To reflect reality. They have disabled generations from understanding language in a way to contact reality and does have disabled them from using. The down of American Education makes also its a good thing some possible or at least very difficult. I dont know how many people could have followed the argument i just made. Why . Because that takes an Attention Span longer than a few minutes for a few seconds. The American Educational system destroys Attention Spans, among other things, sl is historical knowledge, it better, it better. My name is mary. Im an independent observer. Youre talking about peace, but im beginning the impression that we are promoting are justifying more. You are making an error in the assumption that the natural state of one species is to stay in the natural state of calm for, perpetual conflict. As a matter of fact, there are studies. I dont remember the name of the psychologists, but it was presented to president lincoln. Like i said, i dont remember the names. If it did state specifically that the natural state in a rational society, especially an educated society like america and i think we are at a higher state of education around the world now, that the natural state of the species is actually to protect, to love your offspring and to protect it. I guess maybe that is an impulse that is more common to have been and that the natural state that you are promoting or justifying is based in the fact that there just hasnt been enough women in positions of power, specifically because they were very ignorant. They were raising their children. They were poor. They render the control of men who do have a more natural propensity to fight and control, to until its in their pleasures. My take on why we are still in this horrible state all over the world and you brought up ukraine by the way, where i lived especially in this almost uncanny that the chagall. The reason theres so much conflict in ukraine is probably linked to quebec and canadian currency introduction and Monetary Policy is one of the biggest issues that nobody talks about and of course this linguistic debate. Its the same link which come in people. I am not making a question. A comment that i dont agree with the premise. [inaudible] i dont think youve heard me correctly. I did not say that hop spot cavalli were correct. I simply stated that is one of the premises of modern thought and that the american founders disagreed with that, disagreed with the notion that mankind is naturally a war. The point is that mankind is neither at war, nor a piece inherently and that such pieces exist in such force that exist are the products of specific decisions and specific orientations. It is true this tends to be more warlike than others. That doesnt necessarily mean that dictatorships are inherently more violent than democracy. That simply isnt true. It has never been true. As far as when americans there and, there is a reason why they made the series female rather than mail. As far as ukraine is concerned, the reasons for the russians and ukrainians do have something to do with the fact that the russians kill ukrainians by the tens of millions and that there isnt a household in ukraine that does not have a very, bitter memories of the russians. In the back, please. Johnson delisi. Thank you for another superb exposition here. It is january 2017. Theres a new president in the oval office. First day on the job and you would care to it as the next president as to how to deal with the rise of an antiamerican, nonnormative superpower. Would you please offer your console. Speak softly and carry a big stick. I wanted to just ask deangelo, given the really awful situation that we have in dealing with this very murky sort of war against terrorists all over the place, addressing what seemed to be fewer tough criticisms of Homeland Security ms operations, it is obvious enough there are domestic threat that are very serious and need to be televised. What does make sense . Profiling. Thats what the israelis do it and my suggestion the only variation that i might suggest is to be perfectly explicit on what the profiles are and how they are to be pursued. Explicit profiling is subject as it should be two democratic debate about what the threats are and how they are to be dealt with. What we have now and it is so necessarily is a kind of hidden arbitrary profiling. And you, because of your social political status as likely to be on the wrong end of profiling is anyone else. The profiling simply depends on the appetite of those in power at any one time. But it got to be profiling really is another word of declaring his vietnamese are. Declaring who the enemies are is the same thing as declaring war. The founders placed to that function clearly in the hands of congress simply because they neothat war and peace are the business of the people, not of some set of leaders who are not subject to the regular, regular checks by the people in that it requires the liberation, public the liberation info. Sir, youve made some very interesting points during your presentation. Some of them i agree that some of them not possible. Your fundamental principle is statecraft should be to bring peace and you sit speak softly and carry a big stick. But let me ask you, whenever the United States negotiate with another country where there is a turbulent issue, for example interbrand, says the military option is on the table. Now its in the country if im negotiating a tough situation and i say here is my position then you better take a position otherwise im going to kill you, what part of that whole equation . Well, depends what it is you are negotiating about and if you are negotiating about some game which involves a threat to your life, its seems to me that he used this are perhaps i will kill you makes a great deal of sense. Now it does not make sense if you say such things and you dont need them. That makes no sense at all. As regards, i suppose you are also referring to the right to bob for Nuclear Weapons and facilities in iran. Back to me makes no sense at all because that is not war. That is simply a discrete act of violence. War is a set of facts that are reasonably and to bring about peace. Merely bombing Irans Nuclear sites would do no such thing and no one has suggested that it would. Theres an argument to be made for war with iran. That argument involves doing whatever it takes to get rid of the current regime and to bring about one that is friendlier. Theres also an argument to be made of fervor and of what it is you really want from us and what are you going to give in return . Is an argument for that. We are doing neither of these things. It may be possible to resolve whatever differences you have it there ran on the basis of number two. That has not been tried. It may or may not be possible and it is certainly possible to base our attend on the war against this regime. But that thought process has not been entered into. Thats the kind of thing im talking about. This has been an extraordinarily thoughtful exploration and some of the basic questions of our time up war and peace by very thoughtful expert analysts. This is his book, to make and keep peace among ourselves and with all nations. It is available outside for 20, so we encourage all of you to buy one copy if not two. Can did that angela would be happy to sign up for you. We are going to do a signing for you outside. Please join me in thanking. [applause] [inaudible conversations] you are watching booktv, television for serious readers. Click next, Sheryll Cashin argues it does little to help the truly disadvantaged. She said the policy should be replaced with policies based on where a child grows up and set the color of his or her skin. Its about 90 minutes. We are going to go ahead and get started. Welcome to the joint center. My name is spencer overton. And the interim president of the joint center. I want to start off by thanking brian smedley, karl gallant as well as the rest of the joint center team that pulled this together. Thanks, jerry spann as well as roger clegg for responding. In april of 23rd team i pestered cheryl about lunch. Sometimes d. C. Can seem so focused on the next possession or titles and i felt like hate, disassemble and i commit wire. We can throw around ideas. But she said we can have lunch right now. Ive got a new book that is going to come out in may of 2014 about the next generation of diversity, strategies. Suffice it to undershoot finished her book and she reached out to me to read it, to read a draft. Since i was trying to build intellectual communities, reading drafts and providing back, i was thrilled to do that. I found that drafts fresh. I found that i certainly pushed back and then areas. That would be contested. What was most attractive to me is just about the future of race. So fast forward to today where we are here at the joint center. Weve been thinking a lot about the new joint center, thinking about honing in an reinvigorating the core strengths, what makes us different here at the joint center, whether we uniquely situated to do. The 11,000 block of that did officials in the country and so certainly that is one situated to do. Thank you, david. Appreciate it. Young males of color, jeanneau, with its elements commission in 2005 in 2006 that was led by dr. Gail christopher whos now a catalog, but who then was that the joint center. She really spearheaded that and congressman dellums was the chair. That along with the efforts of many others contributed to the initiative that the president just announced. But placed matters, places another big issue. Placemat nurses and 27 different jurisdictions. Im sorry about the disruption. We will keep moving things along here. I was also spearheaded by dr. Christopher. And it deals with the geography of residential segregation, a sickly residential segregation is powerful in terms of shaping life expectancy. Are placed Matters Program identifies the social determinants of health and explains why lifespan is 30 years class in one sense then another and it devices solutions. We are doing work with promise and says well in terms of cochaired the task force. So placed as a core part of the joint summit. Its part of the future of race. So i am excited on either the anniversary, 60th anniversary of brown v. Board, the joint center is looking for amateur night centers built in the intellectual community retype about by hosting one of the leading scholars whose thinking about the future of race, Sheryll Cashin tiered so lets get started goodlett introduced the Vice President , dr. Brian smedley. [applause] good morning. Good morning, thanks everybody for coming on a rainy day. Its difficult to get around d. C. When its raining, and were delighted to have the panel here. Some viruses 60th anniversary of the brown v. Board of education decision when we go into the q a, and going to ask our panelists, how would this corporal today in the brown viewport decision. And speak about her book. Sheryll cashin is professor of law at georgetown pitcher rates by Race Relations and inequality in america. Shes a passionate advocate of after future. She teaches constitutional law at race in american law among other subjects. Those of you who know her know that shes written two other boats. The agitators out sadr, come him barker for generations of one extraordinary africanamerican fan in the face of integration in 2004. Both of the awardwinning books that we look forward to hearing more about those. To her left, not ideologically [laughter] is professor jerry spann. Hes the james and Catherine Bennett professor about the Georgetown University law center reaches contract, towards a constitutional law. He served as staff attorney for the dq sugar before turning the law Center Faculty 79. He as well as the other several books and articles concerning race and the cost to show concept of equality. Hes a current member of the Law Institute and served in the port of a d. C. Neighborhood Legal Services program as well as many other boards and committees. To cheryls right is roger clegg, president and general counsel for the center for economic opportunity. He focuses on legal issues in the Regulatory Impact on business in the province in Higher Education created by affirmativeaction commie for mere fud administration and help the highest positions in the Civil Rights Division into the environment and Natural Resources division. He saw several other positions at the u. S. Justice department, including assistant to this post or general. Please join me in welcoming her faster Sheryll Cashin. [applause] good morning. Its really an honor to be here. Thank you so much, spencer. I really appreciate your leadership, your friendship, being part of your intellectual community. Spencer was one of the few people who read the entire first draft is absolutely did make it better. I like to think rice badly, also a friend and colleague and thank you for taking the time to be here. I want to begin by talking about the end of your book. The end of this book, a labor of love, i have a letter to my son, logan links stand in which i tell them quite frankly that ive read the book that if people accept or follow my recommendations undermines the possibility that they will ever benefit from affirmative action or legacy preferences. And you know, i am okay with that. Frankly my wonderful as an number of channels is here. My children are incredibly privileged. Sometimes they are so privileged i can barely stand them. They take all my money, right . That they are privileged to be in a wonderful, highly resource to First International baccalaureate, union Public Charter School with fantastic wellprepared teachers. They have two parents with six grades between them who have paid attention to their every cognitive function. They are going to be okay as long as they choose to do the work and take advantage of the incredible advantages that they have. But i was raised to care about other peoples children. I love mine, but i also care passionately about other peoples children, particularly children who have a lot less than my children have. And many of the stripers and separate and unequal schools today will not be okay if we dont figure out how to create a scene or politics this country that invests in all children. Now here we are. Its been said on the eve of the 60th anniversary of brown viewport and i do want to pay homage to that decision come up here, should the work of my former boss, the great Thurgood Marshall, brown v. Board of education has paid tremendous benefits to the society. Much of the benefit is psychic. Within one generation of that decision, we went from a country where the majority of the people in a society were committed to racial hierarchy. Deity of one group in supreme to where a majority of people reject that idea and that was tremendous. And for a while, the country was making good on the promise of brown. Ironically, i feel privileged to be middleaged. Because i went to high school in huntsville, alabama in the south at the moment when the country was coming close is too living up to the promise of brown and went to high school in the 70s, graduated from sr butler has schooled, a well integrated, pretty good Resource School that enabled the child of broke activist parents who couldnt afford a fancy neighborhood or faint school twos drive and take ap classes and do well. But much has changed since 1980. As we know because the Supreme Court has essentially told federal court this time to start policing school desegregation. We return to neighborhood schools and roof rapidly reciprocated. What is new i think and what i bring out in my book is it is not just black and latino kids who suffer the disadvantages of segregation, although this disadvantages are pronounced. Today in American Society, only 42 of all americans live in a middleclass neighborhood. And that is down from 65 in 1970. Only 42 . And why is that . It is because increasingly, affluent people and highly educated people have moved into their neighborhood. And if you are able to buy your way into what i call a Gold Standard neighborhood and everyone in this room knows immediately what kind of neighborhood sent talking about, your children automatically have access to highly selective k12 education that sets them up quite well to go to selective Higher Education. But if youre outside of this neighbor has her networks, you get a quite different view. You know, theres only 17 counties in this country for more than half of the population are college educated. Increasingly, the leadership class, the economic elites in this country live among themselves. And yet, every high school in america has a valid torian. Every neighborhood in this country has stripers. And the stripers in this country, you may have the valedictorian of Blue High School here in washington d. C. , and they are our elite schools that want even look at that person. And you know, kids from this environment are competing with kids who may have 20 ap classes. And i am available to them and i am arguing that elite Higher Education has an ethical obligation to Pay Attention to these intense structural disadvantages in American Society. Now, the irony for proponents of racebased affirmative action, my colleague here, which we will have a debate is that you can look out in classrooms and high institutions and often see optical diversity. I collect optical diversity. You can see a range of different types of people like we see in the beautiful audience in this room. And this begs the question of hw and whether affirmative action should compensate for the structural disadvantages that exist in our society. Now, affirmative action, racebased affirmative action, i argue, is on life support. The courts holdings in fisher and shute are likely to put further pressure on the policy. Only 45 of private universities today still consider race. Only about a third of public universities do. And the policys going to continue to be under assault. And meanwhile, the policy does engender quite a bit of resentment. Were in a bad place in this country. Our politics, i believe, are broken. And, you know, in postcivil rights america, unfortunately, a lot of white folks feel that the gains of the Civil Rights Movement have happened at their expense. And meanwhile, poverty is growing fastest in the suburbs, there are a lot of whites who struggle with economic insecurity, and theres i talk about this in the first chapter of the book, about what i call the perception gap. Theres huge gaps of perception on average between whites and people of color. And a lot of whites feel resentment. Not racism. I think weve defeated largely racism. But they feel resentment toward people of color and resentment about not getting ahead x. That resentment is sitting there, waiting to be exploited. And it is exploited in politics and, frankly, by radio talk show hosts every day. And this is the reality that progressives have to confront. Whatever your Public Policy objective is, if its helping young africanamerican men, if its deincarceration, if its investing more in k12 education everywhere, if its getting a highway bill passed, if its building bridges, whatever it is, if its climate change, there is a huge, toxic gap of perception in American Society thats heavily exploited. And im arguing that progressives who care about diversity would be better off pursuing policies that encourage rather than discourage crossracial alliances. Now, let me be clear i support affirmative action, i support diversity. What im trying to do with this book is offer a way to make it better, fairer and more politically and legally viable. And i am not, i see my colleague, richard, in the audience. Im not arguing we should just substitute class for place. Im arguing that universities should take into consideration the structural barriers in society, and they should scrub their admissions processes of any practices that reinforce vantage. So what does that mean . First, i would give special consideration to high achieving students. Im not talking about watering down standards, im talking about focusing on their application process on the factors that Research Shows really predict success; cumulative high school gpa and create, stick to itiveness. Those are the two main factors that truly predict longterm success, completion of college. The s. A. T. Is nowhere to be found, right . So im arguing that standardized tests should be optional. Financial aid should return to being based on need, not merit. Racial preferences should not be used, but we should no longer use legacy preferences. And by the way, a number of universities which have had to operate on bans of race eight states have banned a number of universities, including california, has done away with legacy preferences. And i also say in a by bewilderingly diverse country with a lot of competition, nobody is entitled. Those spots in those classes dont belong to anybody. The other thing i say is that the admissions process should be holistic. People of all colors should be able to, in the process, identify the structural barriers theyve had to overcome and place. If you come from a neighborhood or a school where more than 20 of the kids are on free and reduced lunch, by definition you suffer structural disadvantages. You are likely in a school that is underresourced, that doesnt have as much resources as others and that universities should Pay Attention to that. I also suggest that consideration of low Family Wealth should be important. Now, as i close, i want to say that progressives my final chapter in the book is called reconciliation. I mean, affirmative action is important, but its not nearly as important as a lot of other policies. That will be useful and helpful to struggling people of all colors. And im arguing and i feature in that chapter successful multiracial alliances on the ground and in communities that move the policy discussion to a more positive course that helped all struggling people. And these multiracial alliances that included white republicans. And one of the examples i give is the coalition that supports the texas 10 plan. Now, im not suggesting that these 10 plans texas, florida and california have them plans where the top x percent of High School Graduates are automatically guaranteed admission to the university, the Public University system. In texas a coalition of strange bedfellows supports that policy and has insulated it from repeal. And this is, you know, white rural republicans, latinos and blacks in that state. They have held firm against efforts by voters in advantaged districts to repeal it. And the policy has been an enormous public success. It has opened up and widened the pipeline to the ut system. Kids from disadvantaged districts that were never getting into ut are getting into ut, and its raised the collegegoing behavior of kids at schools that didnt used to think of themself as a place that incubated college graduates. And thats an example of the type of transformative politics im talking about. Sometimes it feels to me like the Civil Rights Community is just trying to hold on to the gains of the past. And i just dont think were in a very bad moment, you know . Its hot. Its burning. Californias on fire, you know . [laughter] literally on fire, right . Its time for something more transformative and a discourse that reflects the common struggles. And i invoke Martin Luther king in the book who, you know, who talked often and frequently about the mutuality of human suffering. And unless and until we begin to build alliances among those folks who are mutually locked out by structural barriers in American Society, i think were doomed. Now, i want to end on a positive note. Coming back to this epilogue that i write to my sons. And i want to say, thank you, cspan, for being here. To any young kid whos hearing me right now, take the hardest classes that are available to you. I have faith in you. Be i have faith in my sons. I see strength in black people. I dont see weakness. Were not a weak people. We are very, very talented, we have a lot of resilience. I believe in you, and you need to believe in yourself. Thank you. [applause] thank you so much, professor cashin. A couple of housekeeping points that i neglected to mention at the outset. The fist is that sherylls book will be available in the lobby for sale. Please take advantage of that if youd like. We also want to encourage your questions. If you have a question, please write it on an index card, and youd like to get an index card, please raise your hand, and our staff will come around and distribute index cards. Please write your questions leg my because im old, and i cant read anymore. Legibly. If you do have a question, again, please hold up your hand, get an index card, and our staff will collect those index cards. Hashtag, which is [inaudible] cashinplace is the hashtag if you want to tweet, so we encourage you to do that. Finally, i wanted to acknowledge and thank someone in the audience here. Place matters, promise zones built on the notion that residential segregation drives and creates different structures of opportunity for people of color relative to white communities. The person whos the brain child of this for us is dr. Gayle christopher, so please join me in thanking her [applause] i also want to thank, i want to thank dr. Chriser the because we are here because of the w. K. Kellogg foundation support. So we thank you for that generous support, for many years encouraging the work that we do here. Were very grateful both for the intellectual framework as well as the resources to do this important work. So were going to hear from our two panelists to respond. Well start with roger clegg. Please join me in welcoming roger from the center for equal opportunity. [applause] thank you very much, brian, for that nice introduction. Thanks to the joint center for inviting me. And thanks to Sheryl Cashin for writing this book. Im going to say positive and negative things about the book, but one thing that i want to be up front about is that this is a courageous book. You know, a few weeks ago attorney general holder praised Justice Sotomayor for her courageous dissent in the shute case. Whatever you think of the dissent, it was not courageous. It does not take guts for a liberal to defend racial preferences. It does take guts for a liberal to say that racial preferences are maybe no longer a good idea. So i tip my hat to you for that. I know its not an easy conclusion to come to for somebody on the left. You know, its frequent, i think, for all of us to read a book or an oped column or Something Like that and say to ourselves, well, you know, i agree with the authors premises, i agree with the reasoning, i think there are a lot of good points in here, but i just dont come to that conclusion. Reading professor cashins book was opposite experience for me. I think, i wont say that i disagree with all of her premises and all of her reasoning, but i disagree with a lot of it. Nonetheless, i do agree with her conclusion that the time for racial and ethnic preferences is over, and we ought to move beyond that. And im going to explain why. And i think that in a way the fact that we are so far apart on a lot of, on our politics and on the, our world view is another reason why its a good idea to at least deracialize the discussion to the extent that we can. One of my favorite movies is the original bad news bears. Not the sequels, but the original movie. And in that, Walter Matthau is the coach, and hes talking with one of his Baseball Players whos africanamerican, and hes giving him some pointers, and the player interrupts him and says, coach, dont give me any of your honky bs. And the coach says, you know, maude, we have enough problems without dragging race into it. And i think that thats true also of a lot of the political discussion in this country. There are enough, theres enough separating left and right without having race needlessly uy the approach that i take to racial preferences is a very straightforward one, and i think its reflected in the, in the summary of professor cashins book on the back of it. And its]simply to consider the costs of racial preferences and weigh those against the purported benefits. And i think that the purports benefits are purported benefits are extremely dubious, and the costs are enormous. Its interesting that professor cashins book really focuses only on the purported benefit of helping disadvantaged individuals. Its the remedial justification for racial preferences. Very little in the book about the educational benefits of diversity. I think that that reflects the fact that most people really dont buy that argument. The only reason that its made is because its the only one that legally the Supreme Court has recognized. The problem with the remedial argument is that the Supreme Court has rejected it. And i think rightly so. And i agree with the point that professor cashin makes over and over again in the book which is that race is simply not a good marker for disadvantage in the United States in 2014. There are lots and lots, and the Playing Field is not be level, but there are people of all colors on both ends of the Playing Field. And if what we want to do is help disadvantaged people, it doesnt make sense to assume that somebody is advantaged or disadvantaged based on their skin color or what country their ancestors came from. As professor cashin said, most of the overwhelming majority, in fact of africanamericans who have benefited from racial preferences at more selective schools, Something Like 86 , come. From middle class or upper class backgrounds. And conversely, there are lots of whites and other minorities who are discriminated against because of racial policies. So the purported benefits that are stated for racial preferences are really not very persuasive. But even if you think that there is something to them, i always make it a point when im talking about this at universities and law schools and places like that that you cant end your analysis there. You cant just say, well, you know, i think there is some benefit, and its greater than zero. Even if you think that there is something to the educational benefits of diversity, or if you think there is something to remedial argument, you then have to say, well, but what about the costs . And the costs are enormous. There are a lot of them, and theyre really not deniable. And im just going to, you know, list them, you know, quickly here. Its personally unfair, it passes over Better Qualified students, and it sets a disturbing legal and moral precedent in allowing Racial Discrimination. Creates resentment. It stigmatizes the socalled beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers and themselves as well as future lawyers, clients and patients. It sets them up for failure. It fosters a victim mindset, removes the incentive for Academic Excellence and encourages vattism. It compromises the Academic Mission at the university and lowers the overall quality of the student body. It creates pressure to discriminate in grading and graduation. It breeds hypocrisy within the school and encourages a scoff law attitude among college officials. It papers over the social problem of why so many africanamericans and latinos are academically uncompetitive. And it gets states and schools involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favor asked which ones not and how much blood is needed to establish group membership. An untenable legal regime as Network Becomes an increasingly multiethnic society. And where individuals themselves are more and more likely to be multiracial is and multiethnic starting with our president. So i think that any fairminded individual who looks at all of these costs and weighs them against the purported benefits has to conclude that this is not a work able scheme. Its not workable scheme. Its not something that we should continue to use. Im going to shift gears now and talk a little bit about whether it makes sense to use place as a , as a preference, as a means of preference in admissions. I think to some extent it certainly does. I mean, even if we are concerned with nothing but anytiming the people who are admitting the people who are best qualified to do Academic Work at a particular level which is basically where i am a, when we make admissions decisions, it would be crazy not to give some consideration to the individuals background. I mean, to give a stark example, if you have two individuals and they have the same s. A. T. Scores and youre only looking at s. A. T. Scores, still if they had the same s. A. T. Scores and one individual has gotten that s. A. T. Score with the finest private education and tutoring and s. A. T. Prep courses and all of that that money with buy and the other person has had none of that, has gone to a lousy inner city public school, has gotten no rep advantages at all prep advantages at all and they get the same s. A. T. Score, well, which one has the greater academic potential . Of course, the latter one does. Youd be crazy not to admit that student over the former student even if the only consideration you have is whos going to be the best qualified to do Academic Work at a particular level. So i think that, you know, to some extent of course we have to look at place. I think that there are, you know, some dangers in overweighting place. I mean, it doesnt make sense to admit students who are not going to be able to do the work at an academic institution. That does nobody any good. You can have a mismatch problem there as well as on the basis of race. But still i think that, you know, some consideration of race and ethnicity or not of race and ethnicity, but of place makes sense. I do want to end, though, with the point that im not sure that or im sure its not going to be the panacea that some would like of overcoming the gaps that we have between different groups; not only racial groups, but also economic groups in terms of their ability to do Academic Work at a particular level. Problem is that when you grow up, you are to some extent going to be a product of your environment. And there are a lot of reasons why children growing up today dont have the same advantages and the same disadvantages growing up. The host obvious one is if you are growing up in a home without a father. Every social pathology that you can think of has a correlation with growing up in a singleparent household. And this is a problem that cannot be wished away and is not going to be solved by giving preferences when kids get to be 18 years old. Youre more likely to drop out of school, youre more likely to get in trouble with school, youre more likely to get this trouble with the law. Get in trouble with the law. And this is true among, when you compare different racial groups. I mean, for instance, more than seven out of ten africanamericans are born out of wedlock, more than six out of ten native americans are porn out of wed born out of wedlock versus than three out of ten whites and two out of ten asians, asianamericans. Those are huge differences, and they line up very well with how the different groups are doing in the United States. But its not true just among racial groups. Its also true within racial groups too. If you look only at white kids, you see the same kinds of problems, basically to the same extent, when white kids are being brought up in a home without a father. This is the fundamental problem, you know, that needs to be addressed. And its not going to be addressed by giving preferences to kids when theyre 17 and 18 years old. Thank you. [applause] thank you very much, mr. Clegg. So, again, if you have questions, please write them on an index card. If you dont have an index card, please raise your hand so our staff can distribute those, and we will collect those and have those questions addressed. So our last panel is professor jerry span. Please join me in welcoming professor span. [applause] hi. Id like to thank both sheryll and roger for giving me a lot to respond to. [laughter] in his 1978 dissent, Justice Blackman said, quote in order to get beyond racism, we must first take into account race. There is no other way. Now its 2014 and my friend and colleague, professor cashin, has suggested there hay, in fact, be another way, namely just focusing on socioeconomic advantage rather than race. She has offered this as a response to the public and judicial resentment thats developed in the 36 years since the use was First Authorized of affirmative action. I strongly, strongly support the consideration of socioeconomic factors in making educational admissions decisions both for justice and diversity reasons. But im skeptical about the ability of socioeconomic factors alone to remedy the problem of ongoing Racial Discrimination. I think Justice Blackmans admonition remains true today, and our only hope of eliminating Racial Discrimination is to confront it head on. Contrary to the prevailing rhetoric, i do not view affirmative action as a system of racial preferences. Rather, i view affirmative action in the same way that it was viewed in 1961 when thenVice President Lyndon Johnson first coined the term. Its a strategy for consciously combating subtle but ubiquitous forms of Racial Discrimination that, through inertia, will continue to control the allocation of societal resources unless they are consciously neutralized. By ceding control over the concept of affirmative action to those who would perpetuate the existing maldistribution of resources, i fear that we will slip into the trap of believing that our current forms of societal discrimination are somehow morally and constitutionally permissible. The raciallycorrelated allocation of significant societal benefits and burdens attests to the continuing problem of Racial Discrimination in the United States. But the raceneutral im sorry, but race neutral socioeconomic remedies may end up simply masking subtle forms of embedded Racial Discrimination. Our longstanding cultural inclination to discriminate against minorities seems likely to influence socioeconomic affirmative action in the same way that it influences the distribution of other societal resources, you know, ranging from employment to health care to freedom from incarceration. Existing patterns of structural bias are so entrenched, that theyre likely to reemerge as disadvantaged whites and disadvantaged minorities compete for the limited resources the socioeconomic affirmative action makes available. This is true even for racial minorities who are lucky enough to have some degree of social and economic advantage. In fact, raceconscious remedial strategies that encompass discrimination against advantaged and disadvantaged minorities help to rebut the stereotypical view of minorities as being unaccomplished drains on society as well as the view that successful minorities are no longer the victims of Racial Discrimination. May also end up being held up unconstitutional despite a neutrality. The neutrality. Under the Supreme Courts washington versus defense programs that are designed to outfit benefits on a racial basis are subject to the same strict scrutiny the court uses to invalidate actions that are neutral. Although the court has not yet used intentional discrimination, the standard to invalidate the affirmativeaction it could easily do so in response to the opposition of those plans come to be viewed as motivated primarily by an intended benefit racial minorities. I agree with professor the cross racial coalitions are desirable. However, i do not think that the cross racial coalitions are likely to result from suppressing the salience of the race. A racial reconciliation across the coalitions that formed during the Civil Rights Era of the 1950s and 60s were produced by intense race consciousness, not by a commitment to color blindness. I think the reason they Racial Attitudes have changed is because the Supreme Court has now made it fashionable to rescind racial minorities again. Of course change their rhetoric to be sensitive to the problem of the racial subordination as it was during the Civil Rights Era i think the culture might change its views about race in a way that once again emphasized racial justice. If the culture came to view that the disproportionate allocation of resources is a sign something was wrong, efforts to address continuing the Racial Discrimination would appear fair and remedial rather than unfairly preferential. If you think i am being naive please remember that the racial animosity that preceded the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s was much more intense than the racial animosity that exists now. If we could move from that old animosity to the old Civil Rights Movement we also ought to be altered to from the current racial animosity to the new Civil Rights Movement. In fact i think that by ackley assaying in the use of the term affirmativeaction and the characterization of affirmativeaction consisting of racial preferences we seem to be relinquishing the high ground to the proponents of discriminati discrimination, those that would like to make effective revenues from going discrimination seem somehow illegitimate. Im also skeptical about the likely success of efforts to solve the longstanding problem of socioeconomic disadvantage itself. In the past, th the problem socioeconomic disadvantage has proved to be just as a tractable as the problem of racial disadvantage. As the Supreme Court Campaign Finance decisions and the Citizens United illustrates some of the claims of economic discrimination are likely to fall on deaf ears now as they all have. I also fear substituting the race neutral for the race conscious strategy to remedy the discrimination is as likely to reinforce the oppression that we now live in a postracial society where the racial minorities themselves rather then later rather than the inertia not because of minority disadvantage. I agree that in the current Political Climate with the current Supreme Court, race conscious efforts to end its termination are not likely to meet with much success. This might also have the collateral effect of giving credibility to those that favor socioeconomic affirmativeaction by causing them to be viewed as proponents of a moderate approach to the Racial Discrimination. But for me the idea of the actual racial equality remains more appealing. [applause] thank you professor for the logistical moving in and out of the chair at the podium. We are going to go into a q a session. People have questions on index cards but let me go ahead and start with a question that i would like each of the panelists to respond to tomorrow we are commemorating the 60th anniversary of the brown v. Board decision as the professor noted her former boss when she clerked for the legendary Thurgood Marshall argued that the brown case i wondered what each panelist would say about brown today. We have free segregated to the point where in many communities the levels of School Segregation are deeper than they were in 1954. So let me go starting all the way down this way. How would you respond to the brown v. Board decision reflecting back over 60 years and how would this court will today ask let me take issue with the premise of your question. The number of segregated Public Schools in the United States in 2014 has not stayed the same or anything like that the number of segregated schools in 2014 is zero. Segregation means telling children that they cannot go to the same school as children of a different skin color. That doesnt happen in the United States anymore ever. What we have is racial imbalances as a result of residential Living Patterns and things like that and we can talk about whether what to do about that or to what extent thats a problem but it is not a problem of jim crow segregation in 1964 and it is ridiculous to suggest that we had anything like that problem in the United States today and it is also ridiculous to suggest and this is the one issue that i have with the professors book. I think that maybe this is necessary in order to establish credibility among the fellow liberals, but i think that she suggests hi from and i think yor question suggests that theres something insincere about conservatives when they say that while the reason that we dont like racial preferences is because we think they Racial Discrimination is a bad thing. We really need that. Okay . There is no evidence that the justices on the Supreme Court who dont like racial preferencepreferences and strikn our insincere in that way either. If brown v. Board of education were argued today it would be called nine to nothin nothing an the same outcome. The opinion might be written differently rather than relying on the sociological or would rely on actual legal text and things like that. It would be a stronger decision. The only possible defenders would be people on the left who think that its okay to engage in Racial Discrimination of this politically correct and if they were convinced there were something politically correct about the signing children in schools on the basis of race they might write separate conservancies. Yes, it is true that we no longer have statesponsored jim crow segregation because its legal but it also is true that we have savage inequalities in k12 schooling that disproportionately harm black and latino children. They live in middleclass neighborhoods in only 29 of black and latino kids was a middleclass neighborhood and all of the social Science Research in all of the people who just live in this country and drive a car though that there are dramatic differences between the opportunities and the quality in the middle or upper class of neighborhood and poor neighborhood. We had this segregatio have thir society thats the first book. Several decades of the statesponsored Public Policies that encouraged segregation and we live with the effects of that and frankly between the obama administration, the department of education i might get in a little trouble here, but it is not they are pro integration and they are not really pushing it that much. They are pushing it on the race to the top and testing that are very very similar. Meanwhile that works when it is achieved when you have a majority class school you get Better Outcomes for poor kids and you tend to get a lot better resources. We are not living up to the values of brown in terms of the day to day existence. Theres also other kids that are in under resourced schools. It is de facto. I agree if you have a state that passed the law that says people of the race have to go to school here and here. Absolutely i agree. You look at the parents involved case and you have a Supreme Court that is not making it easy for the School Districts to voluntarily want to pursue integration in a somewhat race conscious way. It makes it very hard. Brown was a noble attempt to do different things. Unfortunately it has done neither of those things. Schools are still segregated. The overwhelming numbers of segregated. And obviously we continue to use the racial classifications whenever we profile someone. They said the schools are not segregated. Somehow weve gotten from the point we stop looking at results and what is going on in real life and what the Supreme Court did was brown and its progeny. It moved from the situation where it was first trying to desegregate schools until the effort moved north and west of the Supreme Court decided as a doctrine even though the racial makeup of the school that had changed one iota meaning that it started out all black and ten years later its still all black is magically becomes the segregated. But nothing changed. I am not sure what the answer is that im worried that i driving race consciousness underground we will get further awa would fe answer came closer to the answ answer. This first question i will direct the panelist would like to respond. Respond. My college is reporting on those that are the first of their family to go to college and the percent eligible for the programs but not race and ethnicity. Is this a Good Development . Any of the panelists. Im not saying this is a response to your critique im not saying that race doesnt matter what that we should be postracial, im not saying that we shouldnt even Pay Attention to race. I am saying we should be much more careful, complex and nuanced about how we go about building multiracial coalitions for fairness that will attack the cultural disadvantages that exist in this society. And i talk about the security and the practice and the mechanics of doing that. I am not saying that we should deny that there are terrible Racial Disparities but if you took the first thing out of your mouth, Racial Disparities also that leaves folks to shut down because they hear black people have twice the poverty rate and for a lot of them they immediately shut down because they hear of the disparities and accusations so suddenly i am a racist that is my fault. I try to hold up examples of better ways to begin a conversation where people can see a lot of people are harmed by the racialized structures in the society. And what i am really saying is that it is not just black and white and latino kids that are harmed by racialized structures. A lot of people are harmed of all colors. So, we can see and build a common agenda for attacking those structures. By the way, it is not completely hopeless. I also hold examples of successful integration. Because of the lawsuit and the case and the movement, black, latino and white parents who want diversity for their kids to support Public Policies Something Like 31 new magnet schools have been built in the hartford area. A lot of kids live in segregated neighborhoods and they have access to a High Quality School that is decoupled from their neighborhood and they are getting a fair share of resources from the state because of that coalition. I interpret that question as asking if we live in a postracial society or not. You and i think we dont, but i think a lot of people think that either we do or lets pretend that we do. I think it is counterproductive. So, here is a good test case for me. The children of a lot of my friends are they grow up in multiracial environments. They dont notice race anymore. And i hope thats true. I hope thats true but im not confident that it is. So at my school, georgetown and a lot of other colleges in the country where i thought these are fancy schools and i thought we were doing a good job in terms of promoting diversity and getting the benefits of diversity, this morning in the Washington Post there was a story about how the blac black s hakidshad all these schools seeo alienated that not only the form organizations that they have their own hash tags to complain that they think they are being alienated by their institutions. There is a false sense of accomplishment that we think we are doing something about a problem when in fact all they are doing is sticking our heads in the sand. This relates exactly to that comment. My professor singled me out to explain to the classmates about 45 the most liquor beverage. While the diversity measures they have gained admission i felt marginalized, given this anecdote can you speak about the difference between diversity and inclusion and how we can ensure inclusion in the era of the colorblindness. This speaks to the question of feeling stigmatized and marginalized that you raise. But if you have anything on this kind of anecdote. Ive gone through this exercise in my Georgetown Law School Diversity Committee dealing with some issues and thinking about what we should be giving to create a happy climate where everyone feels about you and that not everyone has a voice. And American Society is rapidly changing. They cant just sit passively and do nothing. You have to Pay Attention to your practices and everybody, all institutions need to think about how to create a situation where the actor and the leader in a society are culturally competent. Its like a marriage. You cant just be in it, you have to work at it. You can just throw a bunch of people together and not Pay Attention to the kind of culture that you are creating. They changed the demographics of the cultural norms are being challenged. When i say american for much of the countrys history, that meant the norms were white and youve got you got a lot of peot offended about that commercial of people singing the National Anthem of different colors. I thought it was beautiful. What i mean by cultural dexterity is that openness to difference and openness in the sense of understanding that at a pta meeting in the school there may be other ways to do this and we are going to have a four run and we are going to have ongoing discussions and we will collectively create this new Multiracial Society as we go forward. And it has to be worked out. The fact that america is becoming multiethnic and multinational society is a very powerful reason why we should not be classifying people according to their skin color and what country their ancestors came from treating them differently. When you come to the University Missions based on which box they check. The question that was asked singling out a student at opined on colt 45 obviously a stupid thing to do. Theres no excuse for it, but i do think thats the mindset that a lot of the universities have that ought to have more of this optical diversity so that we can get different skin color perspectives on this or that social problem beats that kind of stereotyping and relies on that kind of stereotyping. And i think we ought to be moving beyond that. I dont know what you mean by postracial society but frankly. The people against racial preferences think that Racial Discrimination doesnt exist anymore. We are not stupid. We know Racial Discrimination still exists. There will always be Racial Discrimination to some degree or another. I am confident that there will continue to be less and less of it. Americans will never be colorblind. The question is what do we do about the Racial Discrimination and racial prejudice that remains and it is a bad idea to think that having racial preferences in University Admissions is going to cause racial prejudice to diminish. If each racial stereotypes. If the University Says we are very selective here. We have really high admission requirements in terms of grades and sat scores if you are white or asian. If you are africanamerica your latino, not so much. We have a secondfloor set of standards. How does that diminish the president s . Its as much racial diversity as affirmative action would you support or oppose . Iowa the happy if that happened but i doubt the culture would stop discriminating on the basis of race which allows me to segue into the previous question and rogers responds. I doubt that there is much disagreement with this. But what i think of as most of the Racial Discrimination in the contemporary culture that happens with law professors called the lows of the baseline that are largely unconscious or subconscious or things we just dont think about it so when we are admitting lower sat scores, he is assuming that the sat score is testing something that is independent of race that is endogenous with race. If it turns out that th the date test rightest right us as much y test the other factors that claims of tests. But we tend to think that it is so that we somehow now have to justify admitting the minority students even though they get lower sat scores rather than thinking about why we should use the sat given that it has a racially disparate impact which gets me back directly to the previous question. I love the colt 45 question. If its handled appropriately this is an institution. So the professor says can you tell us about colt 45. The proper response of the forces why do you think i know anything about colt 45. Maybe in fact we could confront them and deal with them just by a like the idelike the idea of e consciousness rather than race neutrality. If you have questions right and down on index cards and pass them to the front. This is for the professor. Twopart question. How would you share your message about place with the low income families of color who may feel that your message invalidates the plethora of the barriers facing them and their children. One of the main reasons that i support the place methodology is because i am an advocate for people who get the deal in American Society. People who dont manage to escape, and by the way, economic segregation is increasing fastest among black and latino latinos. That is what is going around. I urge you to read it. Its the people that are stuck that im advocating for you know, resilience and grit, w children succeed. Those are the characteristics that truly predict success. And if you were blessed to come of age in above fewtree havens, god bless you. Take advantage of your advantages. Youre not intrinsically deserving of special consideration. So i am arguing that i think affirmative action should return to its original purpose of focusing on helping people who are disadvantaged. Out just so it just so happens that, you know, in the 60s, yes, it was true the main mechanism for disadvantaged and exclusionism in American Society was race. Im not saying we dont have a lot of discrimination, im not saying my gorgeous husband doesnt have trouble getting a cab despite his harvard degrees, you know . But you get my point. Linda browns brown brown skin kept her out of her school of choice. Today kids are being kept out of their schools of choice because of where they live. To follow im sorry, do you want to respond . Let me say i think looking at things aside from s. A. T. Scores is fine, and i dont think that schools need to look at s. A. T. Scores at all if they dont want to. And if you can come up with better measures of act academic qualifications and success, im all for that. But you should apply those measures to everybody. You shouldnt say that, well, we require children or students who are this color to do well on the s. A. T. , students who are a different color dont have to do well on the s. A. T. , were going to look at different, you know, factors for them. I also think that it cant be seriously argued that schools are treating people differently on the basis of skin color and are admitting students with preferred skin colors who have lower academic qualifications. And that is shown by the fact that they are much more likely to flunk out, much more likely to switch majors. You know, whatever index of success you have, it correlates unsurprisingly with if you admit students who have lower qualifications, theyre not going to do as well. Well, can i respond to something roger just said . Heres a point of agreement. I actually agree with you that we should take the lessons we have learned from three decades of affirmative action and apply it to everyone. I think s. A. T. Scores should be optional or not used at all because they predict little to nothing about how a person will succeed. Theres very little difference in terms of success between a person who gets a 1200 and a person who gets a 1300. Theres no difference, right . And a study i cite in my book that looked at success among students of all colors said, found that a cumulative high school gpa and grit, stick to itedness. They dent went down the line, the s. A. T. Was nowhere to be found. So i agree with you. I think it should be optional, and hundreds of schools now make it optional. The other thing i would say is that i think schools need to do a better job of screening all applicants for this grit, right . The Posse Foundation has a more selective, is more selective than harvard. So only about 4, 4. 5 of kids will apply for a posse scholarship. The average s. A. T. Score is Something Like 1100. These kids are enormously successful, and its because organizations like posse and quest bridge have learned how to identify striving kids who will stick to it. Kids who get a 4. 0 in high school tend to repeat that kind of performance. Right . A person who gets a 4. 0 has set a very, very High Standard for themself. Those are the types of kids who need and deserve a leg up. Im not talking about watering down merit
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.