Yale University enters The Bob Zadek Show in two separate episodes, in two unrelated roles: as the author of a campus sexual-conduct document discussed by journalist Cathy Young, and as the employer of political scientist Steven B. Smith. The excerpts do not describe the university’s founding, endowment, governance, or curriculum; they describe only the specific institutional conduct each guest attributes to it.
Campus tribunals and the definition of non-consensual sex
In a 2014 episode on due process in campus sexual-assault proceedings, Bob Zadek introduced his guest Cathy Young and her article “Guilty Until Proven Innocent,” which he said explained the “kangaroo trials” that take place on American college campuses when sexual assault is before the tribunal. Zadek framed the process as carrying an anti-male bias, and argued that the bias is not arrived at by the colleges on their own but is imposed on them or strongly encouraged by federal legislation and political pressure from Washington Aren’t Men Entitled to Due Process on Campus? (2014).
Young qualified that framing. She said the situation was not solely the result of Washington’s interference, because a lot of colleges had been moving down that road on their own, with some cases predating the recent Washington campaign; she dated the practice to the ’80s at a lot of different colleges, where schools under pressure from on-campus feminist activists instituted what she called very draconian sexual conduct codes. She said most people are not really aware that sexual assault or non-consensual sex is defined extremely broadly, to cover what a lot of people would consider normal interaction in which there is no explicit consent and people rely on implicit signals and give-and-take Aren’t Men Entitled to Due Process on Campus? (2014).
Zadek added that accusations based on non-consensual sex or sexual assault are special in that there are rarely many witnesses. Young agreed, describing the usual situation as two people alone and often inebriated to one degree or another — the most classic case of who you’re going to believe — and said there should be no presumption either way; the facts available should be examined without a presumption. She contrasted these cases with more traditional rape cases, which often yield material evidence such as bruising, torn clothing if violence was used, or other traces of violence or force Aren’t Men Entitled to Due Process on Campus? (2014).
It is in this context that Young named Yale. She said she was not speaking off the top of her head: Yale University had given, in a recent document, examples of the kind of thing that would be considered non-consensual activity. She described the Yale examples as studiously gender-neutral, while saying that in practice they are mostly used against males in cases involving female alleged victims. Her account of the scenario: two people are engaging in pre-sexual activity, kissing and so on; at a certain point one person, presumably the woman, says she is really not sure they should be doing this; they stop for a while; the other person resumes the physical advances; and this time the presumed victim does not say anything, and maybe moves back a little, but does not really make any move to physically get out of there. Young noted that the scenario Yale gave contains no mention of her being physically restrained in any way Aren’t Men Entitled to Due Process on Campus? (2014).
Young characterized the conduct as persistent advances after a person has expressed doubt or reluctance, and said that if one person says she is really not sure and the other continues the advances, with no mention of physical force, it is something that could be legitimately interpreted as the other person eventually changing her mind. On her account, this kind of thing is now classified as non-consensual sex, there would be no physical evidence of it, and there is no requirement of any kind of physical force or coercion — and this is the kind of thing that ends up before campus tribunals Aren’t Men Entitled to Due Process on Campus? (2014).
The excerpt ends mid-exchange, with Zadek’s label followed by nothing further, so the discussion of Yale’s document is not carried further in the source.
Yale as the setting for a defense of patriotism
Yale reappears seven years later as the academic home of Steven B. Smith, whom the episode identifies as Professor of Political Science at Yale University and the author of Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes Steven B. Smith on Reclaiming Patriotism (2021). Zadek introduced him as holding a PhD from the University of Chicago who had taught at Yale since 1984 and had focused his life on political philosophy. Smith corrected the introduction on one point: he said he was in the Yale Political Science department rather than philosophy, and that he was happy to be regarded as a philosopher by Zadek but actually earned his living in the political science department Steven B. Smith on Reclaiming Patriotism (2021).
Zadek put the question of institutional culture directly to Smith, asking what prompted him to write the book and adding that it is generally understood or assumed — maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, probably more or less correct — that in the Ivy League and in institutions of higher education around the country, patriotism is not a position that gets you invited to every important dinner party in town. He cited Alan Dershowitz’s complaint that he became a pariah at Harvard when he became somewhat identified with Donald Trump, and asked Smith whether choosing such a book meant he would be eating a lot of his meals by himself Steven B. Smith on Reclaiming Patriotism (2021).
Smith’s answer described the book as growing out of his teaching. He said he had noticed among students a great hunger to do something for their country, to help it in some way, although their feelings are often inchoate — they do not quite know what it means, or even quite why they want to do it — but there is a hunger to give back, and they realize they have been the recipient of a good education and have had many benefits just being in America. He said they often do not know how to do it, and that colleges and universities do not necessarily make it easy Steven B. Smith on Reclaiming Patriotism (2021).
On Yale specifically, Smith declined the stronger claim: he said he did not want to say Yale is unpatriotic, because that would be untrue, but that it is not a question that tends to be raised by academics or in the intellectual culture today. He described the dominant attitude in universities and intellectual circles as holding that being regarded as patriotic is symptomatic of chauvinism and of a kind of “me-first-ism,” “America-first-ism,” and that we should instead be citizens of the world, thinking in terms of questions that unite humanity rather than one nation or one people. He said the book was written in large part to push back against that perspective, and that patriotism is a virtue required by democratic societies, which cannot afford to do without it Steven B. Smith on Reclaiming Patriotism (2021).
Smith also described the personal reception of his project. He said he probably had not done quite as much as Alan Dershowitz to make himself a pariah on his own campus, but admitted that one of the hidden or secret pleasures of writing the book was sometimes the look of barely repressed horror on the faces of colleagues and other university people when they asked what he was working on and he said he was writing a book defending patriotism. He said he had not been ostracized — not yet at least — and that, other than the COVID lockdown, he had not been taking unnecessarily large numbers of meals by himself Steven B. Smith on Reclaiming Patriotism (2021).
Across episodes: no development
The two episodes do not argue the same question about Yale. The 2014 episode treats Yale as the author of a sexual-conduct document that Cathy Young uses as an illustration of how broadly non-consensual sex is defined in campus adjudication; the 2021 episode treats Yale as the workplace of Steven B. Smith and as one instance of an academic culture in which patriotism is suspect. The excerpts show no development between the earlier and later treatment, and no speaker in either episode responds to the other’s characterization of the university.
What the sources do not cover
The excerpts do not state when Yale was founded, where it is located, how it is governed, or what it teaches; they name no Yale administrator, no Yale policy by title, and no Yale case. The 2014 excerpt breaks off immediately after Zadek’s label, so Young’s discussion of the Yale document is not carried past the scenario she describes. The 2021 excerpts likewise break off mid-exchange, and Smith’s account of student motivation is not developed further in the material available. Nothing in the sources indicates whether the Yale document Young cites was later revised, withdrawn, or litigated.