Introduction

> Freedom of speech is the most vital right Americans possess, foundational to democracy and enshrined in the First Amendment. It is crucial to protect all forms of speech, including hate speech, which is a vital indicator of underlying sentiments in society. "I'm much more interested in knowing whom I should not turn my back on, than I am interested in figuring out who loves me."

> As I run a write-in campaign for the Harvard Board of Overseers, my mission is clear: to champion free speech and reduce the administrative bloat at Harvard. Free discourse is essential on campuses, and my goal is to ensure that ideas are explored openly, fostering a true democratic environment in educational institutions.

Freedom of speech

> Co-founding the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (now retitled to Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) was about protecting free speech, especially on college campuses, which are critical in educating young citizens and fostering democratic principles. The shift from 'education' to 'expression' reflects the broadened scope to fight for free speech in society generally.

> I am an absolutist when it comes to free speech, including hate speech. This isn’t about endorsing negativity but about understanding "whom I should not turn my back on" and recognizing the importance of bringing such speech to the surface, rather than letting it fester in the shadows.

> Censorship of speech leads to censorship of thought. Freely expressed ideas, even if contentious, contribute to better decision-making as they clash and coalesce into more robust outcomes. Suppressing viewpoints diminishes the richness of democratic discourse and impairs societal progress.

> Living in a free society means accepting some level of discomfort and emotional pain. The alternatives are far worse. Although speech is not entirely without limits—like defamation or direct threats—the principle of enduring some level of offensive or painful expression is a small price for the overarching benefit of liberty and freedom that we enjoy.

Bureaucracy in Universities

> The overwhelming presence of administrators in universities is detrimental to academic freedom and the core mission of education. “There are more administrators in American higher education than there are faculty members,” and this is a major reason why “I would fire 95% of the administrators.” Their focus on control stifles both free expression and the vibrant learning environment students need.

> Insults and criticism are essential to academic growth and understanding; “being called before a dean because you said something that insulted somebody… is something that shouldn't happen in American higher education.” Universities should not shield students from insult, as it creates an artificial environment that does not prepare them for real-world interactions.

> Running for the Harvard Board of Overseers is about restoring a commitment to free speech and fostering a genuine clash of ideas. “I want to convince the Harvard Corporation… to get rid of their speech codes, reduce tuition by 40%,” and ultimately ensure that Harvard embodies the values it once upheld, benefiting not only the institution but the entire country.

Clash of ideas

> Diversity, in its true essence, is a compelling ideal, but I see a significant flaw in how it's often implemented. "Harvard's idea of diversity is for everyone to look different and think alike." Education should challenge students' beliefs rather than coddle them. Free speech and academic freedom are critical for this process; without them, diverse perspectives remain unexamined, thus violating the fundamental purpose of higher education.

> On the importance of disagreement, I embrace the clash of ideas as a pathway to learning. "I'm much more interested in hearing from the people who hate me than the people who love me." Engaging with those who oppose my views accelerates understanding, and I believe that universities should be arenas where such dialogue is fostered, even involving challenging texts like "Mein Kampf." "It's one of the most important books of the 20th century." Understanding its historical context equips us to better comprehend humanity's complexities, however uncomfortable that may be.

Public education is broken

> Affirmative action, in its current form, labels people by race, religion, and origin, which I've always been against. Affirmative action is a clear violation of the equal protection clause, and its days are numbered. The root of the problem lies in our failing public education system, heavily influenced by teachers' unions. Reforming elementary and secondary education can eliminate the need for such measures.

> The influence of public sector unions, particularly in education, is deeply problematic. Unlike private sector unions, which negotiate with management accountable to shareholders, public sector unions deal with taxpayer money, creating an imbalanced power dynamic. This has led to poor education standards, and I firmly believe that abolishing public workers' unions can vastly improve education quality.

> Censorship in academia is a significant issue, highlighted by cases like MIT's cancellation of Dorian Abbot's lecture. Universities are shying away from the clash of ideas to avoid hurting feelings, which stifles intellectual freedom. Public scrutiny and media attention can force these institutions to confront their own policies and reverse course; as I've mentioned, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."

Jeffrey Epstein

> The role of universities and their moral obligations is a complex issue; distinguishing between rejecting donations due to moral failings and the necessity of accepting funds to sustain academic institutions is crucial. It’s essential to preserve historical honesty even when donors, like the Sacklers or Jeffrey Epstein, are controversial.

> The perpetual interplay between money and ethics within universities reveals an intrinsic tension. While administrative bloat increases financial dependency, the challenge remains on drawing boundaries, particularly in not granting naming rights to donors who bring a "Pandora’s box" of moral complications.

> Defending the rights of unpopular individuals is a core professional and ethical duty. Just as a cardiologist must treat all patients, a lawyer must represent all defendants. This principle extends to universities, which should avoid moral litmus tests for donations but reserve the right to refuse naming honors for particularly egregious individuals. The abuse of power, like any form of evil within academic communities, must be acknowledged and combated transparently.

Freedom of thought and liberal arts

> The divide between "progressives" and true "liberals" is alarming; the pursuit of equality shouldn't come at the cost of fundamental rights. "Discrimination producing true equality is nonsense," and we need to focus on providing quality education to uplift the lower classes rather than manipulating rights.

> Universities have an "absolute" obligation to protect the academic freedom of controversial figures, because if we can't uphold freedom of thought on campuses, "where can you?" The only way to foster genuine education is to avoid indoctrination, even if it means allowing those who hold unpopular views to speak freely.

> Personal experience has shown me the administrative pressure stifling innovation in academia. I turned down a tenure-track position at Harvard Law because I saw young faculty being constrained by the system. "It’s not a good fit for me," and we need to create an environment where outliers can thrive, as they often carry the "key to solving the ailments of society."

Interviewing controversial people

> The uncomfortable truth is that "running from genocide, right through to ordinary discrimination," is the reality we live in, and acknowledging this is crucial. It’s vital not to "whitewash" language or ignore the existence of troubling ideologies, as doing so can lead to serious consequences, just as underestimating Hitler delayed necessary action during World War II.

> Interviewing controversial figures isn't just about giving them a platform; it's about "exposing" ideas and truths that need to be confronted. It's a significant responsibility that requires the interviewer to engage deeply and critically to uncover the reality of even the most charismatic and dangerous individuals.

Alan Dershowitz

> Alan Dershowitz is a complex figure; as a criminal defense lawyer, he embodies the principle that "the job of a criminal defense lawyer is to represent accused criminals." It’s not about personal agreement or politics—he's fundamentally committed to ensuring constitutional rights for everyone, even those, like Claus von Bulow and Jeffrey Epstein, society views as “nasty people.”

> Moreover, I deeply respect Alan's decision to represent clients only once. He recognized that becoming an in-house counsel for someone could blur ethical boundaries and lead to a murky relationship. He made it clear that he didn't want to compromise his integrity for the sake of ongoing representation, emphasizing a kind of principled detachment while fulfilling his duty as a lawyer.

Donald Trump

> Alan Dershowitz's involvement with Donald Trump, despite being purely professional and not political, highlights a significant hypocrisy in our society. He's represented controversial figures before without such backlash, but his association with Trump led to him being socially ostracized. I find the "holier than thou" attitude surrounding this situation incredibly distasteful. Everyone deserves a defense, and this shunning of Alan because of Trump is a glaring example of political preening that I can't stand.

> The political and ethical implications of targeting Trump, as explored in Dershowitz's book, are quite serious. The prosecution efforts, like the one initiated by Alvin Bragg, seem driven more by ambition and political motives than justice. While Trump has committed offenses, particularly related to taxes, the zeal to bring him down at any cost poses a threat to civil liberties reminiscent of McCarthyism. Such actions reflect the arrogance and ambition that often blinds people to reality, a theme I saw vividly when Trump unexpectedly won the 2016 election, leaving the overconfident Harvard faculty in stunned silence.

FBI

> The FBI should be abolished because it operates on a corrupted culture established by J. Edgar Hoover, which fundamentally resists the Constitution, particularly the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. Their tactics, such as relying on inaccurate Form 302 reports over recorded evidence, contribute to this systemic corruption, making it impossible to reform the agency.

> The pervasive use of surveillance and the misuse of the federal criminal code pose significant threats to privacy and civil liberties. The Supreme Court's allowance for federal jurisdiction in cases involving interstate communication means that virtually any act can become a federal crime, thus enabling the government to target and terrorize dissidents at will. This broad authority undermines the constitutional intent to limit federal power and safeguard individual privacy rights.

Criminal justice system

> The jury system embodies a crucial democratic principle: it requires 12 ordinary citizens to unanimously agree to convict, ensuring that justice is administered by a collective of everyday people rather than a sole authority.

>

> The Supreme Court has become excessively political, with current justices willing to overturn established precedents too readily to push a more conservative agenda. This undermines the stability of our legal system, and proposals to expand the court for political gain are dangerously short-sighted.

Advice

> Reflecting on my life, I realize I've outlived the expectation set by my father's early death due to smoking, and I'm proud of the independent path I've forged in law, proving that one can thrive outside traditional firm structures if willing to write their own ticket.

> A pivotal moment for me was the summer I spent in Paris during college, where I shifted from a pre-med track to pursuing law, embracing the transformative power of following my true passion rather than succumbing to familial expectations. "We'll always have Paris" symbolizes the significant and enduring impact of this experience on my life.