Jim Ver Steeg: You’re listening to Quadcast, the official podcast of the University of Rochester. I’m your host, Jim Ver Steeg.
Throughout its history, higher education has been the place where students expand their minds, further their understanding of the world around them, and prepare themselves for their lives and careers. While few dispute the higher goals of the college experience, many feel the tensions that exist when people from different backgrounds and diverse perspectives gather to learn and express their ideas.
For some, the tenets of the First Amendment—which protects several basic freedoms in the United States, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government—are sacrosanct. Any abridgement of those ideals, they argue, is a threat to higher education’s ability to challenge minds and inspire students to see beyond their own world view.
Others consider free speech at its strongest when we make efforts to ensure the safety and inclusion of more marginalized and vulnerable voices. Looking to create more protective learning environments, proponents of this view often argue for safe spaces and trigger warnings, which serve as notices that sensitive or potentially difficult content will be covered or discussed in class. They contend that freedom of speech is enhanced when everyone is willing and able to participate.
Free speech on college campuses came into the spotlight recently when President Donald Trump signed an executive order that would make federal funding for universities contingent on assurances of free speech, and said he was taking “historic action to defend American students and American values that have been under siege.”
Has this tension reached a boiling point on college campuses and created the need for an executive order, or is this just an opportunity to shine light on what seems like a widening divide?
Joining me to discuss this balance between free speech and protective learning environments are:
Matthew Burns, dean of students in Arts, Sciences & Engineering at the University of Rochester. Matt, thank you for joining us; and David Primo, associate professor of political science and business administration, and the Ani and Mark Gabrellian Professor at the University of Rochester. Thank you for being here.
My first question for both of you, and Matt, I think I’d like to turn to you first, is why is this important? What’s at stake?
Matt Burns: Virtually everything is at stake with this. If we’re not careful, with regard to defining the boundaries of free speech, we’re going to stop higher education from being a place where inquiry is free. So, I think the bar has to be pretty high before we intervene. That said, I think we are aware that some voices have been silenced. What to do about that is unclear. I think that’s what we’re finding, where we’re finding ourselves right now. I don’t think that there’s a crisis now than there ever has been before. We’ve gone through this as we tried to figure out what those boundaries are. But I think for higher education in particular that the mark has to be pretty high before you start placing limitations on freedom of expression.
That said, there is a place for the community to respond to things that they find objectionable. And I think that also is a different kind of free speech. When that speech is being hindered somehow I think it takes careful scrutiny to look into why and how and how can we make amends for that with or without furthering defining the boundaries of free speech.
JVS: Dave, I’ll turn to you.
David Primo: What’s at stake here is what it means for us to have a system of higher education in this country. What’s at stake is the future of free inquiry on college campuses. And that really comes down to – I don’t think it’s so much striking a balance between protective learning environments and free inquiry but rather saying that we have one specific mission and that is the pursuit of knowledge. And that pursuit of knowledge sometimes will make us uncomfortable. That pursuit of knowledge sometimes will make us feel vulnerable, emotionally, let’s say. But it is important to prioritize. I would argue the pursuit of knowledge even if at times that makes us feel uncomfortable.
Notice that I said uncomfortable though, not unsafe. So when there are threats of violence that’s when I think we have to draw the line and say ok, this is no longer the pursuit of knowledge. This is fomenting violence. We need to be very cautious in stifling inquiry on college campuses. And I think in the last 20 years we’ve gradually moved more and more towards this notion that speech itself can be violence. In other words, I as an individual am offended by your speech and it’s threatening to me even if the speech itself has no overt physical or other violent content. That’s concerning to me and I hope we can explore that in the context of the podcast.
JVS: But I think that notion of being offended versus feeling unsafe is a really important one. And while it seems like the differences might be obvious there’s nuance in there. So if a person is hearing a speech that seems to be speaking out against them or something they believe in, then they feel threatened perhaps. So how do we bridge that gap and say this is actually just one person’s opinion. It’s not necessarily an indictment of you or what you believe?
Burns: Well, that is what we’re talking about here, right? So we know that there is a boundary out there for freedom of expression where you can’t incite violence. So you can’t go in – you can go in and say I hate Dean Burns. You can say that till you’re blue in the face. But what you can’t say is let’s get together and harm Dean Burns. So that’s a clear boundary.
But what’s unclear right now speaks less to the kind of threat of physical violence as opposed to the impact that some words have on others. And where do you draw that line? That is a slippery slope but words do do damage. And I guess there’s this question out there of course as to whether or not folks especially in marginalized groups have felt free to inquire or to challenge or have their voices been silenced? And I don’t think we’ve even come close to solving that problem or discovering what can you do.
Not everything has to be punishment either. So a lot of times when someone is offended or feels harmed by speech, their immediate response is we need to do something to punish that person who is speaking. And that can’t be the only tool we have in the toolkit. Even for an institution that has these values out there that we aspire to like integrity and leadership and openness. When someone violates those, those are aspirational words. Those aren’t codes of conduct that prohibit behavior. And so developing some sort of system of accountability is more difficult when you have aspirational words like that.
Primo: One of the things I’m doing next year is mounting a new course called disagreement in a democratic society because ultimately what I think or I hope that this comes down to is that we have forgotten or perhaps we never quite knew how to disagree well as a society. And I think that that’s infiltrated college campuses in the last 10 to 15 years. It can’t be the case that somebody coming to campus and making a speech that you find offensive is cause for not inviting a speaker in the future or not inviting that speaker at all or having the extreme university administrator saying that speaker is no longer invited to campus.
It has to be the case that we allow ourselves to engage with those with whom we disagree rather than simply saying I find that speech offensive. It is harmful and threatening to me. And honestly I think part of the problem is sort of how universities have evolved to focusing on students feeling comfortable rather than students being in a rigorous learning environment. And those two aspirations can sometimes be in conflict, that you sometimes will be profoundly uncomfortable in a learning setting. Again notice I didn’t say feel that you are physically in danger. But sometimes you will perhaps mentally feel very uncomfortable or emotionally feel very uncomfortable in a learning situation. And those are precisely the times when you can learn the most.
And I sort of think we need to encourage engagement with individuals with whom we disagree. And we don’t do that in our society at all and I think universities have regrettably emphasized comfort over learning in the last 10 to 20 years for lots of reasons. But I think that’s something we need to focus on. We need to focus more on the learning part and less on the comfort part.
JVS: So, if a professor feels that she or he is not willing or able to communicate their beliefs or to share their perspectives for fear of retribution by a university, what does that do to this freedom of inquiry and what does that signal to the students on campus?
Primo : Students learn a lot from us as faculty members I hope. They learn content but I think they also learn what it means to engage with the world of ideas. And earlier I said that students are sometimes going to feel uncomfortable in class potentially or in, on college campuses because they’re exposed to ideas that are different. That said, they should always – even as they might feel uncomfortable with the ideas with which they’re engaging feel comfortable in expressing their own perspectives.
The comfort I’m concerned about is the student is free to express their perspectives not that they are sort of insulated from alternative perspectives. And if they observe that faculty members are hesitant or are cautious or themselves don’t feel comfortable in expressing their perspectives, I think that sends a really strong message about what the appropriate way to engage in discussion is. The bulk of the time faculty members I believe can express their perspectives without fear of retribution.
My concern is that that is not a universal phenomenon, that there are definitely situations where faculty members either because of pressure from students, pressure from administrators or pressures from fellow faculty members don’t feel comfortable expressing their perspectives. But more importantly their research agendas can be sidelined for fear that they’re going to reach the “wrong” conclusions. Wrong being defined as what’s out of the academic mainstream. Those are pernicious effects that may not be obvious to students but I do believe it does filter through in terms of what goes on in the classroom.
Burns: That’s a difficult thing to measure. I think there might be a difference between inside a classroom and research that’s done on outside although to what extent in a whole community learning, I would probably argue that yeah, I think discomfort is necessary for some learning. But there are those individuals in class who feel more than just discomfort. So for the most part there are folks learning who feel uncomfortable because an alternative point of view is offered.
That’s significantly different than someone who is in the classroom who has this traumatic experience and learning shuts down because of an example that is used or a phrase that it used. And I don’t think that there should be, again, punishment for that sort of thing. But why wouldn’t you challenge yourself perhaps as a faculty member or as a fellow student offering a different point of view that maybe the way I phrased that could be done differently so that it allows everyone to learn. I don’t know what the answer to that question is. I don’t believe it should be punished.
But I think to question those things is legitimate. So if you do use an example in class and you get feedback that for some reason offended me or shut down learning on my part, I would be open to that. And all things considered, maybe that’s the only way you have of teaching. But if there is a different alternative or if that’s just never been pointed out to you before, why wouldn’t you want to learn that?
JVS: I want to address some of the notions of trigger warnings because there are a lot of different theories out there and a lot of different people say a lot of different things. One of which is either – just put it out there at the beginning of the course. Say this course is going to cover some topics that are difficult so get ready folks. Others say you don’t necessarily have to have that blanket approach but really use the topic at hand to say some students might be affected by this because we’re going to be talking about this subject matter. So is that a way of policing language or is that a way of protecting students?
Primo: So generally speaking I like the idea of universities not being involved or not being in the business of mandating how faculty handle sensitive issues in class. I think that’s really the purview of the faculty member. In my own classes I try to make sure that every student knows that they are a) going to be treated like an adult and b) are going to be treated with respect. And then we go from there.
My concern with the concept of trigger warnings is not the spirit in which they were created, but that they’re part of a broader trend that’s highlighted in a recent book that I highly recommend called The Coddling of the American Mind where we are – instead of encouraging our students to be adults, to have difficult conversations, we are creating these little protective bubbles for them, throughout their experiences in higher education from day one in orientation till they graduate. And I’m not sure that that’s serving them well in the long run.
We should not make college an unpleasant experience but we should emphasize that discomfort at times and I understand there are limits. Of course. But discomfort at times is central to learning. This doesn’t quite relate exactly to the idea of trigger warnings. But I remember as an undergraduate in a political theory course reading Marx and the professor noticed that I was really – we were sort in small group discussions and I was very animated and very almost upset by the ideas that I was encountering in Marx. And he emphasized that this is great that this is making you so essentially irritated. This is how you learn. This is how you grow. And I benefited a great deal from being exposed to those ideas.
JVS: Matt, I want to get your thoughts on some of those notions of trigger warnings but I also want to get your thoughts on more than just what’s happening in the classroom but what’s happening in wider campus environment and I hesitate to open the picture too wide. But a lot of that is happening online and in social media where a university that doesn’t have a lot of influence with how students are communicating or saying certain things about certain issues. So how do we as a university model a sort of free speech but also keep in mind that there are people out there who do come from marginalized populations or who are more vulnerable. What does that look like on the college campus?
Burns: That’s a good question. I think the first thing with regard to the enormous amount of ways that our students can communicate with each other which is far greater than what I had when I was their age. There was no internet. I’m dating myself of course. But no email or anything like that. You were kind of forced to have interactions face to face. And I think that’s made a significant difference in how we, not just young people but everyone but certainly young people are much more proficient with stuff, how we communicate with each other.
If we’re constantly able to throw up an electronic barrier between me and another human, that significantly alters the way I’m willing to communicate with you if I don’t have to stare at a human being in front of me. I believe that that does have an impact. And so one of the things we can model perhaps is to take, is to make sure that we’re talking about appropriate venues. And that perhaps Facebook is not the place to be having this conversation with you. Maybe we should take it offline and have a face to face conversation.
With less and less of that happening, not because of their fault but because of what they have available to them, I think we can model that more and more and show our students and others by the way what it looks like to have a civil conversation about a difficult topic. It’s much easier to have a polarized, awful, mean conversation when you’re snapchatting or emailing or whenever that electronic barrier is out there.
So I think that’s the first thing that comes to mind whenever I think of how are we going to teach people to have civil discourse again. Take it offline whenever possible. I think that’s the first step because I’ve seen in my career that happen. People go and text each other. They’ll be in front of each other texting because they don’t want to say something that’s difficult to you. And I think there’s a part of us that any one of us that would give into that. I don’t think this is a young person’s problem. I don’t think they have any tendency that we don’t have. And in fact you see adults do that all the time too.
Burns: I definitely agree that face to face interactions are going to take the tension down, often will take the tension down a little bit. Although you can imagine that if the goal is to protest then a face to face interaction may actually heighten the situation. But I think in general if the goal is to have a conversation then yes, a face to face conversation is less likely to devolve. I mean you just need to look at Twitter or Facebook on any given day to see what happens when people who you might think are seemingly reasonable human beings choose to put their ideas into Tweets.
And this is true of faculty members who you would just be floored if you see the kinds of things that they put on Twitter and on Facebook for the world to see. They frankly should be embarrassed by their actions. And so part of the challenge is students may see, “Oh look. My faculty member says all these nasty things on Facebook and Twitter. Why shouldn’t I engage in the same way?” And that’s part of sort of this corrosive culture in which we’re all part of these days. And so I agree if the goal is to have a conversation face to face is still going to be, is going to be superior but if the goal is to score points or if the goal is to protest I’m not as convinced that face to face is going to address the root issue.
Burns: Although there is the right to have that as well. But we have a long history of how to do that. Decades of protests on college campuses that we can look to for advice about that. But I think the other thing that I face fairly often is this notion that when someone does say something that is deeply offensive there’s nothing that can be done about it. Like I get to say that and nobody can say anything else. It’s just freedom of expression.
And while it’s true, we don’t use the conduct process to punish that speech. If we as a community really do define these values that we hold there should be some response. The community should be able to speak back at that. But I think what I’m hearing more and more is that that seems insufficient as a response. That is doesn’t carry the weight of expelling or suspending someone or removing them from campus.
And I simply don’t think that it’s appropriate for us to use the conduct process to punish that speech which is protected but deeply offensive. I don’t like it anymore than anyone else does. But we ought not to use a conduct process. Sort of like outside of the private university you don’t use the courts to punish that speech that is protected.
JVS: That’s a great point. The punitive side of responding to people exercising what they think is their freedom of expression that sometimes becomes problematic. And we have clear dividing lines between hate speech and what’s just offensive to people and I think that those are relatively clear.
But what is it and how do we encourage students and how do we encourage an appropriate faculty response when we see things that are demonstrably more than just offensive?
Burns: I wouldn’t be so convinced that we’ve defined hate speech as well as you characterize it. Hate crimes and the legislation that allows us to look at actual violations that are exacerbated by speech that’s hateful is one thing to look at. But to my knowledge hate speech has been shot down again and again if you come up with those codes.
But perhaps more to your point, what should happen with that, I think it’s perfectly reasonable inside and outside of the classroom by the way to expect as an educational institution that you can’t just put something out there for the public to see or to read without having to defend it and sit in the hot seat. I think it is not punitive. It is perfectly reasonable that an educational institution that if someone says something that is offensive or hateful I get to perhaps as a member of the community or perhaps even as dean of students, expect that you sit down and you talk to me about it and you defend that point of view. And you have to answer the question as to why do you hold that point of view.
When I look at my wall and I see all of the principles up there and I point to integrity or I point to respect and it has nothing to do with that. Why are you here espousing that point of view when we look at those words every day and say that we believe in them? That’s a question that people I think need to answer.
Primo: There are two aspects of this where I think it gets a little bit tricky. I agree 100 percent with Matt’s sentiment that you need to be willing to have your ideas challenged or expect that your ideas are going to be challenged on a college campus. So if you express position x and there are – 90 percent of the campus believes not x is the case, you have to be prepared to engage and you can’t then play the victim card and say oh people are saying mean things about me or I feel threatened again if there’s no actually overt threat of violence of course. This is just all verbal. That’s inconsistent.
But there are a couple of concerns here that I have and that is one, that we’re seeing increasingly that the goal is not just to engage with the individual with whom we vigorously disagree because of their offensive speech. It is to prevent that individual from speaking or seek again punitive – seek some sort of punishment for that speech. That gets us down a slippery slope where now the content of speech is the determination of whether or not it can be expressed on a college campus. And again, short of something that’s inciting violence, we need to be very careful about starting to draw those lines.
The second is – and this is in terms of how faculty members and administrators should respond. This gets delicate because administrators and faculty members hold positions of power. So let’s say a student says something offensive to many other students in terms of expressing their perspective. If a faculty member denounces that student publicly, is that the faculty member simply expressing his or her perspective or is there a fear that that faculty members assessment of that student may then in turn be affected? So does that faculty member in a position of power, right, create an unfortunate environment for that student?
The second piece – and this is the thing about administration. So let’s say a faculty member says something offensive or that’s perceived as offensive by the outside community or has research conclusions that are controversial. If the president of the university says, comes out as happened on this campus a few years ago and criticizes that faculty member, remember that the president or the dean is in a position of power, of authority over that faculty member. Does that send a message to the rest of the university community that if you hold views or express views that are unpopular and so on that you can be in some sort of danger?
Even if there’s never any actual retaliation, it does raise the question of exactly when should faculty members and administrators say something. I don’t know. I don’t have all of the answers. I think these are very difficult situations but I don’t think it’s obvious that administrators calling out faculty members or faculty members calling out students for what are perceived to be unpopular views is always a clear cut positive for a university.
Burns: No. And it’s not clear that saying nothing doesn’t send a message either. So it is –
Primo: Fair point.
JVS: Matt, as dean of students at the University of Rochester, you’re obviously dean of all students and having to be mindful of course of a wide range of different perspectives. So when you are thinking in these terms, thinking of people’s freedom of expression, freedom of idea, freedom of inquiry and that sort of thing, you mentioned these principles, these university principles. Is that what you use as your guide for understanding this or do you have a broader plan or strategy?
Burns: I can’t say that I have a broader strategy. Do I use those? Yes, actually right now we’re in transition from the college’s communal principles to the newly adopted university values. They’re basically the same thing. In fact, the university values are largely based upon the communal principles in the college. But yes. The answer to that question is right up on my wall. It took me seven years to decorate my office. But one of the things I did was right up on my wall are the six different communal principles, fairness and freedom and honesty and inclusion and respect and responsibility.
And whenever I meet with students about this or other difficult issues, I actually do. I don’t know if it sounds nerdy or what but I point at those and we engage each other in a discussion about what it has to do with those. Because I think the bottom line there is regardless of what actually happens if we’re keeping those principles in mind, now the university values, we’re closer to I think where we should be. So beyond the judicial system, beyond whatever is happening out there, I’m meeting with a student discussing this issue or with a group of students. I think those become very relevant because I don’t like looking at the letter of the law in terms of these things. But I like looking at those principles and challenging ourselves.
So yes, that’s my go to. But I think as dean of students and working for the last 30 something years in student life, it’s more than just those principles. I can’t be dean of students without the issue of freedom of expression coming up several times a year at least.
JVS: And Dave have you had your own contact with students around this notion of freedom of expression, freedom of speech?
Primo: On the first day of class early in the semester I always tell students that they should always feel comfortable. So using that word comfort again but again the comfort is on the terms of the expression, not in terms of the perception of ideas. So you should be comfortable expressing your perspectives in class. And if you’re not, you should tell them, whatever the reason. And I actually started asking students in student surveys at the beginning of the semester. These are optional. Have you ever felt uncomfortable expressing your views or know that other students felt uncomfortable expressing their views in class?
And a surprising number of student acknowledged that yes, either they knew somebody who had or they had. And some of these students were conservative but some were liberal and said that I’m very liberal but on this issue x I hold a view that’s contrary to campus orthodoxy. I’ll never admit that that’s the case publicly or in class because I fear that I might lose friends over this. And that’s profoundly saddening to me that that’s how that student perceives the campus environment.
I will say that for a majority, a vast majority of the students this is not an issue. But we should be concerned if its an issue even for a small fraction of students. It’s become something that’s increasingly important to me over the past few years for both personal and professional reasons that students are in an environment where they are permitted to express their views without fear of retribution.
JVS: And, more and more, I think most people in the academy recognize that universities, colleges and universities are in and of the communities where they are located and even in the broader society. So with so much political polarization, with so much talk about a widening divide or with issues around freedom of expression and freedom of speech, what do we as a university have as our role to inform or at least engage with this conversation, this wider conversation around freedom of speech, better discourse, understanding of another person’s opinions. What can higher education offer a broader conversation on these things?
Burns: Well, I think we have a number of resources right here. The first one that comes to mind is the Gandhi Institute which teaches a different way of using language to approach conflict. A nonviolent communication way of approaching this. And they give workshops on that all the time. They also sponsor among other offices on campus opportunities to engage in dialogue about race and other hot topic issues. And there is a good amount of – there are a good number of people on campus who are very proficient in facilitating those conversations. So we can probably act as better role models than they might find outside this community for one thing.
I think we do have some expertise on campus to teach different ways of communication that could be less prone to feel threatening. More listening than speaking would be a good rule of thumb to teach to just about everybody. So I think we do have a responsibility I think to educate both our students and each other, remind us that there are ways to talk to each other that don’t need to be so threatening, so uncomfortable, so divisive.
Primo: I agree 1,000 percent with the sentiment that expression that is needlessly polemical or aggressive or impolite frankly is ultimately not likely to be effective communication. And if your goal is to try to convince somebody of your position or at least get them to understand your position, attacking them by calling them names or using other pejoratives, that’s not a winning strategy. One of the things certainly universities can do is educate students about the effective ways to disagree, if you will. And that’s hopefully something I’ll be discussing in my course next year.
How is it that you can engage with individuals with whom you disagree and shake hands at the end? How do we have those kinds of difficult conversations? One thread that I think is important to keep in mind as we think about this broader issue though is that universities ultimately are about knowledge production. And knowledge production is a messy, contentious process. But that to me is sort of our North Star. Our main goal, right, is knowledge production.
And disagreement is an important part of knowledge production. But it’s important to keep in mind that we need that disagreement that’s vital to producing knowledge. But the goal is not just disagreement for disagreement’s sake. The idea is hopefully that disagreement will lead us to new understandings, new understandings of the world and new understandings just focusing on ourselves, new understandings of ourselves and what our perspectives are.
But that can only come if you are in an environment of free inquiry where faculty members and students are able to explore controversial ideas. And I don’t think we’re in a crisis right now in higher education with regard to these issues but I do think that for a variety of reasons we moving away from that ideal of knowledge production and more toward this idea of viewpoint management if you will that I find that troubling.
JVS: Matt, as dean of students you see students when they come in as first years and they exit as fourth years primarily. Are you seeing them grow and develop as a result of this pursuit of knowledge?
Burns: Yes, certainly. There are any number of ways though that our college students learn and grow through their four, five or more years here. So they come in as first years. They don’t have the knowledge base that they leave with. That’s Dave’s area, right? Hopefully they leave with more knowledge than they come in with. But they also come in with whatever life experiences they have prior to this. Some have been isolated. Some have been exposed to very diverse communities. And they learn from each other in that way too and I think that’s a lot of what they learn over the course of their time in college.
And they’re supposed to be learning that, right? We’re supposed to be sending them out more capable of communicating effectively with each other. Holding all the knowledge in oneself and one’s own brain does us very little good. Being able to express that knowledge even if that knowledge is controversial is the goal. So I do see them learning and growing. I do think that our graduating students most of them have a better handle on how to do that. They’ve lived with each other. They’ve come across issues that resulted in some conflict that they had to resolve one way or the other. So I do think that they’re learning and growing.
I don’t think to be frank they have the best role models in the world right now. And I don’t think that they are forced to be able to communicate with each other the way that we were in the past. So I think as educators we have to pay close attention to that and to try to do what we can to intervene and bring them back to methods of communication that are effective which involve both listening and speaking effectively.
Primo: I agree with Matt that students are not exposed enough to the kinds of disagreements that lead to productive exchanges of ideas. And that’s one of the things I try to do with the politics of markets project with University of Rochester is bring in panelists from across the political spectrum to debate difficult ideas. So a couple of weeks ago, I did a panel on globalization and I had ardent supporter of for lack of a better term open markets and increased immigration.
And I had among the three panelists was somebody who referred to himself as an economic nationalist. So very much in the Trumpian mode who believe that tariffs, the tariffs that the president is currently imposing are good for America, that America needs to protect its interests, just as other countries will protect their interests and so on. And they and the other panelists had a very spirted exchange. Never once did it get personal. Students asked some very challenging questions especially of the individual who referred to himself as an economic nationalist. But those questions were excellent probing questions and they got what I think were very interesting answers.
And so there’s a very respectful but firm disagreement there. And I think that was a wonderful sort of example of what college campuses at their very best can be about. And in fact one student or attendee after the event went up to the “economic nationalist” and said it was really good to – I’m not sure the exact word was good but I valued hearing your perspective because that’s not the kind of thing we get to hear a lot about on this campus. And that’s where I think universities are falling short is that we’re concerned about extreme views being expressed and so on. But in fact there’s actually not as much viewpoint diversity on college campuses as there ought to be.
JVS: I’d like to thank Matthew Burns, dean of students in Arts, Sciences & Engineering at the University of Rochester, and David Primo, associate professor of political science and business administration, and the Ani and Mark Gabrellian Professor at the University of Rochester. Thank you, again, for being here. For the University of Rochester Quadcast, I’m Jim Ver Steeg. Thanks for listening.
[End of Audio]