reSee.it - Related Video Feed

On a cross campus check of Emerson College and Harvard, a journalist records reactions to the Charlie Kirk assassination, turning interviews into a lens on campus mood. Casey, an Emerson student, condemns Kirk as racist and homophobic and says his death feels earned for the positions he championed; she questions reverence for his views and notes that she would not celebrate violence, even if she disagrees with his abortion stance. She also rails against the idea that education is a meritocratic gatekeeper, invoking the cathedral metaphor and describing professors as liberal except for one, while arguing that prestige and legacy have faded in modern colleges. Across Emerson, other voices register a spectrum of views. One student recalls the assassination video as brutal and unworthy of celebration, while another notes rumors of Emerson parties but asserts that such celebrations do not represent the campus at large. At Harvard, many interviewees decline to comment, yet the piece highlights a statistic that 32 percent reportedly believe violence is acceptable to stop speech on campus. A Harvard student (Student 13) argues that the majority cannot be reduced to a single stance and that free speech has limits; others debate punishment for provocative remarks and the boundaries of constructive disagreement. The exchanges reveal a campus culture thick with conviction and fear of repercussions that shape what people will say publicly. Toward the end, the narrator notes that Charlie Kirk’s death did not elicit widespread mourning among the interviewees, but rather intensified debates about violence, accountability, and the role of ideology on elite campuses. The piece closes with a personal reminiscence of Kirk’s impact as a public figure and organizer, contrasting some interviewees’ hard-edged rhetoric with the journalist’s sense of his influence. Across Emerson and Harvard, the mood is unsettled, with students alternately defending free expression and condemning harm, and with the question of how to balance speech, civility, and safety lingering beyond the video.

Universities are at a crossroads where culture and policy collide, and this episode probes how the Trump administration aimed to reshape elite higher education from the inside out. May Mailman argues that the core problem is not isolated incidents but a broader culture of victimhood and identity-first policies that shape who is hired, admitted, and heard. The conversation centers on federal leverage, especially Title six protections, and the administration’s view that universities receiving federal funds should lead with merit while curbing what they call ‘DEI’ activism. The host even notes Buckley’s God and Man at Yale as an early touchstone for the critique of campus liberalism. The aim is to reform incentives at the institution level rather than targeting individuals. Mailman discusses the diagnosis of the campus climate: a glorification of victimhood that some say harms admissions and hiring by privileging minority status over demonstrated merit. She recalls her own experiences across Kansas and Harvard, noting the Ferguson protests context and the sense of communal action, while questioning how speech constraints and online echo chambers amplified division. She also explains that she identified as conservative, which drew her toward the Trump movement, complicating the question of how protest culture and social media shaped ideas about safety, dialogue, and dissent on campuses. On policy, Mailman describes day-one actions: executive orders and Title VI investigations that push schools to curb discrimination while maintaining safety. The administration sought to move from investigations to settlements, using examples like Brown and Colombia to signal seriousness while arguing these were modest endowment-relative penalties. A formal framework would ask institutions to pledge merit-based admissions and hiring, minimize reliance on foreign students, and ensure intellectual diversity department by department without micromanaging speech. The exchange covers the tension between anti-Semitism concerns and broader critiques of campus debate and Israel critiques. Looking ahead, the goal is a higher education landscape where merit determines admissions, hiring, and research, with tighter federal oversight alongside donor-supported innovation. Mailman suggests that competition could shift prestige toward institutions embracing a genuine merit ethos, including alternatives to the traditional model such as Hillsdale’s funding approach. The conversation closes with a recognition that culture change requires both government leverage and voluntary reform, and that a healthier balance could encourage more diverse intellectual environments while preserving free inquiry.

In this episode, Dax Shepard welcomes Jonathan Haidt, an American moral psychologist and professor at NYU's Stern School of Business, to discuss his work and new book, *The Coddling of the American Mind*. Haidt shares his experiences transitioning from teaching at the University of Virginia to NYU, where he observed students becoming increasingly sensitive to ideas and discussions that were previously considered acceptable. He notes the emergence of concepts like trigger warnings and safe spaces around 2014, which he attributes to a generational shift beginning with students born in 1995. Haidt emphasizes that the issues of free speech and sensitivity are primarily concentrated in elite universities, particularly on the coasts, and that the majority of colleges in the U.S. are not experiencing the same level of conflict. He discusses the phenomenon of "call-out culture," where students seek to publicly shame others for perceived transgressions, often leading to demands for sensitivity training and even firings. The conversation delves into cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and how it relates to the current climate on campuses. Haidt explains that students are exhibiting cognitive distortions, such as catastrophizing and mind reading, which can lead to a heightened sense of victimhood. He argues that this culture of victimhood is detrimental to students' development, as it discourages resilience and the ability to cope with adversity. Haidt also discusses the moral foundations of different political ideologies, explaining that liberals tend to prioritize care and fairness, while conservatives value loyalty, authority, and sanctity. He believes that understanding these moral foundations can help bridge the divide between opposing political views. The episode touches on the importance of allowing children to experience risk and failure to develop coping skills, contrasting modern parenting styles with those of previous generations. Haidt advocates for a return to more independent play for children, suggesting that overprotective parenting may contribute to rising anxiety and depression rates among young people. Throughout the discussion, Haidt emphasizes the need for open dialogue and the importance of understanding different perspectives, arguing that both sides of the political spectrum have valuable insights to offer. He concludes by encouraging listeners to engage with his book and promote discussions about these critical issues in educational settings.

Megyn Kelly hosts the show live from the University of Alabama, where she will co-moderate the fourth Republican presidential debate. With the Iowa caucuses approaching, the debate features the smallest number of candidates yet: Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Chris Christie. Former President Trump is not expected to attend. Doug Burgum has dropped out of the race, leaving a more focused field. Kelly discusses the significance of the debate, noting that it could be pivotal for candidates to distinguish themselves. Charles C.W. Cooke emphasizes that the race has been stagnant, and the debate could provide insights into who might emerge as a viable alternative to Trump. Michael Brendan Dougherty adds that the debates are crucial for candidates to express their positions on key issues, even if they don’t ultimately win the nomination. The conversation shifts to Trump’s legal troubles, with Kelly referencing a piece by Andy McCarthy about Trump’s potential conviction and its implications for the Republican Party. Dougherty notes the unusual circumstances surrounding the election, suggesting that the debates matter for shaping public perception and candidate positioning. As the debate approaches, Kelly highlights the need for substantive questions that challenge candidates rather than allowing them to recite talking points. She expresses concern that if Trump continues to dominate the polls, future debates may be canceled altogether. The discussion also touches on the Democratic side, particularly President Biden's recent gaffes and the challenges he faces in a potential debate against Trump. Cooke and Dougherty agree that the current political landscape is fraught with uncertainty, and the lack of vigorous debate could lead to a troubling election cycle. In a later segment, the focus shifts to rising anti-Semitism on college campuses, particularly at Harvard and Cornell. Kelly and her guests criticize university leaders for their inadequate responses to hate speech and the hypocrisy of promoting free speech while allowing anti-Semitic rhetoric. They argue that the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) framework often marginalizes Jewish voices and fails to address the complexities of anti-Zionism versus anti-Semitism. The show concludes with a discussion on the broader implications of these issues for American society, emphasizing the need for accountability and a return to principles of free speech and open discourse in educational institutions.

TikTok has appointed Erica Mandel, a former IDF reservist, to address anti-Semitism on the platform amid rising concerns over online hate. Her role involves developing policies on hate speech and aligning with global regulations. The hosts discuss the implications of her appointment, questioning the loyalty of American Jews who serve in the IDF and suggesting they should relinquish U.S. citizenship. They express skepticism about TikTok's ability to regulate content effectively, noting that criticism of Israel is often labeled as anti-Semitic. The conversation shifts to an incident at Florida State University involving a student wearing an IDF shirt, which led to a physical altercation and federal investigations into potential hate crimes. The hosts argue that the federal response is disproportionate and reflects a broader trend of weaponizing government resources against perceived anti-Semitism on campuses. They highlight the troubling nature of anti-Semitism training in universities, equating criticism of Israeli policies with hate speech. The discussion concludes with concerns about the chilling effect on free speech and the government's increasing involvement in regulating campus discourse.

Megyn Kelly discusses significant developments regarding President Joe Biden and his family's financial dealings, particularly focusing on allegations of money laundering involving Hunter Biden and Chinese business partners. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer has revealed bank records indicating that funds from a Chinese company were funneled to Joe Biden's personal account, purportedly as a loan repayment, raising questions about Biden's ties to these transactions. In a separate segment, Kelly critiques President Biden's recent comments on Israel's response to Hamas, highlighting confusion and potential miscommunication during a fundraising event. She notes a protester, Rabbi Jessica Rosenberg, who interrupted Biden, prompting him to discuss a ceasefire, which many interpret as a concession to Hamas. This has led to backlash from both sides of the political spectrum, with anti-Israel protests intensifying. The discussion shifts to the Democratic Party's internal struggles, particularly regarding Biden's handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the pressure from progressive factions demanding a more pro-Palestinian stance. Kelly and her guests, Tom Bevan and Josh Holmes, analyze the implications of Biden's comments and the growing divide within the party, especially in swing states like Michigan. They also touch on the broader societal implications of rising anti-Semitism and the political ramifications for Biden as he navigates these complex issues. The conversation highlights the challenges faced by the Democratic Party in appealing to various voter demographics while maintaining a coherent stance on international relations. The latter part of the show features a discussion on the Republican primary race, focusing on Nikki Haley's rise in the polls and the challenges faced by Ron DeSantis. The hosts analyze the dynamics of the GOP race, emphasizing the need for consolidation among candidates to present a viable alternative to Trump. Finally, the conversation transitions to the topic of cancel culture in academia, with Greg Lukianoff from FIRE discussing the recent resurgence of free speech advocacy on college campuses in light of the Israel-Hamas conflict. He expresses skepticism about the sincerity of universities' newfound commitment to free speech, given their historical track record of suppressing dissenting views. The discussion underscores the ongoing battle for free expression in educational institutions and the need for accountability among university administrations.