance that that will jeopardize your career. Second,
many professors, understanding that principle, wisely squelch
or fail to report results if they know that the results will
displease progressives.
Third and perhaps most disturbing, all this means that the
results that we, the public, get to see are not a
representative sample of all the results of academic research.
Instead, the sample that we get to see has been distorted and
cherry-picked. Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Groseclose follows:]
**********COMMITTEE INSERT**********
Mr. King. Thank you, Dr. Groseclose.
The chair would now proceed to questioning, and I will now
recognize myself for opening five minutes. And I would like to
turn first to Dr. Adams.
Dr. Adams. Yes.
Mr. King. And Dr. Adams, you won a lawsuit, and I guess I
am struck by the attorney fees versus the settlement that you
received, $50,000.
Dr. Adams. Yes.
Mr. King. Was that adequate compensation for what you went
through?
Dr. Adams. Actually, it was. It was back pay, basically,
for the--well, what is interesting about the situation was that
the promotion was only--to full professor, was $5,000 per year,
which makes it all the more interesting that the university
insisted upon spending the time, kind of effort and time, that
they did in fighting it, which I think was a poor use of
taxpayer money.
Mr. King. Well, thank you. And I always say, who gets to
decide, then, what is hate speech or what is inhibitionist
speech on a college campus? That is what this is about, and
apparently the court decided that you had more freedom than the
university thought you should have.
But who should get to decide, and how does the society sort
it out? You are looking for a solution, is why you are here,
and I am looking for your advice.
Dr. Adams. We reject the concept of hate speech altogether,
just as the Supreme Court did last year in the ``Slants''
decision. That is what we do. And when universities come along
and try to paper over the Constitution, we hold them
accountable for doing that.
And that is a very serious concern that I have about my
university and about universities--universities in general,
that they will fight these kinds of lawsuits and they will--
because they are playing with other people's money, they will
run up six- and even seven-digit legal bills and not really
worry about it. And there is no consequence whatsoever.
I think we need to attach a consequence to this kind of
violation of--would you like me to elaborate on that just a
little bit? I was taking a look, for example, at the 424B form
that the Department of Education requires every single
university president to sign off every single time that there
is a non-construction grant for research or for academic
programs.
There are probably 15 different promises that the
university president had to sign off on. ``We are not engaged
in human trafficking. We are not engaged in violating
environmental laws.'' It is high time that we added a sixteenth
category, which says that the university has to promise that
they are not engaged in violations of the First Amendment in
order to receive any grant money whatsoever.
And if they sign off on that, and if at the end of the year
there's a judgment against them and they receive federal
funding saying they weren't violating people's First Amendment
rights, when they were, turn them over to the Department of
Justice for fraud. That is my view.
Mr. King. That is a proposal worthy of consideration.
I would say is there anything there was said here on this
panel that you would like to have an opportunity to rebut?
Dr. Adams. You mean in the introductory statements?
Mr. King. Yes.
Dr. Adams. Congressman Nadler made some statements. I would
like to rebut them, but he has fled. So I didn't have the
opportunity. I am sorry he didn't have more courage.
Mr. King. Okay. Well, thank you, Dr. Adams.
Then I would turn, then, to Dr. Wood. And you made a
statement that surprised me when you said that if we don't have
freedom of speech, that there really isn't a point in having
elections. Would you care to expand on that thought a bit?
Dr. Wood. Sure. Intellectual freedom means making decisions
based on as much evidence and reason as you can. Without the
ability to hear what the other side has to say in any dispute
where there is more than one side, one is reduced to just
making a reflexive gesture. There is no thought content to it
at all.
Party loyalty might be a nice thing in some circumstances,
but I prefer to see party loyalty mixed up with a little bit of
careful thought about what the alternatives are. So I don't
think we should have elections essentially conducted by robots.
We need human beings who encounter ideas and think about them
and decide, what is the best course for the country?
Mr. King. And you mentioned, I believe, that you are an
anthropologist?
Dr. Wood. Yes, I am.
Mr. King. And so I would ask you this question. This is
more about our society. But there are trends that come for
different reasons. And that would be this then: I mean, from my
perspective, I think we have reasonable people that are
generally on the right side of the aisle that will take data
and facts and the exact sciences that Professor Simkovic
mentioned, and use that as the foundation for their process.
And it looks to me like the other side is pushing emotion
and feelings against facts and data. Have you examined that in
any way that you could help illuminate the knowledge of this
panel with?
Dr. Wood. I wrote a book titled, ``A Bee in the Mouth:
Anger in America Now,'' a few years ago which I think bears on
this. Our willingness to find a kind of illusory strength in
feeling, how it registers ``angry all the time'' a sort of drug
in the American mind. I don't think it is limited to people on
the left, but right now it appears to have become a sort of
fixed thing on campus that students and quite a few faculty
members take their reason for being in expression of anger. So
yes, emotion is getting the upper hand of serious inquiry.
Mr. King. Thank you, Dr. Wood. I see it that my time has
expired.
And the chair would now recognize the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Raskin, a professor in his own right, for his
five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want
to start by saying I do not think our colleague fled for lack
of courage. Everybody has got a bunch of committee and
subcommittee meetings going on, and he is the ranking member of
Judiciary. I am sure he would love to pursue the debate with
you later, Dr. Adams, and certainly I would like to do it.
Let me start with this. There is a complaint that is often
made by those on the right that certain groups indulge in
whining and victimology. But now that complaint is being turned
around on you guys, and the claim is being made you guys are
victimologists. You are indulging in self-pity. You are
constantly whining about how you are being silenced on campus
and silenced in corporations and so on.
Do any of you identify as whiners, or do you feel like you
are victimologists? And if not, then I want to talk about,
concretely, what we can do to deal with the free speech.
Dr. Wood, what is with you? Do you feel like you are a
whiner?
Dr. Wood. No, I do not. I publish a quarterly journal
called ``Academic Questions,'' and one of the principles in it
is, no whining.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Dr. Adams, are you a whiner? Or are you
just whining about what happened----
Dr. Adams. No. I--No. I fight back.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Dr. Adams. Quite successfully. So----
Mr. Raskin. Okay. And are you a whiner?
Dr. Groseclose. Somewhat.
Mr. Raskin. Yeah?
Dr. Groseclose. Let me explain. When I was at--at UCLA, I
noticed some professors would get--they would become activists.
And my wife and I, secretly, we would--we would call them
losers. And I found myself at the end of my tenure at UCLA,
when I am complaining about some of these things, I am having
to whine, and I am having to become somewhat of an activist.
I never intended that. When I went into academia, my plan
was to be a teacher and a researcher.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I appreciate your candor about that.
Dr. Groseclose. And I had to tell my wife, ``I am becoming
one of those losers.''
Mr. Raskin. Well, why--well----
Dr. Groseclose. It is part of the--it is part of the reason
I left UCLA.
Mr. Raskin. Because you felt like you were being
discriminated against and, you felt, far too much.
Dr. Groseclose. And it was causing me to be a whiner.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Well, let me--okay, so----
Dr. Groseclose. I said, ``No. I will just leave. I will do
something about this.''
Mr. Raskin. All right. Forgive me for hurrying us along. I
have only got five minutes.
Dr. Groseclose. I understand. Yeah.
Mr. Raskin. But if we could transform the whining into
something concrete. I think Dr. Adams ventured a suggestion
about how there should be a law which requires campuses to
respect free speech. That is a concrete, tangible, legislative
proposal.
Dr. Adams. Uh-huh.
Mr. Raskin. Let's start with this. Should that apply just
to public universities like the one that you were able
successfully to sue, Dr. Adams, or should it apply across the
board? As quickly as possible.
Dr. Adams. In my view, just to public universities.
Mr. Raskin. Just to public.
Dr. Wood, what do you think?
Dr. Wood. I believe that every university that receives
Federal funding should be subject to some degree of oversight
on public----
Mr. Raskin. Public and private, secular, religious, all of
them together? Very good.
Dr. Wood. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Professor Simkovic.
Mr. Simkovic. I think that the best way to protect academic
freedom is with tenure and insulation from outside pressure. I
would like to see that extended from universities to think
tanks and, frankly, media organizations. I think it is very
important that institutions that help generate knowledge in our
society have the ability to act with integrity and
independence, and not be fearful of retaliation and having
their budgets cut.
Mr. Raskin. And you agree that that should apply to private
universities and colleges as well? For example, in Washington,
D.C., we have Catholic University and Georgetown University,
which have banned pro-choice speakers or forbidden pro-choice
or gay groups at different points in their history. Should they
be required, as private entities, to respect the First
Amendment rights of all of their students? Or should we say
that the relevant First Amendment rights are those of the
bureaucrats who run the universities?
Mr. Simkovic. Yes. So I, again, do not believe that there
is a need for Federal legislation dictating policy at
universities.
Mr. Raskin. Okay.
Mr. GARTEN: I think it is sufficient for universities to
protect the tenure----
Mr. Raskin. Professor Groseclose--okay. Where are you on
this?
Dr. Groseclose. Definitely I think with public
universities. I think currently it would be constitutional to
say, ``You must protect free speech.'' If you are not a public
university, it is not clear. But I think----
Mr. Raskin. No. But the question is, should we adopt a free
speech policy? For example, I don't know if you ever read
William F. Buckley's ``God and Man at Yale.''
Mr. Simkovic. I have.
Mr. Raskin. But he took the position that Yale should be
propounding Christianity, which would be much to Dr. Adams'
liking, undoubtedly. And it should be propounding certain
conservative views, and it should simply eliminate the
professors who don't agree.
Should Yale have the right to do that as a private
institution? Or should we be able to--or should we cut off
money to the Yale research funds if they discriminate based on
people's politics?
Dr. Groseclose. I think it would be constitutional and also
reasonable if Congress passed a statute to that effect. And if
I were a congressman, I would vote for such a statute.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. And it should apply whether you call
yourself religious or not. Because right now, what is happening
is a lot of----
Dr. Groseclose. As long as you get Federal funding. If you
get Federal funding----
Mr. Raskin. Yeah. As long as you get Federal funding.
Dr. Groseclose. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. And Dr. Adams, do you agree with that, too?
Dr. Adams. No, I don't.
Mr. Raskin. You don't? Well, why not? I thought you were a
big champion of free speech.
Dr. Adams. No, sir. No, the--no, the private institutions
should just be honest about what they are. For example----
Mr. Raskin. Well, leave aside honesty. Should they have the
right to discriminate based on free speech: In other words,
should they discriminate based on viewpoint? I mean, say you
were at a private university. It would be fine for the
university to fire you for what you wrote or to deny you a
promotion?
Dr. Adams. Oh, religious schools, of course.
Mr. Raskin. Well, forgetting religious----
Mr. King. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Just say a private school. I mean,
Yale is a religious school.
Mr. King. The gentleman will be----
Dr. Adams. Right.
Mr. King. The gentleman's time has expired.
Dr. Adams. Well, it used to be. It used to be.
Mr. King. The witness will be allowed to answer the
question.
Mr. Raskin. Sorry?
Dr. Adams. It used to be, but it is not any more.
Mr. Raskin. Well, in its eyes, it is. So should Yale have
the right to deny you a promotion because it says it is a
religious school and your attitudes or beliefs are out of
keeping with its own particular religious views?
Dr. Adams. They should just be honest about what they
advertise.
Mr. Raskin. Forgetting being honest, should they have a
right----
Dr. Adams. Forget being honest. Forget being honest.
Mr. King. The gentleman's time has expired.
Dr. Adams. I can't forget being honest.
Mr. Raskin. Well, you are not answering my question.
Dr. Adams. I am in the wrong hearing, I guess.
Mr. King. The gentleman's time has expired.
And the chair now recognizes chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia, for his five minutes.
Chairman Goodlatte. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me
just ask the panelists--I will go right down the line--are you
familiar with legislation introduced by Senator Hatch in the
Senate, which would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to
ensure the public institutions of higher education protect
expressive activities in the outdoor areas on campus?
Not familiar with it? Well, I guess I don't need--well, I
will just ask you whether you think that is a good idea or not,
that basically would amend the Higher Education Act to make a
provision that allows for the bringing of lawsuits and the
preservation of those lawsuits, even after an individual
graduates, when they are denied the right to engage in
expressive activity in outdoor areas.
Yeah. Speech zones are a big problem on college campuses.
But there's a disagreement about how that should be handled. In
the State of North Carolina, we passed a law, H.B. 527, in
which we got rid of, essentially in one fell swoop, those
unconstitutional speech zones.
So I do agree with the legislative solutions. The question
is whether that should be done on the State level or on the
Federal level. I think probably on the State level.
Chairman Goodlatte. Dr. Wood.
Dr. Wood. The Higher Education Act already has in it as
Title 1 a pretty strong affirmation of academic intellectual
freedom. It is not backed up with any particular measures; it
sounds like this Act would strengthen the provision that
already exists.
The only issue about----
Chairman Goodlatte. Lots of time, what happens is the
student graduates. And therefore, the restriction is no longer
applicable to them because they have left the institution
before the lawsuit can ever mature and ripen. Would you--would
you support legislation that would preserve that right of
action so it can get to a conclusion and be heard?
Dr. Wood. Yes.
Chairman Goodlatte. Professor.
Mr. Simkovic. Congressman, there are between 4,000 and
5,000 institutions of higher education in the United States.
Many of them have internal policies governing freedom of
speech, and they attempt to create an atmosphere which is
conducive to research and conducive to learning. And they come
to different conclusions about what that means in terms of
balancing robust debate with an environment which is--enables
concentration and contemplation.
I don't believe that it would be appropriate to federalize
this issue. I believe that universities are capable----
Chairman Goodlatte. It is Federal. It is the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plus there is the
Higher Education Act, which is a federal statute.
Mr. Simkovic. Yes. I believe that it is important for the
Government to fund education, to provide opportunities for
people for advancement in their careers, to fund scientific
research. But I do not feel that it is appropriate to
politicize or centralize control over the production of
knowledge.
Chairman Goodlatte. Well, who is centralizing it? It--is it
the institution that you are referring to that is centralizing
control?
Mr. Simkovic. There are between 4,000 and 5,000
institutions. It is not very centralized, Congressman.
Chairman Goodlatte. No. And I am talking about each
individual institution, particularly if they are a public
institution; whether or not the administration there should be
able to say, ``You have got to go to this one little place if
you want to freely express your ideas.''
Mr. Simkovic. So, Congressman, there is tenure to protect
academic freedom, which means that administrators cannot
control what the faculty are----
Dr. Groseclose. Yeah. I get your tenure agreement. I am
talking about students having the ability to freely express
themselves in outdoor areas on college campuses?
Mr. Simkovic. So again, Congressman, the University of
California at Berkeley spent $4 million on security costs to
bring four speakers to campus. The Chancellor's Commission
concluded that this was not an effective use of taxpayer
dollars. That is money that could have been spent training
engineers, training nurses, researching cures for life-
threatening illness. And it was spent for security for four
speakers.
Now, I believe that universities have a right to use their
resources in the way which they believe best promotes their
mission of promoting science and education.
Chairman Goodlatte. Even--did the previous rights----
Mr. Simkovic. And there are plenty--there are plenty of
opportunities for the expression of different ideas. We have--
and university campuses are not very large. Anyone who is not
invited to campus has the opportunity to rent space just off-
campus, and anyone who's interested can attend. Everyone has
access to the internet. Everyone has access to----
Chairman Goodlatte. Okay. These are----
Mr. Simkovic [continuing]. Television. Everyone has access
to books. Everyone has access to----
Chairman Goodlatte. They are publicly financed institutions
that don't have to respect free speech rights of groups of
students on the campus or individual students on the campus.
Mr. Simkovic. They do respect free speech rights. But
universities are not public parks.
Chairman Goodlatte. I think that's debatable.
Mr. Simkovic. They are places of learning and places of
education.
Chairman Goodlatte. Let me go to Dr. Groseclose because I'm
down to the last seconds of my----
Dr. Groseclose. I think I completely agree. And I think
that the Constitution already says if you are a public
university, you cannot abridge freedom of speech. And I think
it's--I'm not a lawyer--I think it is the 14th amendment that
says these freedoms in the first--in the Bill of Rights are
granted to the States; therefore, the States cannot make laws.
And that would include public universities that would abridge
freedom of speech.
So I think you are exactly right. If you only have a
restricted space where you have freedom of speech, that would
seem like that would violate the Constitution to me.
Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. King. The gentleman returns his time, and this
concludes Panel 1 of our hearing here today. And I want to
thank all the witnesses for your testimony. And I would like to
then ask you that if we could be seated with the following four
other witnesses that follow each of you. So thank you again,
gentlemen. We appreciate your testimony.
[Pause]
Mr. King. Well, as we--as we continue, I'm going to go
ahead and introduce the four of the five witnesses that are
here, and we will see if the fifth witness does arrive. And I
am very pleased, first, to introduce our first witness, and it
is Jim Hoft, who is the founder and editor of The Gateway
Pundit.
And our second witness is Adriana Cohen, who is a
syndicated columnist and a radio host for the Boston Herald
Radio.
Our third witness is Jeremy Tedesco, the vice president of
U.S. advocacy for the Alliance Defending Freedom. And then our
fourth witness is Professor Ari Waldman, professor of law at
the New York Law School. Professor Waldman.
And perfect timing on her arrival would be our fifth and
final witness, which is Harmeet Dhillon, a partner of the
Dhillon Law Group, Incorporated.
I would like to welcome all of you, and let you know that
the green light that you will have at the beginning of your
five-minute testimony will be four minutes long, and the amber
light will be one minute long. And we would ask you to try to
wrap up your testimony about that time. And we also want to
give you enough latitude to complete the thought, or at least
the sentence, depending on how intense our timing gets here
today.
And so I would ask each of the witnesses if you would stand
and raise your right hand to be sworn in.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give
before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and night
but the truth, so help you God?
Thank you. Let the record show that the witnesses all
responded in the affirmative.
And I would now recognize our first witness. That would be
Mr. Hoft of Gateway Pundit.
Mr. Hoft, you are recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF JIM HOFT, FOUNDER AND EDITOR, THE GATEWAY PUNDIT;
ADRIANA COHEN, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST, BOSTON HERALD RADIO HOST;
JEREMY TEDESCO, VICE PRESIDENT OF U.S. ADVOCACY, ALLIANCE
DEFENDING FREEDOM; ARI WALDMAN, PROFESSOR OF LAW, NEW YORK LAW
SCHOOL; AND HARMEET K. DHILLON, ESQ., PARTNER, DHILLON LAW
GROUP, INC.
TESTIMONY OF JIM HOFT
Mr. Hoft. Thank you, Chairman King and subcommittee
members, for organizing this important hearing today.
Your colleagues in Congress have provided a lot of air time
recently to prominent CEOs of tech companies, who are trying to
put me and others with my politics out of business. I thank you
for allowing me to speak today instead of the perpetrators.
My testimony today is how the purification of thought has
been accomplished by one company with a monopoly hold on the
public comments in our internet error. My name is Jim Hoft. I
am the owner and founder of The Gateway Pundit website, based
in St. Louis, Missouri.
I am known in my business for making some good headlines.
Here is today's headline I bring to you. In the runup of the
2016 election, Americans got to choose what they would read in
Facebook. Today, Facebook chooses for them.
I grew up in Iowa, and I understand the pulse, the
struggles, the hopes, and dreams of middle America. I came to
find out that Facebook doesn't like my type. I launched Gateway
Pundit in 2004 as a way to report on news that I didn't see in
mainstream media. At first I had two or three daily readers, my
twin brother Joe and a friend Chris. I was humbled and amazed
to see our content grow in popularity over the years, thanks to
promotions by Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds, the Drudge
Report, and several others.
We provide news coverage and opinion that Americans could
not provide (sic) elsewhere. There is no way to account for the
demand of our content. On a shoestring budget, we offered
something the American people desired, real news. We were
ranked by Harvard and Columbia Journalism Review as the fourth
most influential conservative publisher in the 2016 election.
Our readers, smart, patriotic, and diverse, have not given up
on the promise of America. This is who I represent today in
speaking to you.
2016 was a transformative year. This was the first election
where Americans rejected en masse their legacy media options
and turned to the freedom of choice and lack of filter on
social media instead, through which they would share, comment
on, and connect with websites like ours. The Gateway Pundit
business cultivated its audience on Facebook, spending roughly
$70,000 in advertising in 2015, resulting in 600,000 likes for
our page.
Over the past 19 months, The Gateway Pundit saw a decline
in Facebook traffic from 24 percent of our total website
traffic to 2 percent of our website traffic currently. That is
an 80 percent decrease in traffic from Facebook.
Recently we analyzed traffic numbers for some of the top
conservative publishers in America. What we found was simply
shocking. Just as Gateway Pundit has been eliminated by
Facebook from being seen by its readers, Facebook eliminated 93
percent of combined referral traffic to these websites from
January 2017 to May 2018. The site Western Journal, and other
conservative websites under their umbrella, had more than a
billion page views in 2016. Since then, the organization has
lost 75 percent of its Facebook traffic. Likewise, Clicked
Media, which hosts over 60 conservative websites, lost 400
million page views from Facebook in the last 6 months when
compared to the prior year.
With just these two organizations, they have lost more than
1.5 billion page views in the past year from Facebook. After
the election, Facebook began making algorithm changes to ensure
that conservatives no longer had an option for their users.
Two studies released in March 2018 confirm this. The first
study is by outline organization that found conservative
publishers were hit the hardest by Facebook algorithm changes,
and The Gateway Pundit was actually hit the hardest.
The second study by Western Journal revealed the same
startling statistics. Further, this study found that liberal
publishers actually increased by 2 percent in traffic during
the same testimony frame. In fact, we found that every
permanent conservative website from 2016 has either had their
Facebook traffic diminished significantly or entirely
eliminated. Again, we found that every prominent conservative
website from 2016 has either had their Facebook traffic
diminished significantly or entirely eliminated. If Facebook
were to hold a book burning, they wouldn't have been half as
successful as they have been eliminating contrary points of
view from being accessed by the American people.
In fact, book burning is benign when compared to what
Facebook has silently done to restrict and eliminate diversity
of thought. In book burnings, you can see the flames and watch
the words disappear. In our case, we were silently and
effectively disappeared.
Several top conservative sites are already out of business.
If our Fourth Estate is to remain as an effective check, as our
Founders intended, we must ensure that political purification
of thoughts by one communication corporation, Facebook, is
given ample competition. Today that competition is being
eliminated. Tomorrow there will be only a few sanctioned voices
for the American people. This is not America.
[The statement of Mr. Hoft follows:]
**********COMMITTEE INSERT**********
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Hoft.
And now the chair would recognize Ms. Adriana Cohen for her
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF ADRIANA COHEN
Ms. Cohen. Members of the committee, thank you for inviting
me here this morning to share my personal experience with
social media censorship and discrimination. I am a conservative
opinion columnist with the Boston Herald. My popular columns
championing traditional Republican values and the Trump
administration are nationally syndicated. I am also a Boston
Herald radio host who interviews congressional lawmakers,
leaders of government, including the President of the United
States, who has been a guest on my radio show. I am also a Fox
News commentator who appears regularly on the network.
I am being discriminated against by social media networks
who are censoring my conservative columns, radio interviews,
and posts on its platform. This is a daily occurrence on
Twitter, and has been happening for a long time. My well-
received conservative column is often the front-page feature in
the Boston Herald and gets heavy traction and readership--
except on Twitter. Virtually every week, if not biweekly, when
the Herald publishes my column, it becomes the number one most
read and shared piece on the Herald's website, or close to it.
But the same exact column isn't hardly getting any traction
on Twitter when I post it there because it is secretly being
censored by Twitter, which is why many of my Twitter followers
report they don't see my columns and posts in their feeds.
For example, my Boston Herald column titled ``Russia Truth
Coming Out,'' dated May 22, 2018 was the number one-trending
piece on the Herald site. It got 62,300 Facebook shares on the
Herald site, and hundreds of comments. But the same column on
Twitter got virtually zero traction. To be exact, it got only
11 retweets, 26 likes, and 2 comments.
On April 5th, my column titled ``Trump: Exactly Who We Need
versus China'' was the number one-trending piece again at the
Boston Herald's website, getting heavy traction and engagement.
But on Twitter, the same exact column got 9 likes, 5 shares.
Last week, September 20th, my column titled ``No Holds
Barred in Democrats' Attacks'' was again the number one-
trending piece on the Herald site. But on Twitter the same
column got 15 likes and 6 retweets. This is just a small sample
of the blatant censorship and egregious discrimination I am
being subjected to on a regular basis on Twitter.
Please note that not only my popular column's leading the
Herald's website and getting heavy traction and readership
there, it is often picked up by other major media nationally,
including the USA Today, the Washington Post, RealClear News,
Fox News, and many other outlets, and getting significant
traction virtually everywhere except Twitter.
I can provide scores of additional examples. But given the
limited time I have for testimony, I am sharing just a tiny
fraction of the censorship I am experiencing on Twitter. I am
happy to provide additional corroborating evidence for the
record upon request.
I have over 16,000 Twitter followers, and the vast majority
of them aren't seeing my columns and posts because they're
being blocked by Twitter. Here are a few examples.
On March 25, 2018, I asked Tony Shaffer--he is blue-check-
mark verified--in a direct message if he is seeing my columns
in his feed. Mr. Shaffer replied, ``Nope. Not seeing them.'' On
March 25, 2018, I asked Dan Bongino, blue-check-mark verified,
if he is seeing my columns in his feed. Mr. Bongino responded,
``I have not been seeing the columns. They are messing with me,
too. It is a cesspool.''
On September 5, 2018, I sent another message to Dan Bongino
to see if he had seen just a tweet I posted about Nike. Mr.
Bongino responded, ``I didn't see it, either.'' On September 6,
I asked Tom Borelli, blue-check-mark verified on Twitter, if he
saw my column I posted on Judge Kavanaugh on his Twitter feed.
Mr. Borelli responded, ``I did not see it, and I just looked at
my feed since last night and didn't see it, either.''
On June 4, another Twitter follower of mine,
RightSideofReagan, told me, ``I have been following you, but
you never come up on my feed, FYI.'' On March 26, Jeff Katz
told me on--via direct message on Twitter, ``No. Not seeing
your stuff in my feed.''
On September 6, Steve Tomkowicz posted on Twitter, ``Wow. I
check my feed every day and scroll way down. I can't remember
the last time I have seen a tweet from you. This is the first
on my feed in quite a while.''
On March 29th, Michael Santoro said, ``I follow you, but
never see your columns. This happens with other conservatives I
follow.'' On September 6, Susie Light posted on Twitter, ``I
NEVER''--``never'' in capitalizations--``see your tweets unless
you say something like this. I am sorry this happens to you.''
There are many other Twitter followers who tell me they
don't see my posts in their feeds. I am submitting additional
evidence for the record. I could go on and on for an hour of
screenshots and quotes of my Twitter followers who tell me that
they did not see my tweets or columns in their feeds.
I ask the committee to consider this scenario. Imagine if
the phone company refused to connect phone calls between two
parties because they didn't like the opinions expressed in the
conversation. This is exactly what Twitter is doing to me and
thousands of conservatives like me every single day throughout
the Nation.
This type of egregious censorship is trampling on my
constitutional rights, including my rights to free speech. It
is also censoring lawmakers and heads of government agencies
because I interview important members of our government, and
often include excerpts from those radio interviews in my
columns. That means when social media networks block
distribution of my conservative columns and podcasts, they are
also censoring Members of Congress. This discrimination is
hurting the American people, who are being denied access to
vital information from government officials, information that
impacts their lives.
On Facebook, my posts are also being censored. Many of my
Facebook followers tell me they don't see my columns and posts
in their forwards. I reached out to Twitter and Facebook for an
explanation on multiple occasions, and have not received a
response.
By censoring my columns, podcasts, and television
appearances, these social networks are damaging my career as a
female columnist, television commentator, and radio
personality. They are also hurting other conservative voices,
also being solicited. And they are hurting the business sector
including my employer, the Boston Herald, the Creator
Syndicate, and other outlets who are being denied clicks to its
website every time my column and content gets censored by these
social media networks.
But most importantly, social media networks are meddling in
U.S. elections by allowing its users, who possess liberal
viewpoints, unfettered access to its platforms and voters while
silencing scores of conservatives. This rigs the electoral
system because Twitter and Facebook are giving Democrats the
ability to shape public opinion and connect with millions of
voters, while denying that same opportunity to scores of
conservatives, including myself.
I have written several columns on this topic that I am
happy to submit to the committee. Twitter and Facebook are
deceiving the American people----
Mr. King. Ms. Cohen, I would ask you to summarize your
testimony, if you could, please. We're over a couple minutes.
Ms. Cohen. Oh, okay.
Mr. King. Thanks.
Ms. Cohen. Excuse me. So I just want to say that I have
never said anything that is hate speech or anything close to
it. So there is no justification whatsoever for social media
networks to be silencing a mainstream conservative like myself.
[The statement of Ms. Cohen follows:]
**********COMMITTEE INSERT**********
Mr. King. Thank you, Ms. Cohen.
The Chair would now recognize Mr. Tedesco for his five
minutes.
Mr. Tedesco.
TESTIMONY OF JEREMY TEDESCO
Mr. Tedesco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today.
My name is Jeremy Tedesco. I am senior counsel and vice
president of U.S. Advocacy with Alliance Defending Freedom. ADF
is one of the Nation's most respected legal organizations
defending constitutionally protected free speech and free
exercise rights for all Americans. Since 2011, ADF has won nine
cases before the United States Supreme Court involving issues
like legislative prayer, school choice, and the discriminatory
treatment of churches.
Empirical SCOTUS recently ranked ADF first among the top-
performing firms in its ``Supreme Court All-Stars''' 2013 to
2017 report because ADF won all four of its decisions before
the Court during the five-year period. In addition to its
Supreme Court work, ADF's Center for Academic Freedom has won
over 400 vacancies for free speech, ensuring that the college
campus remains a marketplace of ideas for millions of students
and faculty.
We live in a time when the need for productive civil
discourse has perhaps never been more urgent. Yet at the same
time, the obstacles to achieving it have never seemed more
insurmountable. We appreciate this committee's leadership in
fostering a commitment to robust debate and dialogue.
ADF, too, is committed to cultivating a society typified by
the free speech and free exchange of ideas and respect and
tolerance for those with whom we disagree. These deeply-rooted
constitutional principles are essential in a diverse country
like ours. They enable us to peacefully coexist with each
other.
Sadly, several of the most influential technology giants,
many of which are integral to the daily lives of millions of
Americans, are endangering the vitality of these core American
principles. Silicon Valley's digital gatekeepers have
frequently represented their platforms as committed to free
expression and creating an open marketplace of ideas. But as my
written testimony details and as we have heard today, they have
broken their promises by restricting conservative and religious
speech over and over again.
The recent push to restrict what they call hate speech
exacerbates this threat because, invariably, Silicon Valley and
others apply the hate speech label to traditional, widely-held
views they disagree with on a range of important topics like
immigration, abortion, marriage and sexuality.
These companies further intensify the threat to
conservative and religious speech by collaborating with far-
left advocacy groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to
enforce their hate speech policies. Commentators across the
political spectrum agree that SPLC is a biased, agenda-driven
activist group.
Kimberley Strassel wrote, ``SPLC exists to spear
conservatives and tags you as a hater if it doesn't agree with
your views.'' Left-of-center Politico published an article in
which it noted the longstanding criticism that SPLC is becoming
more of a partisan, progressive hit operation than a civil
rights watchdog.
SPLC's credibility took another enormous hit recently when
it issued a public apology and paid nearly $3.5 million to
settle a threatened defamation lawsuit by Muslim reformer
Maajid Nawaz, who SPLC had falsely labeled an anti-Muslim
extremist.
Yet despite knowing SPL's clear--SPLC's clear bias and
partisanship, tech companies continue to collectively partner
with SPLC and embrace its intentional smear campaign against
mainstream conservative and religious views held by millions.
These actions contradict these companies' promises to cultivate
civil discourse and free exchange of ideas, and deceive the
members of their online communities and consumers who rely on
these promises.
ADF itself has already been the victim of this troubling
arrangement. Earlier this year, Amazon excluded ADF from the
Amazon Smile program, which promises customers that they can
donate a small percentage of their purchases to the charitable
organization of their choice. Solely because SPLC wrongly
labels a hate group. Amazon likewise bars many other
conservative and religious charities by relying on SPLC's
biased labels.
This is only the tip of the iceberg on how these companies
can impact the marketplace. We know from recent news that they
sometimes act in concert, excluding disfavored speakers from
multiple platforms all at once. The power they wield over free
expression and information access is deeply troubling and has
real-world consequences for those caught in the crosshairs.
We understand that there is no easy solution to these
issues. But at a minimum, Congress should hold additional
hearings and use its considerable influence to encourage
Silicon Valley companies to abide by their representations.
They shouldn't promise and open and robust marketplace of
ideas, but then collaborate with biased and discredited groups
like the SPLC to shut down one side of an ideological and
intellectual debate.
Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions.
[The statement of Mr. Tedesco follows:]
**********COMMITTEE INSERT**********
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Tedesco.
And now the Chair recognizes Professor Waldman for your
testimony.
Professor.
TESTIMONY OF ARI WALDMAN
Mr. Waldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here to
testify today. My name is Ari Waldman, and I am a law
professor. I hold a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a Ph.D. in
sociology from Columbia university.
For the last 8 years I have studied how technology mediates
our daily lives. I study things like when and how we share
personal information, how technology design manipulates our
online behavior, and how we can make online spaces safe for
everyone, and the legal and regulatory environments in which
data collectors like Facebook operate. I also study content
moderation and responsibilities of online platforms. Let me
note here that although I research and write in this area, I
stand on the shoulders of far smarter and more accomplished
colleagues, many of whose work I will cite and rely on here
today.
A recent article in the magazine Wired made an important
observation. To communicate anything, the authors wrote,
Facebook can't communicate everything. This has always been
true of media platforms. Neither Salon nor the National Review
can publish everything.
Content moderation rules do not imply the First Amendment
in the traditional sense. We may have--we all may have a First
Amendment right, subject to some limitations, to say what we
want, free of government's intervention or censorship. But we
don't have a First Amendment right to a private company's
amplification of our words, whatever James Woods recently said
on Twitter or whatever media personalities might want. So let's
discuss for a moment how and why platforms actually moderate
content. So first, the how.
Content moderation is a complex ecosystem of technology and
people. Moderation sometimes happens before content is
published, in that time between when you upload and video and
when it is actually published or available online. This process
is automatic, using data transaction algorithms that screen out
things like child pornography or copyrighted material.
After publication, moderators either proactively remove
content that violates platform rules, either with extremist or
terrorist speech, for example, and outsourced talent is
supervised by more experienced content moderators, many of whom
work outside the U.S. or at call centers. The top level
moderation happens back at headquarters by lawyers directly
responsible for content moderation policies and training.
These moderators work very much like judges would. They are
trained to exercise judgment based on rules set out by the
platforms. And because these rules were created and promulgated
by lawyers steeped in the American legal tradition, they
reflect the free speech norms many of us learned in law school.
Now, why do platforms do this? They are, as you know, under
no legal obligation to do so. They have, however, normative and
financial incentives to. Every platform designs values into its
code; some social spaces are meant to be overtly uninhibited,
like 4chan.
One of Facebook's central values is, for example, to bring
people together. As a result, in responsibility--in response to
manipulation of the platform by fake news sources, Facebook
redesigned its news feed algorithm to privilege and prioritize
posts from our friends rather than from media or business
pages, resulting in loss of followers for some.
The result is that lots of content gets filtered out, but
no moreso from the right than from the left. What I have heard
here today on this panel and for the last panel are anecdotal
evidence. So, if that is what you want, here is some more.
When victims of racist, homophobic, and sexist tweets and
comments post those comments to call out the aggressors, it is
often the victims that get banned or suspended. Activists
associated with Black Lives Matter--the Black Lives Matter
movement have reported just as many, if not more, takedowns of
images discussing racism and police brutality than any of the
anecdotal evidence of suspicions or takedowns on the right.
Facebook has a long history of taking down photos of
breastfeeding mothers. In 2014, the company suspended drag
performers for using their drag names. An advertisement for a
book featuring an LGBT vision of Jesus was also rejected. At a
minimum, these kind of things happen, but they happen on the
left and they happen on the right. If speakers, conservatives
or progressive, would like to get blocked less, they should
perhaps stop posting lies, defamatory statements, unfounded
conspiracy theories, fake news, and so forth.
James Woods doesn't have a right to a Twitter megaphone.
Neither do racists, homophobes, bigots, misogynists, revenge
pornographers, child molesters, sex traffickers, or any number
of others. So I would ask some people who have--have the--have
had this experience, is it really the case that the platform is
discriminating against you because of your views or because of
your behavior, which violate platform rules?
So why do platforms do this? Well, content moderation
occurs algorithmically. It is subject to problems. Why do these
mistakes happen? Why do people get blocked when they think they
shouldn't? Sometimes there are mistakes. Yes, absolutely.
Sometimes algorithms make mistakes as well as people make
mistakes.
Content moderation on Facebook, however, is part of a
larger narrative about how even the lack of even reasonable
regulation allows Facebook to take a cavalier approach to our
privacy, safety, and civic discourse? But if you want to talk
about bias, let's talk about the real bias online.
Statistically sound social science research from scholars
like Safiya Noble and LaTanya Sweeney and researchers at the
MIT Media Lab have shown that Google and other platforms are
biased. But it is not partisan bias; it is pervasive racial and
gender bias, the kind of bias that leads to Google's auto-
complete searches for, ``Why are black girls,'' for example,
with the completed phrase, ``so angry'' or ``so loud,'' or the
kind of bias that returns pictures of black women when you
search for the word ``gorilla.''
In her book ``Algorithms of Profession''--``Oppression,''
Professor Noble culls many of these examples and shows with
pinpoint accuracy and statistical significance that this
happens often, and far more often than anecdotal evidence of
this or that person losing followers, and many of those
followers were probably board of trustees anyway.
This bias happens because Google isn't simply a machine. It
is software. It is made by humans and enforced by humans. And
its software sometimes can't even tell the difference between,
say, an Asian woman's eyes and eyes that are closed. We know so
little about how this works, and we do need to talk about bias.
But not the kind of bias that this panel and this committee
appears to be worried about.
We need answers to real bias, and those answers may either
be readily available through an empowered Federal Trade
Commission, or access to platform data and research so
academics can investigate how a platform like Google biases and
harms marginalized populations.
[The statement of Mr. Waldman follows:]
**********COMMITTEE INSERT**********
Mr. King. Thank you, Professor Waldman.
The chair now recognizes Ms. Dhillon for your testimony.
Ms. Dhillon, I would point to the panel and the members of the
committee that we're expecting votes any minute. So it looks
like we can actually conclude this hearing at an appropriate
time today, and I hope we're able to do that.
Ms. Dhillon.
TESTIMONY OF HARMEET K. DHILLON
Ms. Dhillon. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee and their staff.
I am a trial lawyer in private practice in California, with
a focus on----
Mr. King. Turn on your microphone, please.
Ms. Dhillon [continuing]. With a focus on business,
technology, employment, and First Amendment litigation. In my
25-year career, I have represented numerous course subject to
discrimination in academia, the workplace, consumer markets,
and civil rights matters.
As a Silicon Valley employment lawyer, I have learned that
big tech firms systemically and illegally engage in widespread
discrimination against American workers on the basis of their
gender, race, religion, values, and political affiliations, the
latter of which is barred by California law.
Several of these companies employ hiring quotas and
preferences to achieve diversity, but not diversity of
viewpoint. Google employees who dare to dissent are not only
fired but are also publicly shamed, humiliated, labeled,
blacklisted, and sometimes pursued after firing with secretive
arbitrations designed to punish and even bankrupt them, all
with no right of appeal.
My client James Dumore was fired by Google last year
because he dared to share, internally within Google, a
memorandum he created in response to Google's request for
feedback regarding their diversity indoctrination sessions. His
memo reflects and discusses widely held views supported by
published research regarding differences between men and women,
and his thoughts about how those differences might be relevant
to making Google's workplace more attractive for women.
James fell victim to big tech's war of political
correctness and social engineering. And for every James Dumore
and his colleagues at Google who publicly and privately seek
protection against these abusive practices, there are thousands
more whose names will never be heard by this committee.
Indeed, shortly after I filed the lawsuit on behalf of
James Dumore and his colleagues, Google moved swiftly for a
protective order censoring what information might be publicly
disclosed in court filings, and by demanding that James and two
of his colleagues submit their claims to separate, individual,
private arbitrations.
As a result, most of the employment issues implicated in
these cases will never be heard in open court. And both the
public and the government may never learn the truth of what
occurred or be allowed to consider what actions should be taken
to prevent these un American practices in the future.
The employer's motivation across each of these cases
appears to be the same. To impose upon their employees only
those progressive values that dictate a redistribution of
opportunities and benefits to certain defined classes at the
expense of others, with no regard to the human carnage meted on
innocent workers who have not themselves discriminated against
anybody.
This problem is not restricted to Silicon Valley. I have
spoken to or represented employees across the United States
facing similar issues. I have shared with my--with the
committee my written testimony, two dozen examples of some of
the examples of political bias in the workplace I have learned
about from the over 100 current and former big tech employees
who have contacted my firm within the past year. I have many
more examples.
To name but one, a Google employee was fired this year as a
direct result of his cooperation with a Federal investigation
into the company's illegal labor practices, including work
rules that bar employees from discussing their work conditions,
one or--one or another, or with third parties in violation of
the National Labor Relations Act, as well as bullying and
retaliation related to protected labor activities.
When Google found out that this employee was talking to the
government, they printed out two years of his internal search
history and interrogated him on search queries related to
employee rights issues on multiple instances over the course of
several months.
Google abruptly suspended and then fired this employee days
after the NLRB announced that it was moving forward with his
case after over two years of investigative and policy analysis.
The chilling effect of these witch hunts and these
decisions cannot be overstated. Big tech's anti conservative
bias extends far beyond the confines of labor and employment
law, and you have heard some examples here today. In some
markets such as digital advertising, big tech companies have
near monopoly or duopoly power, such that the lack of
competition means consumers are stuck with biased and even
discriminatory product offerings.
To give but one recent example from the Wall Street
Journal, following President Trump's implementation of a travel
ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed internally how
to leverage Google's search functions to counter undesirable
political viewpoints while promoting pro-immigration
organizations and advocacy. They did all of this without
informing consumers that they were manipulating the results of
the searches.
Google maintains at least nine different blacklists that
impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any
outside advisory group, industry association, or government
agency: the auto-complete blacklist, the Google maps blacklist,
the YouTube blacklist, the Google account blacklist, the Google
news blacklist, the Google AdWords blacklist, the Google
AdSense blacklist, the search engine blacklist, and the
quarantine list.
Google advertising sales employees have gone out of their
way to inform consumers of sites they should avoid advertising
on because the content is ``unsafe,'' such as Breitbart. Google
has banned payday lender ads even though it invests in such
companies.
Google has taken similar action with respect to bail
bondsmen, blocking people from finding legal businesses that
are part of our criminal justice system under the guise of
banning users from seeing harmful products. Google is not
alone.
We have previously heard here about Twitter censorship. Our
client, True Pundit, a popular conservative blog which has
approximately 270,000 followers on Twitter, has persistently
suffered from Twitter's shadow banning, outright banning, and
follower-deleting practices.
Mr. King. Ms. Dhillon, could you summarize, please?
Ms. Dhillon. Yes, sir. Big tech has become an insular
fortress of thought coercion and vindictive behavioral control.
The culture and tactics of some companies would make Orwell's
Big Brother proud, as they often surpass the cult-like thinking
described in the book ``1984.''
These actions are broad-based attempts to completely
reclassify or dispense with logic and reason and reshape our
economy and our society in a progressive utopian form. Thank
you for inviting me here, and I look forward to questions.
[The statement of Ms. Dhillon follows:]
**********COMMITTEE INSERT**********
Mr. King. Thank you, Ms. Dhillon. I thank, I think, all the
witnesses for your testimony.
Now I will recognize myself for five minutes of questions,
and I would start with Mr. Hoft, and ask you, Mr. Hoft: Have
you written about crisis actors?
Mr. Hoft. You know, that is a term that we get accused of
quite frequently. I actually brought some evidence of that. I
expected that this would come up. The Washington Post put out
an article. I have a picture here with my picture on it, and I
am saying it that the Gateway Pundit was behind the crisis
actor type. It is a term we never used. We never used this.
And so this is an example of the fake news you would see
in--not online, but in the--in the mainstream media, who repeat
this. And it's actually a term that was never published on our
site. So----
Mr. King. Okay. And--but it was in relation to the Parkland
shooting. Can you just--can you summarize what you wrote about
Parkland shootings?
Mr. Hoft. We wrote several articles about the Parkland
shooting, of course. It was a big national story. We cover it
extensively. And we were one of the first people to point out
that this--one of the spokesmen for the anti-gun groups. His
father was in the FBI.
And we said that this video, it looked a little strange. It
looks like there was somebody coaching him or something. We
just, you know, put it out there. You can decide for yourself.
The feedback we got was about 90 percent said yeah, it looked
like he is being coached.
So this got us in a lot of trouble with the mainstream
media. They reported on this a lot, and Hillary--or Chelsea
Clinton's retweeting it, attacking me. But I still stand by
that article today. It was--it was a good article. It was good
information.
And the fact that they are telling us that we can't even
question things today is very distributing.
Mr. King. Is there a distinction between being coached and
being an actor?
Mr. Hoft. Absolutely. Yeah.
Mr. King. And I am going to--I am going to make this
statement. I am not going to ask you. I am going to guess that
there is a witness over in the Senate today that is very, very
well coached for the testimony that is being delivered as we
have this hearing here today.
I am going to argue that that is an equivalent situation,
or perhaps even much moreso coaching taking place today.
Mr. Hoft. We know that people get coached.
Mr. Raskin. I think the President coached Judge Kavanaugh
after his disastrous performance on TV that that--you were
right.
Mr. King. I control the time, Mr.--Mr. Raskin, that--I will
recognize you in your time.
And then you have given, Mr.--Mr. Hoft, some significant
data here, some dramatic reductions. One of them was 90-plus
percent, 93 percent in the aggregate. These are Facebook posts
altogether.
Mr. Hoft. These were top conservative sites. We looked at--
we--there are tracking websites, like SimilarWeb, like--there
are a few out there. We use their data. We paid for some data.
And we saw that with the conservatives, they were getting
completely pummeled since the election. A couple of the top
conservative sites have been put out of business.
We looked at liberal sites. And like I said, the Western
Journal study found that with liberal sites, their traffic
numbers actually went up by 2 percent. SO that is the data we
brought today.
Mr. King. Are you aware of any Members of Congress that are
having their communications suppressed?
Mr. Hoft. You know, the Western Journal, again, did a
subsequent study. They found that, again, that conservatives
were facing more of the backlash. Their--their articles were
being hidden by Facebook compared to liberal politicians.
Mr. King. And so if Members of Congress wanted to be
familiar with the effect of that, and familiar with it, is
there an outlet that they could access to learn those
trendings?
Mr. Hoft. Certainly we put up those--those studies I have--
I have brought some extra information today that will be put in
the Congressional Record. Like I said, Western Journal did some
tremendous reporting on this.
So the information is getting out there. But people don't
understand how widespread this is, so thank you for inviting me
today to testify.
Mr. King. But we can't necessarily expect that if you post
that information on Facebook, that we can find it there. We
should go to your website instead?
Mr. Hoft. Right. You probably better go to the source.
Mr. King. Ari. Thank you, Mr. Hoft.
I turn to Ms. Cohen, and I appreciate you coming down for
your testimony today. And I know you didn't get to the
conclusion of your testimony. But you had a lot of data that
was stark to me to hear from multiple people that are your
communications and friends (sic), and some people I know that
can't access your material.
Ms. Cohen. That's right.
Mr. King. And going from tens of thousands from the Boston
Herald down to a mere handful on Twitter.
Ms. Cohen. Exactly.
Mr. King. Would you please speak to that?
Ms. Cohen. Exactly. And I just highlighted three examples.
But I am a prolific writer. I have published hundreds of
columns and done hundreds of radio interviews with Members of
Congress. I have interviewed Attorney general Jeff Sessions.
You name it.
I mean, I am very hardworking. I publish at least two to
three times a week. So I am just limiting three examples, but I
am happy to provide the committee with rows of examples, how
Twitter and Facebook are censoring me.
And I only gave you a small snippet of my Twitter followers
who have told me exactly that they can't see my columns in
their feeds. These are people who are following me for a
reason. They want to read my content and see it, and they
can't. And they're on Twitter all the time, so it's not like
they missed it or they're only on Twitter once in a while.
These are prolific people, my industry peers in television and
radio and in print.
And if I could just make a comment. I would like to defend
myself and all conservatives from something that Mr. Waldman
has said. He is saying that the only reason why social media
networks are censoring conservatives is because we make racist
posts and we have hate speech. I have done, never, any of those
things.
And number two, I would like to ask Mr. Walden if--Waldman
if he believes the Declaration of Independence is hate speech
because Facebook censored and took down the Declaration of
Independence this summer from a community newspaper in Texas.
So if that is what you consider hate speech, you don't belong
in this country.
Mr. King. Well, and Ms. Cohen, rather than start a debate,
we are going to recognize that as a rhetorical question.
Ms. Cohen. Uh-huh. [Laughter.]
Mr. King. And I am going to conclude my part of this
questioning, and recognize the gentleman from Maryland for
his--for his questioning.
Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think all of
our distinguished witnesses belong in America.
But Ms. Cohen, let me start with you. Your story tugs at my
heartstrings because I used to read the Boston Herald when I
was in college. And you were claiming discrimination against
you as a conservative. But I am not even sure what that
category means.
Certainly, to the people in this room, as a conservative,
do you believe in the free market in communication? Or do you
believe in government control of private media entities?
Ms. Cohen. I think it is a really great question that you
have brought up.
Mr. Raskin. You have got to answer succinctly, if you
would.
Ms. Cohen. Okay. I want to say this, that normally
conservatives do not support, you know, big government and
over-regulation.
Mr. Raskin. But I--yeah.
Ms. Cohen. But with respect to these social media
companies, they are a monopoly, effectively.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. So----
Ms. Cohen. Because this is where the majority of Americans
get their news, including voters.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Sorry. Just cutting to the chase here----
Ms. Cohen. Yeah?
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. So you think that Twitter,
Facebook, and Google should be regulated by the government in
terms of their----
Ms. Cohen. I do. Like a public utility. Because I know you
wouldn't support public utilities cutting off their services--
--
Mr. Raskin. Okay. I have got your positions. Thank you.
Ms. Cohen [continuing]. To certain individuals.
Mr. Raskin. If you get the chair to give me 5 more minutes,
I will pursue it with you.
But Mr. Hoft, let me--let me come to you. Now, you were
allegedly discriminated against by the conservative political
action committee, which banned you from the conference, or
disinvited you, because of your putative alignment with those
saying that the Parkland survivors were crisis actors, or were
being coached, or whatever. For whatever reason, maybe they
were wrong in doing that.
But did you have a First Amendment claim against them? And
should you be able to sue them and get an injunction against
them for excluding you from the conference?
Mr. Hoft. Well, they actually made a decision based on the
information they had. And I--I believe that was inaccurate
information.
Mr. Raskin. Can you sue them? Should you have First
Amendment rights in action against them?
Mr. Hoft. It is--that is not my intention at this point. I
was asked not to speak there, and that is fine. That is----
Mr. Raskin. Okay. So let's say you were banned from MSNBC
for the same comments that you made or for your comments with
Infowars or whatever. Would you have a right against MSNBC?
Mr. Hoft. If they don't want to have me on, I don't need to
go on that channel.
Mr. Raskin. And Fox News would have the right to exclude
you or me or any liberal Democrat. Right?
Mr. Hoft. They have the right to choose who they want on
there.
Mr. Raskin. So why do you think that you have a right to
make Facebook or Twitter carry you at all?
Mr. Hoft. That is--That is a great question. Thank you. I
think, with Facebook, we see today people get up in the
morning, they are looking at Facebook. It is much larger than
one--you can choose the channel you want to watch on
television.
Mr. Raskin. A lot of people watch the Fox News.
Mr. Hoft. You can't choose--you can't choose the channel
that you want with Facebook. There's no--there's no
competition.
Mr. Raskin. Okay, sir. So are you in agreement with Ms.
Cohen--wait. Let me just get it straight.
Mr. Hoft. And by the way, they also--they also have--they
also have Instagram.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Hoft, I control the time. I am going to ask
you, are you agreeing with Ms. Cohen that these are public
utilities that can be regulated by the government, and we
should be regulating them in terms of their content?
Mr. Hoft. I think some--some laws need to be passed. I
think regulation would be a good thing. I think they need to be
transparent, too. If they are going to--if they are going to be
against conservative thoughts and conservative websites, they
need to be honest about that.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. So Ms. Dhillon, let me come to you
because you were actually complaining about employment action,
as I understand it, for people working at--I think it was at
Google who----
Ms. Dhillon. That was among the topics that I discussed.
Mr. Raskin. Yeah. So do you believe, as a conservative,
that people have a right not to be fired for political reasons
by private corporations?
Ms. Dhillon. Well, as I stated in my testimony, that is
actually California law.
Mr. Raskin. Yeah. So in----
Ms. Dhillon. And yes, I believe California law should be
applied to people who work in California. Absolutely.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. And so do you--and you believe that is a
general principle, that people should not be able to be fired
for their right-wing views, their left-wing views, pro-union,
anti-union, what have you?
Ms. Dhillon. I did not say that. You said that.
Mr. Raskin. I am asking you.
Ms. Dhillon. I said California law----
Mr. Raskin. I'm asking you. I'm asking. I'm asking you.
What is your position? Look----
Ms. Dhillon. I am not here to fantasize about laws that
aren't on the books.
Mr. Raskin. Look. As I said--excuse me. A lot of my
colleagues think you guys are just whining, and I am trying to
torture out of this some theoretical coherence. So what I am
trying to say is: What is the legal or what is the legislative
remedy you are looking for? Do you think that workers in
America should have a right not to be fired for their politics?
Is that the position you are taking?
Ms. Dhillon. I am not taking a position on Federal
legislation here. I am talking about the----
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Well, we're not the California Assembly.
Why are you talking to us, then? Go take it to the California
court. I thought you had something to say to the Congress of
the United States.
Ms. Dhillon. Oh, are you questioning why I was invited
here?
Mr. Raskin. I am asking what you have to say to us.
Ms. Dhillon. It feels like a personal attack.
Mr. Raskin. Do you have any interest in Federal legislation
relating to the rights of workers? Or you are just telling us
about a case that you are dealing with in California?
Mr. Waldman. I covered a number of topics. But one of them,
while we are on the subject of Federal legislation, is
Communications Decency Act, Section 230, Immunity. That is
something that a lot of the questions here on this panel seems
to ignorantly confuse the fact that Fox News is not covered by
the immunity (sic), whereas the social media networks are.
I do think that that law needs to be revised to strip that
immunity from those companies----
Mr. Raskin. Okay. So you have no comment as----
Ms. Dhillon [continuing]. Because they do not deserve it.
Mr. Raskin. Excuse me. You have no comment as to whether or
not workers should have a right not to be fired for their
politics? You just don't think peer pressure should----
Ms. Dhillon. That is already the law where I practice law.
So that is the law am operating under.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have had enough. Thank
you.
Mr. King. The gentleman's time is expired. And the chair
once again thanks the witnesses, those on the panel and those
on the first panel as well who monitor all of this because they
have an intellectual curiosity about where this is going to go,
as do I.
And--but this concludes today's hearing. And again, I thank
all of our witnesses. Without objection, all members will have
five legislative days to submit additional written questions
for the witnesses or additional materials for the record.
This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the Subcommittee hearing was
adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]