Transcripts For CSPAN2 Capital News Today 20120824

let's hear it for tom and the civil rights division. [applause] our resolve to meet the evolving threats with new vigilance has never been more clear. this past april, the department issued its first ever indictment for a hate crime based on sexual orientation on the matthew shepherd hate crimes convention act. [applause] this is a landmark measure signed into law by president obama in 2009, which many of the people in this room helps to move forward in relation to an alleged anti-gay hate crime in kentucky. we continue to review cases that may fall under this legislation. we are working to strengthen our ability to achieve justice on behalf of those victimized simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. we stand ready to vigorously pursue allegations of federal hate crimes wherever they arise to bring charges were ever they are warranted and support the efforts of our state and local law enforcement partners to enforce their own hate crimes laws. the civil rights division is also taking the lead in bolstering our ability to educate and train federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement officials on sexual orientation and gender identity based discrimination in order to insure that, for those who serve on the front line, they are well equipped to prevent, identify, and stop this wherever it occurs. last month, the department filed a historic consent agreement with the city of norman's to address allegations of discrimination and harassment by -- new orleans to address allegations of discrimination and harassment by local police, including against lgbt individuals. in a broader efforts, we have demonstrated the importance and in practice of working with elected and appointed authorities to identify troubling practices, correct patterns of increased -- repeated violations, and craft policies and procedures to make state the rights of those law enforcement officers have sworn to serve and protect. we have taken increasing awareness of the rights that -- rolls the community leaders and educators can take in protecting a variety of vulnerable populations, particularly the youngest members of our society. we were to expand the protections so that our children can feel safe in their homes, on our streets, and especially in our schoolyards and classrooms. as many of you know all too well, every year, bullying touches the lives of countless young people. as we have seen all too clearly, it can have a devastating and potentially life on impact. in response, the department has been collaborating with educators, administrators, and students in school districts nationwide to investigate an address this problem behavior. we work with partners, including federal allies like the department of education under the leadership of secretary arne duncan, to explore ways to stop harassment and bullying before they start. in places like minnesota, where the investigation found that some students faced threats, physical violence, a derogatory violence, and other forms of harassment on a daily basis. we have successfully engaged with school officials to lay out a detailed blueprints for sustainable perform -- reform. we will continue to promote safe and healthy learning environments to support a student nondiscrimination act that will better addressed harassment and bullying based on an individual's real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. we will provide assistance to bullying victims and work closer with local leaders, parents, educators, and young people themselves to make certain that all of our students, all of our students can feel safe and free to be themselves in its schools. beyond these efforts, the justice department continues to support and to fight for legislative and policy reforms like an inclusive nondiscrimination act, which would extend -- [applause] -- which would extend protections to lgbt individuals in all workplaces khama and an updated violence against women act -- [applause] an updated violence against women act that would insure that the law's nondiscrimination provisions cover sexual orientation and gender identity. this is something we are fighting about -- why this is something we are fighting about is beyond me. this is something that needs to happen, and needs to happen now. [applause] even in the face of what are truly extraordinary budget challenges, we remain determined to use every available resource to build the necessary institutional and legal frameworks 2 and harassment, violence, and discrimination, and to provide a safeguard for lgbt americans, my fellow citizens, that are long overdue. my colleagues are not content to advocate and speak up for these changes and return -- reforms. winners stand the importance of leading by example. that is why this justice department and a range of agencies have taken decisive action to create a more inclusive work environment for our own employees. this is to strengthen our mission of serving all americans by recruiting and retaining highly qualified individuals like you who will reflect our nation's rich diversity and make a sustained and concerted effort to provide the opportunities, support, and respect for every aspiring public servant to develop, grow, and thrive. no one understands the importance of creating such an environment or has advocated more passionately on behalf of the lgbt community and my boss, president obama. -- a van my boss, president obama. -- than my boss, president obama. [applause] thanks to his leadership, this administration has made historic strides in sending a clear message that the federal government is open to everyone. it is an employer that accept and respect every potential employee. for instance, in the justice department, i launched a new diversity management initiative in 2010 to expand and strengthen strategies and programs for promoting fairness, equality, and opportunity for every member of the doj family, which today includes a number of openly gay and lesbian attorneys, including my friend robert. as well as senior department leaders, u.s. marshals, the director of the transgender law institute, and three of the attorneys recently named to the national lgbt bar association's best lawyers under 40. [applause] and, an extremely dedicated and ever-expanding membership of a wonderful organization known as doj pride. earlier, we held a workshop focused on inclusion that discussed lesbian, gay, transgendered, and bisexual inclusion as an inclusive way -- as important way to include all individuals in your place. we also act -- asked that every federal prison will appoint an lgbt representative to their employment program to help start a dialogue about issues facing staff members who serve in more than 120 facilities nationwide. i believe these actions and policies constitute promising steps in the right direction. like everyone here tonight, i recognize that our journey as a nation and as a legal profession is far from over. i know that the progress we seek is not always come as quickly as we might help or as easily as we would like. that is why tonight i am not a cure to thank you all for what you have done to bring us to this point, to highlight the administration's efforts, or to celebrate all we have achieved together. i'm also here to ask for your continued help, to draw on your considerable passion and expertise, and to reiterate the department's commitment and my own to building on the momentum that we have established and insuring the the recent successes we have seen have -- are just the beginning. current and aspiring leaders of the bench and bar, everybody here tonight understands what is at stake. you realize how important every hard-fought legal victory, large and small, really is. you all are or soon will be uniquely situated to use the power of the law and your own gifts and knowledge to help build a more fair and equal and more just society. you have not only the power, but, i believe, the solemn responsibility to do precisely that. to safeguard the rights and freedoms of everyone in this country, to carry on the critical but unfinished work that lies ahead. this has never been and never will be easy, but as a look around this room, i cannot help but feel optimistic about where your efforts will lead us and how far our commitment will take us in the months and years ahead. with the benefit of your partnership, the strength of your passion, i know that we can, and i am confident that we will, continue the work that has been our share priority and our common cause. i look forward to all that we will share and accomplish together. thank you very much. [applause] tomorrow morning with the discussion about the rights of transgender people serving in the military. attorneys and friends and veterans will participate you can watch it live here on c-span2. or any time at the c-span video library. c-span video.org. in four days gavel to gavel coverage of the republican national convention. here are front row seats to the convention. c-span2 howard freed month with the other industrial used company. law professors discuss racial bias in law. attorney general eric holder discusses gay andless bee began civil rights. >> i think your job is not to . >> giulianna goldman -- white house correspondent in 2009. >> it is trying to get fair answers out of them and that's how i approach my job not looking to catch when jay carnie i'm not looking to necessarily catch it. also that's not when we said the other day. democracy and equality and the lessons that with be learned from other nations. he spoke at the world affairs counsel on san francisco and this is an hour. it is now my pleasure to introduction the distinguish guest. a leading healthy economist at united nations and currently a leading scientist for interagency collaborations involving u.n. agencies such as unicef, world bank, u.n. population fund, u.n. program on hiv/aids, and u.n. development program as well as minister of health and donor agencies. he's an adjunct professor at colombia international and school affairs. and a author. before joining united nations,ms howard ran modeling teams -- the most recent book is the measure of the nation how to regain america's competitive edge and boost our. please join me in, welcoming our gust. -- guest [applause] [inaudible] before i get into the talk itself. i can't but lock around the rooe and see the flags and think thc ispl a terrific place are for someone coming from the united nations to talk and give history that relate it is to. it's a great location because of the fact of the whole idea ofo looking at different textbooks is so great at what goes on here at the counsel.l with that said, i want to talk about the idea of competitive intelligence and start with that [inaudible] this is a idea that is used allk the time..time companies exam who theirwi c competitors are, what their competitors competitors are doing well, where are they lagging behind. when companies do that to try tl identify what they can their advantages, havthey learn those and opportunities to take best practices. standard practice in the corporate world not so much in the corporate world. my book takes perspective of from the united states. with that in mind when the obvious questions to ask is when it comes to competition it is challenging. the first criteria is they have to be wealthy it had to be leased $20,000. it is wealthy enough and to support its infrastructure and it is important to examine the united states vs. wealthy countries. it is not as insightful. wealth is a selection criteria. the other is population from a least 10 million it is the top one-third and also threshold to required to have more people and the united states. during the numbers there is not a perfect comparison. that is true then has a population as the united states so what can we learn? with that in mind there are 14 countries to meet the criteria germany, the u.k., france, italy, spain japan and o austria. we have a large selection where we can identify objectively areas we selected white house, education, democracy in five critical subjects to see a society thrive or struggle. we defined our categories. a whole idea is promised and three simple points. if you compare to other countries it is different. for those who have not traveled with the policies and practices are so different. the second point* is comparing the data to other of wealthy countries hurt quote we do not to do the best. when not always the best what can we learn? but with health key facts you may have heard before the united states spends between two or four times more than any other wealthy country and of the other 13 we have the lowest life expectancy. you have the lowest return on invested. -- investment. the second fact is there was a time united states had the eighth highest five expectancy and have dropped dramatically. this is a theme you will hear former outstanding performance is declining. we will put those facts aside. safety. one fact, our homicide rate between three and 10 times more than competing countries. a far more dangerous country and others. our incarceration rate is between two and 10 times higher current the comparable to the soviet gulag. it will put those facts aside now. now to the other topics, the first is democracy. it is a difficult subject to measure quantitatively. competition, participation which is the odor turnout. they're far less likely to show up at the polls and other countries. been below is an indication voters don't trust the system works well, barriers to show what the, other issues about the process. it is a symptom of an issue. we have a datapoint coming from the royal bank and each one has consistency the net is states comes out somewhere in the middle. there are measures from the freedom house.3 we have a datapoint coming from the royal bank and each one has consistency the net is states comes out somewhere in the middle. there are measures from the freedom house. australia or canada are near the top. this is interesting. just like health, if we think back we created the declaration of independence, the constitution was a leading document at the time. a leader of representative democracy. we have not made tremendous from the household so the government is enabling the voting instead of disabling the voting. other things that are different in the countries is the tendency toward proportion of representation. the united states has single seat winner take all elections. right. we know how it works. you go ahead and have your vote. if 45% vote for one party, and 40 for another and the rest of the vote is mixed. whoever got the 45% become the elected official and the other 55%, sorry. now in other countries distribution the legislature reflects the distribution of the voting. that's true for 38 of 41 leading democratic countries according to freedom news. what we're seeing here the proportion of representativation is norm outside the united states but it doesn't get exhibited here. and with the single seat winner take all elections the technology from 200 years ago we keep using you end up things like jury you isolate certain voters or spread them out. you get a tendency toward more and more isolation or streamism which we have experienced and seen today in american politics. politicians who know they are getting elect can be extreme. it's a result of winner take all elections. we adopt more of a or portional representation approach we -- [inaudible] another best practice specifically found in australia and a few other countries is preferable vote. many of are interested in having more voices in politics, but with the single seat winner-take-all. so you can rank your votes and vote for a third party that would be terrific. you rank your vote. choice one is this, choice two this, choice three. if no candidate gets a majority of the vote, the candidates with the least number of votes their votes are distributed according to who was ranked second. it is a beautiful system. it works in other countries. it works here. it enables third parties to have a voice. lastly, i'm going mention a couple of quick things about the constitution and move on to other stuff. our constitution was a tremendous document. the cutting-edge democracy of 1789. we may -- there are a few glaring issues that sit in the constitution today that we haven't changed. i think no one here in the audience would be surprised to learn that in the united states, we have a system of an electorial college and the electorial college represents a lot of things. it doesn't represent a practice that has been impersonated by any other country in the world. many countries have looked to our constitution and said what a he they allocate according to the books they are distributing and every state can do that. so there are some lessons in terms of the united states. let's take democracy and put it aside for a second focus on education and the quality. to areas two areas that are infinitely linked. education is an important topic in the united states not just for our present situation but for our future. it's fascinating for a number of reasons. one of the first reasons why it's so interesting is many who work in education are surprised to find we actually used to be the world leader. the united states was an innovator in providing free public, primary and secondary education. additionally, with things such as the g.i. bill we have the highest rate of college education in the world. now for those listening, i used a past tense verb. we had the highest rate of college education the world. we are now out of the top 15. that's a pretty big drop. what has happened along the way? i'm going to walk you logically through how people go through school and you will see some of the factors going on. starting at the lowest, people go to free primary school. in the united states if you go to pre-primary school, you have great opportunities not only to begin your education but it also has ramifications for lower crime rates later. children of middle-class families who go to pre-primary school have a 20% higher rate of attendance to pre-primary school than children from poor families. there's a 20% imprints in attendance starting at age three or four. now this propagates as you go higher and higher in the grades. that child who started out with a much lower likelihood of going to pre-primary education gets older. they go to primary school and secondary school. now if you get to go to a primary or secondary school in the united states you have an interesting situation. 90% of the funding for public schools in the united states is from state and local resources. only 10% is from federal. this is different from other wealthy countries. most other wealthy countries it preponderance of the money comes from the federal level. what does this mean? it means if you happen to grow up in a poor neighborhood your school has less funding and what is the ramification of less funding in her school? the building is in worship. your facilities for learning are worse in your than your computers may not function. textbooks may be old and much more importantly than all those year's you may pay your teachers much lessen your ability to recruit top teachers is severely damage. that is at the primary and secondary level. now, there they're a waste to compare different countries in terms of their education one of the easiest ways to do it is they have these cross-country exams. there's the pr sl scores, the thames scores to tell us the same story that the united states is average to below average versus other wealthy countries. leading countries such as korea, japan and canada do a lot of things differently than we do in the united states. but when you look at that score, whether it's science, math or reading you see the united states average or below average. but the other thing that happens when you dig into the data you see that children who come from wealthier neighborhoods in the united states two outstanding. they outperform all of those other countries. children who come from poor neighborhoods off the charts the other way. now you expect some disparity in performance as a function of income. you see that in all countries but in the united states a relationship between how you do on that high school exam and your socioeconomic status is much more critical than in other countries. moving up one level in the united states will get 60 more points. in other wealthy countries, 40 more points. what does that mean? that means where you come from in the united states is far more influential in the quality of your education and the high school level than in other wealthy countries. getting older you reach the college education level and we have an average rate compared to other wealthy countries of college education. at the same time our affordability -- if you go back a few decades ago, it used to be that the pell grant would cover three-quarters of the cost of the college education. now it covers roughly one third so your finances in the united states your ability to self fund college are really holding people back from the ability to learn. with all that said though you did have some examples of excellence. korea did very well in education so let's focus on what korea does that the united states doesn't do. the first thing they do that is very obvious is they have a much longer school year. 220 days of school. the united states does not have a national standard. back to the set ration of federal and state that most states average around 180 days. 180 days versus 220 can learn more in 40 days of school plus you don't forget so much and have two and a half months you have off. the longer length of school is an important factor. other important factors are korea all of the teachers come from the top one third of their college class. the top students, they pay them very well, twice the gdp per capita. it's a very prestigious position and they invest in their teachers as they continue to grow and learn so your teachers have a very low turnover rate, roughly 1% per year. in the united states we don't pay our teachers well. roughly gdp per capita despite the investment that teacher had in their education. not only do they not get paid well but at the same time it's not the prestigious positioning used to be. we'll read in newspapers all of the attacks in the united states against teacher unions. doesn't have that level of trustees. there's not the same level of investment in the teacher and the same time their turnover rates are very high. we are seeing a fundamentally different approach in korea than in the united states. oh by the way decades ago teachers used to be well-paid positions in the united states. in the 70's teachers got paid roughly 175% of the gdp. so we are seeing a trend here. all of this plays into a lot of factors that we are going to talk about. we have established him issues here. the united states used to be the best, declining performance in a few areas. lessons learned in this case in education, korea has a number of best practices we can adopt here in the united states. let's move onto equality because this is an area i think a lot of people are paying attention to right now. equality is an interesting topic because there are so many aspects of it. there is income. there as well. there is socioeconomic mobility. there is gender equality. so many aspects to talk about. today we will just talk about a couple. income inequality, you can talk about pre-tax and adjustment or post-tax adjustment doesn't really matter, you will get the same answer which is the united states has a higher level of any quality than other wealthy countries. the good news it's very consistent in the bad news is it's very consistent. but the other thing that is so interesting about the inequality in the united states is not just that it's been growing. not that it's been getting much worse over the last few decades but not every wealthy country that and abroad they seen that trend. a lot a lot of economists try to describe the situation is being just a function of globalization. it's completely out of our control. that's what they say but it's not true. in our comparison group of the 13 countries for them saw increase equality, not increasing inequality and that means the government's role to play depending on what its perspective is in terms of inequality. take those facts and put them aside her moment. related relates related to income of courses well. that's a cumulative function so it wouldn't surprise you to learn the united states is a higher level of wealth inequality then these other countries. that just follows luggage and of course it's related to things like our tax laws where people are able to inherit a larger percentage of the money from the states. so we have a higher level of wealth inequality. in fact it's so extreme that the two wealthiest americans in the united states, bill gates and warren buffett, have more wealth than the bottom 40% of america. let's take wealth and put it aside for a second. let's focus on social mobility. the equality of opportunity because this is the one that always touches me the most. growing up in the united states, being told about us being the land of opportunity. the american dream that you can start from anywhere and rise rice and saying we were all brought up equally. the interesting thing about this whole idea of social mobility is americans believed believe in their hearts. when you look at surveys its very consistent. americans have the raider faith that their country is a merit talk or see them any other wealthy country. we believe that strongly. we also strongly believe according to the world values survey said the people who are wealthy are wealthy because they earned it in the people who are poor are poor because they did not earn their money. we believe this strongly and it comes out in our service. at the same time though, because our faith is so strong in meritocracy we tend to have far lower social support than other wealthy countries. the logic is perfect. but there's a little bit of a gap year here in the gap is the fact that in the united states we have less, not more social mobility than any other wealthy country. we are not where you start from everywhere you have a better chance of rising. you can rise give enough talent and enough hard work and enough luck, you can rise from anywhere to wherever you aspire to go but the odds of you moving our less than in other countries. let me give you some numbers that you can see this. if you line up people by their income the lowest 20% we referred to as the poorest quintile. the wealthiest 20% that will call the wealthiest quintile. americans who are born in the poorest quintile have been over 40% chance of staying in that quintile. they are stuck. what about the other countries? as it turns out the odds are in the 20, up to 30% chance that they will stay there. that is it's far more like in other countries we'll leave that poorest quintile. what about the american dream? that is going from the poorest to the wealthiest. the united states is the lowest rate of any of the comparative countries. socom instead of talking about the american dream of social mobility we need to rephrase that the american myth of social mobility and we need to do something about it. what do we do about it? education and educational opportunities are the key to social mobility. i'm going to take that example and we are going to layer in the education. if you are born in the poorest quintile and get a college degree a chance if you staying in that poorest quintile is 16%, 16, 84%. if you don't get a college degree the chance if you staying in that poorest quintile are approximately 50%. you were going to be stuck so education is the key but we have seen we have a lot of challenges providing equal opportunities for education. as we saw three primaries, 20% difference and when you do adjust for that. later on when you get to primary and secondary school you have this huge difference in terms of the funding of the local levels. so if you are poor you are more disadvantaged. we need to aggressively pay attention to that and adjust for it. and then when you get to the tertiary level we used to make college affordable. we have abandoned that responsibility with coverage programs and we need to get back to that. so we have seen a lot of interesting factors here, things that relate to our democracy, things that relate to our education, things that relate to our equality. what we would like to do is understand now why do we make changes? after all the date is clear. it's obvious and for those who take a look at the book what you will see as the links are right there. you can follow the data to the original source. so the data is clear but why are we making changes? there are a lot of barriers to change and i'm just going to mention for them right now. the first one is awareness. the good news to everyone in the room here is going to be aware the where the data but a lot of americans aren't. they are not aware of the fact that we don't perform the best because politicians don't like to say that. and all of the health care debates rarely did anyone point out the fact that we have the lowest return on investment in health. the phrase we kept hearing was it's the best commanded is command it is for those who can afford it. we have the best hospitals in the world. we truly do. with the best medical school so for those that can afford it we have excellence but for the public system it's not so good. for education same way. we have the best colleges and universities and graduate schools in the world. for those who can afford it truly is that the public system is behind. extremes of excellence paired with the public system that is not working anywhere near as well. well. orantes of the facts as the first issue. the second one is complacency. are decline in performance did not happen overnight. we did not have a flip of the switch and suddenly the quality of our education drop. we didn't have the flip the switch in the quality of her health declined. everything it's been gradual and so people don't notice it that much. the other thing of course they are paying attention to is the fact that we are wealthy country. people are not dying in the street so they are not angry about the situation. complacency is the second one. the third issue is our political system itself and that is why i mentioned a few things about democracy. our political system is less open to change than many other systems. an example of that type 2 inequality is the fact that statistical studies have shown that there is zero responsiveness of our national legislature to the needs of people in the poorest third of the socioeconomic class. while it's highly responsive to those in the top third soared democratic system is a third area and the fourth one that we have to be aware of is the fact that many groups have profited from our current system. with the talk about health, education, safety, democracy or equality in those groups, they're going to do their best to defend the status quo. for those who recognize we have issues, for those who see we also have advantages we have these leading colleges, universities and graduate schools, leaving hospitals and and and great innovation and tremendous opportunities for entrepreneurship. for those who see her competitive bandage and want to use those advantages at the same time you have to recognize that in order to take advantage of our competitive intelligence you have to at the same time fight the status quo and those who benefit. those are four factors, barriers to change and those who want to implement change have to recognize it. with that said i want to summarize by recognizing that the competitive and telling shows a lot of things. which is declining performance in areas where we can learn lessons from other countries but it also shows some waiting areas areas and i just mentioned them. waiting areas in terms of education at the tertiary level, graduate school level, in terms of innovation and our medical systems, our best hospitals in our research and technology and entrepreneurship. our strategy these two levers of competitive advantages well of the same time using the lessons learned to support our public system where we are not doing as well. thank you very much. [applause] >> you thank you howard for a thought-provoking in fact base set of comments. i have a broad range of questions here. i would like to start with a couple of questions on the nature of exercise that the exercise that you undertook for the book and then go to some specific questions about the topic. why don't we start with this one? we all know why ranks matter two companies. white white is a rank matter to a country? what is it mean to a business? >> first of all his tremendous question. absolute values are important. the united states life expectancy now is slightly higher than it was previously so the overall value is getting better but ranks are important because it indicates where there are opportunities to improve. at show you areas where you can get better and there is of course many other factors you have to examine but it's a way of indicating where you have opportunities to leverage or potentially leverage information from other countries so i use it in that respect. the framework that i describe of using competition is a metaphor. at its core it's okay if we are not the best ranked because that's an opportunity for us to leverage information from other countries. >> you talked about a bit about averages versus distribution. how would the u.s. compare the exercise of her were only represented by the top one thirds of all the states? >> i will answer that but at the same time the answer would be true for any single country. if you select the wealthiest component of any country in our comparison group they will outperform the rest. with that question asked, what you will see is that yes the wealthiest parts of the united states will do on average much better so there's a huge disparity in education. there's a huge disparity in life expectancy across the united states. some of it correlates with wealth and some of the correlates with other factors. other things such as our socioeconomic mobility and democracy are -- so it's a relevant. it's an unfair comparison and you always end up quote unquote looking good. >> as an increasing number of emerging nations join the club of richer countries for countries for example indonesia malaysia india turkey at cetera do you foresee measuring more data from these nations in the models for similar future exercises to compare with the u.s. and which of these countries on the rice to be included in the basket of comparison? >> i am certainly open to publishing a second book in five years provided we have sufficient sales of the first one. [laughter] i will give you my complete answer. in terms of expanding it seriously to question making sure you have a reasonably fair comparison. there's a reason why middle income countries work to include it. it measures the wealth of the country and its ability to support these practices. it's also important to note that in the comparison i did not all countries were equal. the gdp per capita of the united states is much higher than some of the countries included in some of the countries are recently wealthy. countries like korea they were developing countries only 30 years ago so they made a fast rise wears other countries like netherlands in in the netherlands and the u.k. have been wealthy for decades so they have more time to build their infrastructure. the comparison really reflects a snapshot of today. if i did a snapshot 10 years from now there would be a few more countries in the club and i think would be great to see what else we could learn from most countries in the club. >> to questions on dimensions of comparison. the first is about military strength. where his military might factor into your rankings? >> so i didn't mention it in the top. it's actually in the book. the military is a very complicated topic because when you talk about health or education, how one particular country approaches improving its system doesn't traumatic impact another country. in a specific area of the military the united states's approach to how it treats its military and its perception of itself in the world impacts the military expenditure of every of the comparison country. our position in nato impacts the amount of investment that european countries may. the n mix of far higher investment. in fact we spend roughly half of the world's investment on the military comes from the united states. wildly make that massive investment any in the western european countries are making a comparably less. at the same time if you look at france and japan and south korea we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. the united states is expending significant amounts of money to maintain those troops there and why we receive some compensation for those, from those countries in return that does impact the military expenditures of those countries have to make so it is the one area that i study in the book where actions by the united states directly impact those from other countries. >> and and a second dimension how to the countries measure compare on gender equality and does it correlate with other issues? >> so for gender equality is a very complicated topic because there is not one to mention. when you talk about gender equality you have areas such as the economic component, the workforce participation as well as the percentage of salary ratio. in those areas the united states does reasonably well. you have some extreme countries. the asian countries tend to be off the charts negatively in terms of workforce participation and salary. you have exceptions like italy where for the women who work they generally earn the same as men but overall the united states does reasonably well. in the political that political participation which is relevant right now, but we see is the united states is much lower representation of women in its national legislature than almost any other wealthy country. the asian countries tend to be very low but if you look at the european countries, canada australia they have much higher rates than in the united states. safieh question about trends and point of time comparison. how does the gdp per capita trend of the ms compared with europe and canada? >> he so i did not look at the trends that much. i didn't want to talk too much about this. what i would would rather mention is the gdp cap is a measure i used as the selection criteria and i mention the fact within the book that not all countries are equal and many have been wealthy for a while and some are newly wealthy and summer does it in an spread if we look at a global time period i did not take snapshots over decades so i would rather move on. >> i have specific questions on areas you mentioned including education, health care and political participation. on education can you talk a little bit about the structural changes that may lead to the educational system that other -- have talked about? >> i can talk about it a little bit. i was reading articles that were saying that is apparently a meth. i don't know if it's true. i am not an expert on agrarian calendars but the first thing i talked about with regard to the length is a school year is this is a recommendation that has been coming up the national level since the 1980s. every president champions themselves as the education president and we have all seen these programs. each one includes a recommendation on lengthening the school year. there's a lot of advantages to that but mostly because for anyone here who has been a teacher it's the question of how much you forgot over the summertime where students are set back months so there something to that just sheer presence. when you also look at other measures such as hours of education what you see is the united states seems to have much higher hours but they are not necessarily active hours of learning so you have to be careful about taking that data and not overly interpreting it. safieh question about health care statistics. you talked about life expectancy in particular. are there other health care statistics that he studied and what can we glean from those? >> i talked about life expectancy because to me that is the fastest snapshot and it's not a particularly powerful statistic from a u.s. point of view. the other metrics that i looked at in the book start looking at life so infant mortality. we do quite poorly. we have the highest rate of infant mortality but as you talk about infant mortality the process of giving birth as them maternal mortality ratio. and then you start looking beyond that to the question of a medical mortality so mortality could be prevented by the health care system were once again we have the highest rate are going fact when you start going piece by piece through it, i look at things such as non-communicable disease mortality and communicable disease and injury and for each one of these we tend to do poorly. non-communicable diseases is what dominates and i'll wealthy countries and we do poorly there. injuries we do poorly, communicable diseases average but that's a small fact. most of the mortality is related to non-communicable diseases. >> on voting participation there is an observation that australia has a penalty if you do not vote. >> it's a terrific question there. there are a couple of countries that do have what is called mandatory participation rules. belgium has one, australia has one. i'm not a proponent of them but they do work. carrots and sticks in this case it's a pretty hard stick. if you don't show up to the voting poll then you get a fine. i don't think that is a solution that would work in the united states simply because as americans we do believe that not voting is still a choice. in the recommendations i given the book i very much try to distinguish practices that are implementable in the united states and practices that won't work here. to me that as a practice that may work in other countries. it was more universal previously. other countries used to have it and have eliminated it and i think that just doesn't work in the united states. >> as a follow question to up question to the question on military might. are the large u.s. military expenditures part of the reason we are falling apart? >> that is a loaded question. realistic way you have to look at it from the perspective of you have a fine it budget and you make choices about how you spend it. i would say in the area of education and this is going to disappoint a lot of you, we spend more in education than any other wealthy country. we are just not spending it well so in education think it's restructuring how we spend it. for military expenditures that is certainly related to some of our equality fact there's but for the military it's not how much we are spending that how we are spending it. for instance in military there's a rampant amount of no-bid contracts occurring and there's no justification for that. no-bid contracts are an invitation to get ripped off. the other thing to note about the military is a rampant use of contractors in general. when you spend as much as we do there is no reason why our military can't feed itself or manage its supply lines and the last thing that is worth reflecting on is we made a decision going back in the last 10 years to fund wars by pretending we are not funding them. in the history of the united states we have always implemented a tax to pay for wars and that tax served a purpose. it raised the people's consciousness even if you were fighting and you didn't have a family member fighting that there was something going on overseas. in the last 10 years we did something very different. we implemented wars and did tax cuts and that is the fundamental issue. not only how we approach balancing our federal budget but at the same time how we think about a military or in this case perhaps don't think about a military. >> ready for another voting question? >> give it to me. >> seems a financial burden burden of our health care system in the cost to address potential disasters have the potential to bank up there government and peter ability to compete. what do you think? >> i think that there are opportunities we have to face but i don't think encrypting our government is about realistic. the first you have to realize is when you print the money you can't get bankrupt. that's just a fundamental fact that actually happens so those who think you run out of money, they are really kind of playing a scare tactic with you but let's move on britain asked the question of how to control these expenses? what i mean by that is another wealthy countries, basic health care health care is considered a right. being here at the council it's ironic because the universal declaration on human rights which was signed by the united states includes a statement on the right to basic health. that perspective is one that is very different in america versus other countries and it's her for-profit health care center that is driving our expenses so much higher for health than other systems. the for-profit health system is not going away. once again that is my fourth . the barriers that change. that is part of the american it's not going to change but it's a question of how you can work within that system to have far more cost-efficient and cost-effective systems and i will give you one quick example. recommendations were put out not too long ago to reduce the use of mammograms and to reduce the use of screening. why? it turns out they are not very accurate and they are not cost-effective but what we need to see a nation is do we actually implement them or do we keep doing the testing because doctors like it that they make money and patience like it because they feel better and insurers get to keep raising your premiums. that is a choice in this country that we need to decide, do we follow cost cost-effective measures or continue down this road of exploding health costs? we have control of making some of these decisions. >> what are the countries in your research have similarly high levels of? >> in terms of inequality we do have the highest. there is a tendency for english system countries to have higher inequality so the u.k. has a higher level than other countries such as germany or italy. it's important to note that inequality is not, and equality of opportunity was not measured as universally as income inequality. income inequality is measured for all countries but the socioeconomic ability you only have a sample of countries does -- because it requires a lot more study data but overall there's a tendency that countries that can trace themselves back to the u.k. tend to have higher levels of inequality than countries that came from other cultural backgrounds. >> the final question specific to our topic. how can america improve its sense of civic duty? how can america improve civic education and political participation and voter turnout? >> that is a tremendous question. i think that we have seen in the past if you look at the history of the united states, here you are targeting the question of voter participation went we have seen voter drives in the past and they are usually driven by a reaction to something. there was a huge voter drive going on in the 60's. it was a reaction to a recognition of issues with civil rights. voter drives happened during the progressive there is a reaction to the high levels of income inequality. i expected, perhaps i was wrong, i expected there to be a strong drive in his coming election for people to get out and have a voice and make sure that they are voting because they reality is that both count. even with all the flaws that i have mentioned about our system, your vote does count and people who recognize that and she stared the candidates and recognize they do represent different points of view, i expected and they do hope to see passion in the streets. passion streets can take different political forms. whether that is people from the tea party occupy wall street either way its passion and people trying to have a voice so to the extent that people can get involved i suggest they do. >> shifting gears from the question about topics to questions about recommendation to have for addressing the challenges. what are the areas where the u.s. can improve significantly with relatively -- what should we attempt to address first? >> my recommendations all started from the data itself and it's important to reflect on the process that i went through and to talk about a few of the actual implementable once. the process i followed with starting with the data identifying leading countries and liking countries and from the leading countries other practices they are implementing could allow them to be? in terms of what could be implemented first the reality is changes towards amount received probably will take a while. we have to reflect on that fact. moving to proportional representation takes one single federal law but it's going to be a tough federal law to pass. revising our electoral college. it takes a change in the constitution. that's probably not going to happen anytime soon. by the same token states choosing to allocate proportional representation could happen but it takes the area pulled state to do that because they lose power. so i think the democracy changes will take a while. the educational changes, they are going to take some time too because they require us to make conscious choices. the one that i think really can be implemented in the short-term are the ones related to health because we have an opportunity. the doors open to having a much better health system. so we have to recognize the changes opening that door leading to longer life expectancy. that was half of the roi equation and the other half on the return on investment equation is where to make determinations about controlling pills cost. the flipside of the claim the responsibility of health is not just on the system. we have an obesity rate that exceeds 30%. some of the compared of countries have low single digits at what is the difference? we consume approximately 1000 calories more than other wealthy countries. that is more than a big a day plus. that means her health system needs to make changes that we americans need to make changes too and that is the change that is very amenable and he can be done. the other thing i was going to mention was in the equality section which is there are lots of factors that try the quality. some of them are corporate standards and norms for some of them are driven by tax laws so if as a nation we want to drive to an area where we have less inequality that is nothing more than the ability for us to drive changes in legislation. how this change in legislation happen? by changing the legislators. >> what are examples of other countries that have had significant positive changes in the area of studies and what can we learn in the process of making those changes happen? >> there are so many aspects that were covered in it and so perhaps we will talk about one or two and we will hear about how they went about it. in california of course you are familiar with the three strikes law. in the three strikes law implements in half the states in the united states. impact there were three laws that were implemented in the 80's and 90s that drove an explosion of incarceration. at increased by a factor for because of the criminalization of drugs. we also have the three strikes law and the third one which i can't remember right now. we will come back to it in a minute. what's that? thank you so much. mandatory sentencing. specifically canada identified the three strikes laws result in extremely long sentences for people who are committing petty crimes. so they have revised that law decades ago. they learned a lesson and they revised it and that's an example of a country learning from practices. another practice that was implemented was in the u.k. when they banned handguns and what do we see? we see far lower homicide rates in the u.k. than in the united states and that is something for people to pay attention to. there was a time that people understood the second amendment to the constitution allowed you to bear arms for the protection of the public. there's a phrase in there about the militia. you can't lose that phrase because it doesn't mean i can build in the air weapon in my backyard and i can't walk around with a machine gun right in the middle of times square. we have to realize there is a control and a natural limitation in arms which exists in other countries and regardless of our 2nd second 2nd amendment is still asked to exist here. doesn't mean you ignore the second amendment. it means to read all the words in it, not just the words that you like. >> what are your suggested solution's political cultural or otherwise for the narrowing inequality? >> and equality is a very complicated topic because it impacts all of the other areas. it impacts health with a large disparity in life expectancy. it impacts educational opportunities in impacts democracy. impacts every aspect. in terms of creating a situation where we have a high degree of inequality you have to purchase a few things. firsters corporate governance. there is a was a time when the ceo worker ratio was lower than it is now in effect it used to be about one tenth the ratio. would happen? part of his society decided it's okay for ceos to make so much more and that is the decision by society. shareholders have to enforce the idea of having a voice. in other countries such as germany they have co-determined boards. worker said on the poor. shareholders have a stronger voice for the situation of the income itself. they're supposed to be said in that as well as at the bottom. our minimum wage is far low for as a percentage of gdp than other wealthy countries. someone whom works minimum wage in the united states will make roughly one third of gdp per capita. that's a far lower rate than other countries are raising that minimum wage. the same time our tax system controls what you get to keep and we have made a lot of changes to our tax loss over time. regardless of however political spectrum they come from no one can come up with the logical justification for why a hedge fund manager who makes millions of dollars makes 15% in taxes while the rest of the people sitting in this room pay far more. there is snow logical justification for it because it's just wrong and these are just basic things. there are far greater purchase but at its core if you want to attempt to account for income inequality you have to work on where the income comes from, that is looking at the minimum wage as well as the maximal wages and as well as looking at your tax system and your social benefits so you have to take the complete package and examine it. >> if we were to wave a magic wand and pass that federal law, what are your protections for the big ways in which the political landscape in our system of government would change? >> so, the proportion of representation i am referring to we are specifically talking in the house of representatives. the house of representatives, what you would see his first usc third parties now existing. you would see the end of gerrymandering because it just doesn't mean anything anymore. it would force more cooperation simply because you have to deal with people from the other side. it also will reduce the amount of extremism. so it has all of those benefits. that is the reality of moving proportion of representation. it also is a side benefit which is most likely and we can't promise this, the percentage of legislators who are women will increase. most experts and democracy identified the united states is such a low representation because of some of the ratifications in the singleseat winner-take-all election and the proportion of representation reuse use party list of the formerly a chance of having female representatives. >> based on your research which country would you most like the live? [laughter] >> over like to live in the united states of america. but i want the united states of america to be a great country 50 years from now on 100 years from now and that is the important thing. some people they take a negative spin on this book. they look at it and they say well this is america bashing and it's not america bashing. it's finding ways to identify if opportunities for improving america so we can become a greater society because i'm trained to look at it from the broader perspective. i'm not talking about what life is like he is going to be like in america six months or one year from now because these changes take time but i want to know one, to kafka month three generations from now we live in a world which does have a high degree of social economic ability in a world where we have leading health for everyone, where he do it greater educational opportunities for everyone, not just those who can afford and to me that is the most critical effect. >> building on that, what are the biggest ranks america has to draw from indigenous these issues? >> this is the competitive advantage. where does the united states excel. you hurt a lot of negatives but there are lots of positives as well. we have leading colleges and universities. we draw the top students of the world to come here. they come for universities and they come for our graduate schools. they come because of the opportunities for technology. they are fantastic here. they come for the opportunities for entrepreneurship. we have some of the lowest barriers to creating a business of any wealthy country and so what we need to do is we need to use those competitive advantages, drop of top talent in and give them an environment that encourages them to stay. also build a home here dad is great for everybody. so we take those competitive advantages and we talk about health there's a reason why people who are world leaders come to the united states are that risky surgery because they trust us as having those this great hospitals. another example of this having the best and bringing in the new. >> and a final question as we close out. would you be willing to start a political party dedicated to making the u.s. number one in and the five categories? you have at least one audience member who said they would support you. [laughter] >> i think i will just pass on that question, thank you very much. [applause] >> that built the president was not going to be a strong defender of american values and american principles, human rights, democracy, free enterprise, those words of apologies and those statements i think have emboldened those who find us as a weekend enemy. a group of law professors recently talked about the concept of racial biases and stereotypes that exist in the law. they discuss topics including tax policy, intellectual property law, native americans in health care. the form as part of the book entitled "implicit racial bias across the law." from harvard law school, it's 45 minutes. >> welcome back everyone to be implicit racial bias across the law log book conference. i will be introducing our panel chair and moderator. our panel chair today is quite a unique scholar. she is one of the few social psychologists who is employed at a law school. there are a few of them out there, but she is one of the few. is victoria plaut. she was previously assistant professor of psychology at the university of georgia and now she is joined the faculty you see per lean the law school and infectious teaching a course on implicit bias this fall. i would like to welcome her into would like to welcome the c-span viewers in the audience as well. vicki. [applause] >> he hi everyone. welcome to our afternoon panel on implicit bias in in a lot. my introduction would be extremely brief. we are short on time and we have many great presentations to listen to. following the presentations, we will have the facilitation so let me go in and start introducing each speaker. i will and should use all of them now and each one of them can come up and give their talks. i will ask two things. one is during the facilitation of all the both the panels could come back up here during the discussion and then second i have been told by the c-span folks, please if you have a question from the audience, please press the record button or the on button on your microphone before you speak. thanks. up we have professor dorothy brown professor of law at emory law school who will speak on stereotypes and they earned income tax credit. next we have professor daniel conway, the michael j. marks distinguished professor is this law from the university of why he. speaking on biases and intellectual property law, then we have the two will of susan serrano and breann swann nu'uhiwa speaking on implicit bias against native peoples as sovereign. susan is director of educational development at the center for excellence in native hawaiian law and breann swann nu'uhiwa is chief advocate in the office of hawaiian affairs. deanna pollard sacks while follow-up, professor of law from thurgood marshall school of speaking on implicit law inspired towards an and finally doctors augustus white allen melvin gordon distinguished professor of medical education professor of orthopedic surgery from harvard map of school. he will speak on the patients neglected pain, what can we do? the first four presentations represent chapters in the book that we have all convene to discuss today edited by adjusted levinson and robert smith, recently published by cambridge university press in their final speaker dr. white's presentation will relate to his recent book seeing patients unconscious bias in health care. thank you very much for being here and i look forward to our panelist presentations in our discussion afterwards. so with that, i won't handed over to dorothy brown. >> thank you. good afternoon. let's try that again. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> i've got good news and i've got bad news. the good news is i'm only speaking for 10 minutes and the bad news is i'm talking about tax. i write about race, class and tax policy in my book chapters about stereotyping the earned income tax credit and the idea of implicit bias in tax laws is really interesting because let me ask by a shared hand share of hands who here is ever filled out a tax return? turbotax tax return. who here has checked the box of on race and the tax return. nobody. there is no box on race on your tax return so if a lawmaker says i have no intention whatsoever to discriminate on the basis of race of course you can say yeah that has to be true because we don't even think about tax in the frame of race, so of course it's a challenge to me who wants to write about raising tax but the single best thing that has happened to me as an academic is we elected a black man president. white? because presidents and presidents with candidate since the 70's have disclosed their tax return so there's a phenomenal amount of information one can find out about race from looking at the obama tax returns but i'm not going to talk about that now. it's really fascinating and i'm writing a book about that. the book chapter on talk about looks at stereotyping they earned income tax credit. beer and income tax credit is a tax credit for the working poor. if if you make depending on how many children if her household, if it's three children of the $50,000 down to if you have no children, than the earned income tax credit phases out at the 12,000-dollar household income so it's a low income working taxpayer credit. it is designed to reimburse you for your federal income taxes withheld from your check as well as your social security taxes withheld from your check. it was originally created in the mid-70's. president ford signed in as a temporary measure designed to encourage work and designed to encourage taxpayers to not pay a penalty for working versus not working and getting the afdc payments by compensating for taxes. okay so it sounds but the great idea. in 2009, 27 million working families take advantage of the earned income tax credit and in 2106.3 million people were lifted out of poverty as a result of this tax credit. one of the unique features of the earned income tax credit is it's called a refundable credit, which means if your credit is greater than your federal income tax liability, you get a check from the government. that compensates you for your social security taxes. about two-thirds of all earned income tax credits compensate taxpayers for their federal income taxes in their social security taxes. about a third it over and above that amount, which in effect makes the earned income tax credit operators the minimum wage ad on. add-on. so many people agree the earning of a tax credit is a very good program lifting people out of poverty half of which are children, laudable. however, there's a 25% to 30% error rate. 25% to 30% depending on which you look at the dollars that are spent on the earned income tax credit. they are paid out in error. so, there is this activity -- there are mistakes being made and why is that? there are two competing explanations. one is because the people claiming the credit are cheating. they are just tax cheats. we know these people. wait a minute to credit only applies if you work. so i digress. there are people who are just trying to game the system. the other alternative explanation is it's a really complicated credit and they are making mistakes. okay so what are the data points? the data point i'd like to cite is a complicated credit or a series of facts actually. one, the irs booklet that accompanied the earned income tax credit is over 50 pages line has several computations involved. two, the gao to the did a study and they looked attacks return preparer's, taxpayers who prepare, to try to do their own calculation in the irs with the earned income tax credit application or the form that came to them. at every level, significant percentages made mistakes. data point number two, facts number three, about 60% of all taxpayers go to tax return preparer's but 72% of pe itc taxpayers go to tax preparer is. so as someone who is talking to who is looked at this and ivan ll m. in tax, when i seeing the burning of tax credits complicated the earning of tax credit is complicated. how it works is for every dollar of income you earn up to a certain amount you get a percentage of pe itc, up to a maximum amount so at some point your income hits a ceiling and as your income increases, you get no more additional credit. a flat lines. then you hit another point and as your income increases credit declines as a certain percentage for every additional dollar that you earn until you get to zero. that is complicated, and i left out the guts of it but that is basically it. it's a very complicated program and congress looks at the error rate and by the way the error rate it nor is those who are eligible for the end income tax credit that do not apply for it. i would argue that is part of the error rate too but in the studies they don't count that. so congress looks at this error rate and in the mid-90s when congress passed something called the child tax credit, there was a discussion on how the child tax credit was going to operate with the earned income tax credit. raising the complex to the times five. congress, many republican members of congress said, basically, we don't want the earned income tax credit taxpayer getting more from the child tax credit because they are getting wealthy. literally that is it quote. they are getting wealthier and suddenly working taxpayers were branded with with the welfare label and we know what happens when you are branded with the welfare label. in the mid-90s republican congress was battling with president clinton and the deal to save the earned income tax credit because the republicans wanted to kill it in its entirety because of the error rate was, president clinton will allocate a billion dollars for audits and crackdowns on earned income tax credits claimants is a way to save the program. i know who these people are. i know they are just trying to game the system so all we need to do is audit, audit, audit and if we audit we will be able to reduce the error rates. around the same time the irs was under a lot of heat in congress for how they were treating middle-class taxpayers who were being audited so what was the big bad irs and congress passes bill which demand a quick cut down the irs' ability to audit taxpayers. in the early 2000 ceiling taxpayers who were being audited for earned income tax credit taxpayers, and one could easily see that 25 to 30% error rate is being a really bad thing and we need to fix this. there something called the tax gap. the tax gap is the amount of money the irs treasury does not collect because people cheat. that is about three and a billion dollars. .. are is really what the cheating. the problem is that the complexity of the earned income tax credit. so what has congressional inaction with respect to simplicity down? withstand a couple of things. if you look at who the eit claimants are, one study showed over 2% are white. so while congress is using this rhetoric about wealth here, black people waiting for government checks, they are auditing to death low income taxpayers because they make up the majority of eit see claimants. if you wanted to target the lazy black taxpayer come you miss the mark. that was one problem. another problem, not simplifying as i mentioned before how the earned income tax credit taxpayers used tax return preparer's to a higher extent than the typical taxpayer. well, they also used anticipation loans to a higher percentage than the average taxpayer. in fact, 63% of all anticipation loans go to eit fee taxpayers. so all of this money that was designed to be put in the pocket of low-income taxpayers are going to tax and refund anticipation loan payers. another problem coaxing on fraud and not amplification does, if it misses the real tax cheats. so when we think of are to is that is contributing mightily to the $300 billion tax gap, small businesses. businesses that deal with cash. we know where they are, but those are hard working taxpayers that we don't want to be interested with the audit. so with coaxing all of the energy on low-income taxpayers, congress has really dropped the ball with respect to high income individuals, with respect to corporations, any number of players that actually earn significant amounts of money to pay less than their fair share in taxes because they figure out ways to cheat the government of italy, not legitimate tax loopholes, but figure out ways to cheat the government. so i just want to conclude by saying with respect to the earned income tax credit while focusing on reducing the error rate has done and harmed tax payers that congress never intended to harm. two, it has taken their eyes off of the real problem with respect to tax revenues that are not flowing into the treasury that should be flowing into the treasury. and finally, it hasn't allows simplification to occur. the earned income tax credit was designed to reward work. and when low income taxpayers have to pay money from the earned income tax credit to tax return preparer's into a refund anticipation loan originators, the earned in an tax credit is not working the way it was designed to work. so it teaches us something here. thank you. [applause] >> thank you a majority for that presentation. i know what to think justin levinson and is coeditor rob smith, for pulling this together to write such a provocative, but such an important piece of work. so i'm grateful to be here, painful to her for the school for the opportunity, particularly the charleston hamilton institute for hosting us. i am also grateful for those who both served a nonmajor panel because it so much information to impart to us to help us understand some of these dynamic and complex issues. so we just heard something dynamic and complex and attacks from. i am going to try to demystify how implicit bias operates in intellectual property law. i think you will be quite entertaining. i'll try to give you a couple examples to bring it home for you if you will. so many people think intellectual property and this is based on a narrative. many people think that is this object is an rational discipline within the law, that it has no pinch of gender or race bias. i propose to you that it is severely tinged and here is why. think about where we get our intellectual property origins lie. we get it from the u.s. can't dictation, specifically article i, section eight clause, which is our patent and copyright clause. so way back when, when the constitution was being considered and drafted, these framers imagine where they were and what their context was at this time. many of those who signed the documents were slaveholders themselves. so the cost of tuition as a flawed document has delivered the copyright clause in its original draft and what ipods is to a flawed drafting. so let me read that clause to you. article i, section eight clause and then i'll jump into why i believe that implicit biases operating in this realm. the article i, section eight, clause eight says to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. so think about what the framers were trying to do with that otherwise utilitarian language. they are trying to report monopolies to authors and inventors. but one has to question the context of the u.s. constitution and the drafters at the time. you have to ask who are they intending to reward with a monopoly for patent and copyright? they were not thinking about the slaves. they were not thinking about blacks who were brought here without well. they were thinking about their white slave owners. late professor keith d.o.t. has an excellent example that illustrates how this actually impacted the slaves. the example within the discovery of a better type make. who is doing the plowing? not the slaves. the slave is doing the plowing, but the slave is the one who came up with the invention. why? to make his work easier. did he get the benefit of the reward of a patent? love no, his slave master said these people are not worthy of being called adventures. they do not have the spirit of invention. they are not real people. so it is the slave owner who has the right to claim ownership to invention. so that is the origin and the belief system rapture on article i, section eight, clause eight. and that is where i would like to start getting you that story. and then introduce you to have that sinking has pervaded the patent and copyright clause in our legislation, particularly our copyright act legislation. and i propose to you that with in our copyright act we have another built-in bias based upon that constitutional premise and that built-in bias is that copyright law should prevail over it cause of action that has recently become vote for those who want to capitalize on their persona right of publicity. another reason that i chose these two to look at, to investigate the existence of implicit bias is because in american culture we have reverence for the copyright act. we have reverence for those who we think are creators of knowledge. so we want to reward them with the benefit of that creation. think about who many of these creators are writing about. they're often writing about, they're often creating work about the other, women, people of color. and those are the people who have recently understood that they are imbued with the right of publicity. but when you look at how the copyright act words as against the right of publicity in intellectual property law sphere, you will note time and again that the copyright act prevailed and many times preempt the right of publicity. now you may say that it's just a lot in action. but then you have to look at context and you have to understand, who are the copyright holders? many of our copyright holders who press for term extension are and the two shall copyright holders and who are these people for institution? they are the music companies, the media companies, the publishing company whose state that they have in essence created this thing that one may be calling another's right of publicity. i have an example of that for you. i look at in this chapter certain cases. one is that in a white case. at the fish in this case to try to explain how a white woman could be reduced to a level of illegitimacy because of the job that she does. she sued saint-saens were imitating her right of publicity because i don't know if you remember this commercial, but they developed a robot with a blonde wig and some jewelry and they spoofed her. they did not ask her permission. she sued them on the right of publicity cause of action. and although she eventually prevailed after an end-all trial , what happened was jeschke skin ski wrote a scathing dissent. and in his scathing dissent, he reduced her to not even a person but if you dressed up a monkey anyway, that monkey could do the job that vienna white has done, turning matters. now, i would've thought that can't be. but it is in his opinion. but the idea that they are if she is not a person who was legitimate and not to claim this right and charge can skin ski right it was not vienna who were created her right of publicity, but the show's producers who created her right of publicity. so she does not have a claim for that action. and that is an interesting position to take the cad if the institutional copyright holder has created her celebrity as well, saint-saens, a multinational corporation, saint-saens is that it didn't have because all i try to do was exercise freedom of expression against publicity. i write a comment to ask about the institutional copyright holder versus the right of publicity holder. in our society, culture is defined by the images we see. redefine who we are, what we believe many times by what we see in the media. so if the institutional copyright holder is given days position of supremacy over the right of publicity holder, often times but that creates is a scenario where the superior have the benefit of the others who have been particularly disenfranchised. so most of these cases think you will see, claiming right of publicity aren't coming from women, are coming from african-american because they are trying at the last straw to grasp what is most important in society. and that is the economic value of information that informs coulter. being able to define oneself and one's identity is what we have left in our economic toolkit. so in intellectual property that come to say this is important to begin to flesh out biased because this has economic implications. so to also provide you more context, what is it about the intellectual property regime that we should be challenging? we should be challenging this regime that says intellectual property the has no implicit buy-in and neck? we should be challenging that intellectual property law is rational and object to it and and neutral. we should be bringing to bear what we understand about implicit bias in the very important arena where we define culture and we actually bring an economic guy you to those information asset that we think is most important. i also want to give you another case examples to show you how implicit iss operating intellectual property. i don't know if many of you has any familiarity with paris celebrities. those we see on boxes of cereal send time or on products. well, there is a case about two that came about at the same time. one featured a celebrity who is an african-american and the other featured russell kristof, a white male. russell kristof was on the folgers coffee cup. i don't know if you remember him. and she and tony come a black woman whose son morreale permed products. said these cases going through their respective trial show how jurors reacted to those plaintiffs. june tony, her case initially dismissed on summary judgment. russell kristof on the other hand received $15.6 million for his claim a violation of his right of publicity. and then they just tell you what the court said in some of that case language. the court said, here is a gentleman who is revered, no longer a model. he's a kindergarten teacher, that he has a face that is very idea like. and so, we have to protect this person's image. we have to protect the fact that he has a persona that is able to call reference. but interestingly enough, with russell kristof, it seemed like what the court was most concerned about was that when his picture was put on soldiers charged in south america, and they darkened faces. and the court and the jury found that rather objectionable. so i think that had a lot to do this $15.6 million to jury. now that trial is under review, but i gave those to you as examples of how implicit bias operate in what otherwise would be considered rational object is the dispassionate and raised jurisprudence. thank you. [applause] >> hello, everyone. susanne and i would like to echo professor conway to the book editors, harvard law school, shouse hamilton institute and this morning's panel asked to giving us the opportunity to participate in this exciting and amazing dialogue and share our thoughts of you. we are both new moms a very young infants can a sofa break break it into songs and please excuse us. that is our daily work. the main proposition of our chat here is that implicit bias against native people, specifically a sovereign advance continuing dispossession of native land, native resources and self-governing authority in much the same way that explicit bias advance the initial dispossession of those things. while the ardent implicit bias question as professor lawrie noted this morning, part of addressing implicit bias is to provide necessary context to the contemporary problem is to make the implicit explicit in the present and for us, this involves shining a light on the direct line between mr. bias against native peoples in native peoples current struggles to repatriate land, resources and self-governing authority. susan has uncovered a few images that depict his story biased against native people genuinely and native hawaiians specifically and i'm going to turn the floor over to her for a moment to introduce those images. >> first, 1804, the death of jane macrae by jon vander land. savage, violent, cruel. 1869, harper's magazine the native person at a school for savage is begging, we want big he. uneducated and ignorant, inferior. 1893, this is a managed by the last reigning queen. primitive, subhuman, and native american control and altogether, they show native peoples are incapable of self-governance. >> is dominant, explicit serotype depicted in the sides was originally produced through three main steps. the first was to racialized native people in order to diminish their political identity. second, tribute negative characteristics to native people in their group capacity rather than individual capacity and third, conjure legitimacy for negative attribution by injecting them into the chemical discourse. if you indulge me, and like to go through each of those individually. this idea a phrase first of all. in many forms we take for granted this idea that discrimination against native people as racial bias without acknowledging the assignment of a racial identity to native people is a very deliberate, political maneuver. what i mean is that the times united states formed, the united states is a government has a much less agenda claim to the land and resources here than the native government existing in the same territory since time immemorial. so in order to justify the united states dominion over the state of governments, they have to shift what essentially is a legal objection, whether one can unilaterally dispossess another cybernovella discovered a bit dirty and resources and recast as a racial question of whether these purportedly superior americans control that the united states government had a more legitimate claim to land and resources and governing authority than the preexisting native government. professor bethany berger calls it the basic racist ms. outwork and it is significant progress to note that when we're talking about issues being faced by native communities in contemporary time comes that the idea that native communities are a race is very significant, deliberate and carried a framework of thinking about native people they depoliticize his native people and turns them into a race rather than political entity. the second is this idea of bias against a group for his bias against individuals. now in order to advance this idea dispossessing native government of the land and resources, the united states government has to attend to assimilate the individual spirit for that reason you can't have raised operating in much the same way that it operates with other groups because you want to have the notion that people can be functioning members of the dominant society. you have to disband political entities. throughout the bias is focused detonated societies as political groups as opposed to native people as individuals. this is not to suggest there wasn't any bias nativists individuals. this is just to suggest that the dominant discourse was really about native people functioning of government and as groups. and then the idea of conjuring up the gc for those biases than law. professor robert williams junior observed that a self regarding civilized society can engage in the horror of destroying another people for very long without appealing to a revered legal discourse to justify its past. so we see that in the early jurisprudence in the united states law and legal discourse being used as forcible tools performing and advancing the dominant negatives karyotype you see in these images. for instance, foundational supreme court cases articulated the federal government right to control native lands and people, describe native people as savages whose occupation was cooler and called them remnants of a race once powerful, now we can diminish the numbers. in shaming those depictions and how the supreme court decisions, legitimated those ideas for subsequent generations of americans to accept as given the notion that native people comprise a week and unsophisticated racial group as well as the attendant believed the united states has a right and duty to control and take care of those groups. the season is going to discuss a little bit how that historical bias manifests in the present time. >> today, such explicit characterizations that breann was talking about are rare. but the stereotypes are alive and well and are still harmful. using various measures, social sciences have documented existence of this no implicit bias against canadian aboriginal , native americans and native hawaiians. is actually only one study i know if i'm native hawaiians and justin london printed that one. i don't have enough time to discuss all the studies, but the four or five that we did find confirmed what we already know, that implicit bias against native peoples is real and pervasive. it occurs in various social context and it influences our thinking and our behavior towards native groups. specifically, these empirical studies show that today's implicit view of native peoples reflect at least three of the underlying racist assumptions that underlie the dominant stereotypes that breann describes. first, native people are less american than white or more foreign. so when that study, ironically people were easily associate american with white and native. second, native people are aggressive in the criminal law context, which is reminiscent of the savage were violently dispersed than. and that study, people were easily remembered or misremembered aggressive as by the native hawaiian person in different factual scenarios regarding contemplation. the last or nonacademic and in need of benevolent assistance. in other words, ignorant. there's two studies that we found and those showed that in partnership or group setting them in native americans in canadian aboriginals were viewed as preferring nonacademic test rather than academic ones or they were in need of a noble and assist in an intelligence or academic tasks. so i breann mentioned, of course these assumptions have deep, deep person u.s. law and legal discourse. when negative societies were described as foreign governments and as he said described as savages in the state of people it. but what is important here is the no implicit biases about native people still form the basis for most of the relationships that native people have with federal, state and local government. this is seen on legislation that the authority of the native people to govern is seen in case opinions come a modern-day case challenge ability of native people to govern responsibly. i don't have time. we have examples in our chapter. i don't have time to give them right now, perhaps at the end of time to explain some of those. indeed these lasting, lasting racist assumptions manifest now is implicit bias feel the notion that native people today are incapable of self-governance in the justify continuing acts of dispossession and deprivation he can then. so, what are some of the things we can start looking to address this? in our chat here, we contend that eliminating implicit bias dated people is an integral part of a larger project of repatriation of land, resources, of governing authority to native people. and very briefly, we urge researchers come a social scientist to range is karyotype against native people and the behavioral consequences of implicit bias against them. we exploit debasing techniques suggested by social scientists appropriate for this legal and cultural context and we argued that attempts to lessen or eliminate input bias against native people must take into account the historical, cultural, social root of this bias and in my seat to change the structures, legal, political and otherwise deserve to maintain these biases. thank you. [applause] >> hi, everyone. my name is deana pollard sacks. i'm very grateful to be here and honored to be part of this status group of scholars and after special thanks to c-span for bringing us from the academic world to the public. my presentation today is entitled to my delusions of the mind interested behavior. implicit bias is delusional thought. it is untrue ideas about people within the mind that manifests an unfair behavior. the word torte itself means twisted. it comes from that root means twisted. antisocial behavior. this can result from implicit bias in those results every minute of every day and our society. i decided to hone in today on a true example of implicit bias that happen to someone who i know very well in the legal academy. i'm going to call him rico and hopefully no one will know who i'm talking about because lasting and what to do to do is argue here is invade my friends privacy. rico is a strike in the attack give mexican-american mancome in the academy is adult, tall, dark and handsome. rico graduated from the top law schools in the country, just like harvard and decided he wanted to become a law professor. so you win on the market and gave a presentation at a law school and did a very good job from what i hear. i was not there. the faculty of the discussions about him, a number of the women object to do hiring him to do when instead he made them feel comfortable. they said that he seemed to end the word womanizer was raised. these are married men with children and the conceited thing had some fascinating as i was looking into his area types as part of my bookshop or and came across an article that said the number one stereotype applied to attract people as they are conceded. i would have guessed they were. at number one as they are conceded. from first-hand experience i have a lot of really attract to friends and they are the least selfish people i know. i thought it may be because people expect them to beat you didn't treat him with hostility and they end up with low self-esteem. that aside, point-blank come to rico is not conceded. he is one of the nicest people i've ever known and has been a great source of support for me personally. so talking about what happened to rico, i will focus on three questions. one is causation. how did such a nice guy getchar or is it away so untrue? second is normative. should we use tort law or do we leave it to public discourse and private discourse could the third is a practical question. if we accept what liabilities and means of addressing the problem, how do we do that? the first question, how did the stereotypes about hispanic men lead to rejection is a law professor? before you get too sad, some of it up and took exception and he did and it can manage up in the legal academy in part because someone brought the fact they thought he was being stereotyped. why do these women not like him? what did he do? when pressed, these women had no answer for most of us are aware that hispanic male stereotype conjures up images of machismo, sultry,, chauvinistic. this is very think it came from. ricoh doesn't have those characteristics, but because his hispanic outlook are so salient, it brought in a flood of assumptions about what kind of person he is, even though they didn't match the content of his character at all. it happens all the time. i think his biggest crime of showing acute and hispanic and that was all it took for stereotypes to come in and for him to be rechecked as a candidate, despite being a fabulous candidate. so the next question is the normative one. we want tort liability as a way of addressing this problem? a tort is an act of civil wrongdoing a tort is an act of civil wrongdoing a tort is an act of civil wrongdoing a tort is an act of civil wrongdoing wrong behavior, antisocial behavior, behavior, perverse behavior as opposed to fair, just and honorable behavior. tort liability is the barometer of civil expectations. if we fall below that, we can be liable. we can be sued and paid money damages. it is bad because it hurts individuals command but also society at large and misses by what unitive damages, for example, to make sure it goes beyond the context of an individual lawsuit goes out and deters others because the hear about admitted damages. candidate damages are the greatest amount of damages in a lawsuit. carlson and kate refer to tort law as a battleground of social theory. scholars agree that tort liability is extremely flexible and it responds to social problems. since the mid-19th century in a country starting with brown v. kendall, we all have what liabilities around assault. he must prove something good intelligently. but that's about to change. the mid-20th century with the advent of liability, we as a society decided it wasn't so important to prove fault. it's more important to make sure we've got social policy and ensure compensation to the dems. we've always begun to depart from the fall principle over the years and i think it's happening more and more. i discussed this in my chapter, they've departed altogether from a duty of care. we've seen behavior so wrong that we can't tolerate were not going to worry. we'll just go ahead and bypass the duty of issue or say there is duty when there really wasn't one. a quick example was in california of 83 word bartender refused to allow anon patron to use 202-737-0002 make a 9-1-1 call from a emergency call another non-patient to death outside of the bar and the bartender said i'm not letting me use my phone. i don't have the duty to you. i don't know if he uses words, but that was the idea. the court in california said we don't care basically. what he did was so wrong in so antisocial. the man died. he was beaten to death, possibly because the bartender went at the anon patron make a call. we need to watch what we do with tort law in order to make sure we continue to construct the society we want. the turn of the 21st century is the law as an expression, a tool of social engineering. and again, this is a way of sort of looking at tort liability differently. not so much based on fall, but maybe the idea that when people understand that something is wrong for, and may influence the way they behave and change the norm. my favorite example is a law in sweden. in may 279, was the first country in the world to ban parental spanking in the privacy of one's home. and the suites are pretty upset about this in the beginning, but after time they accepted it and now they wouldn't have it any other way. though i had no penalty. no criminal penalty come in a civil penalty, but it works because it got people to think about it. just thinking and talking about a change the law and the way people behave without penalty. assuming we believe tort liability as a way of addressing this issue, how do we do a? implicit bias can't constitute toward any more than an unspoken thought. the only way we can do this is to say predicate port and if we can show implicit bias caused that tort, will enhance remedy of some way. so one example might be punitive damages. not so much fault, not so much punishment, but exposing the seriousness of the problem by making damage worse outcoached media's attention and sparked public discourse. get people thinking and talking, get people to see this is not much ado about nothing. implicit bias causes serious injury to people, loss of job opportunities, loss of life sometimes in the prison system. now the other thing that i thought might work as equitable remedies. in ricoh's example, i think what happened there is the hiring process associate checked to and often arbitrary. we don't have set rul we don't have forms to fill out. this is line voting ubiquitous in our academy, which i disagree with. when you do things in a subjective manner, that's an implicit bias comes away. more objective means forces people explain why they vote the way they are. in a situation like that of ricoh or to bring a claim, maybe a court could fashion a remedy until the law school how you must hire. you must look at people's academic background. you must review scholarship record and create some kind of quantitative analysis of why you how you are who you are hiring. that is one way of possibly dealing with implicit bias in making sure these delusions in one night based purely on the person's physical exterior don't end up costing a person a lifetime of job security millions of dollars. it is a multimillion dollars contract from a lifetime of security and prestige. and so i think that realistically portlock could be used as a means of conscious bias. it is unfair, ubiquitous. very few people know about it. and if we did allow some liability to provide both remedies to the dems and also sparked debate and get people thinking about it and talking about it and possibly lead us to a more fair society for everyone. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, my fellow humans. it is a pleasure to be able to participate in this milestone conference and i too am grateful to all of the organizers and concealers and developers and i'm very much appreciate the privilege. i have learned a great deal and appreciate the opportunity to be involved in the dialogue. my assignment essentially was implicit racial bias across the law as related to medicine and i thought a little bit about it and came up with a slightly different topic, but the same content i would say. but the doctors had brain, the patients neglected pain, what can we do about it? i'm going to try to cover those three items as we go forward. some months back i was asked to present a dr. martin luther king lecture at a major hospital in massachusetts. i was trying to make it more interesting. and i was sort of tried to be a little cute with it. so i said, why do we say.working birthday. why do we say what would your martin luther king like us to know about health care disparities? said that's what i did. i ran across a quote after doing that and i hadn't seen the quote before, but here it is. of all the forms of inequality, injustice and how is somewhat shocking and inhumane. one.her team was a very wise man, very insightful man. i do think he said that? we've been talking for days here come the last two days about all the injustices. why is injustice in health care the most shocking and inhumane? we think about it a little bit. when we most vulnerable? when we must frighten? one of the most insecure? when we have to speak another language or understand that their language and moreover we may go to a stranger to get the help. so what is a blood place to be and it's a very inhumane reality. this is sort of the proof, a book written 2002, unequal treatment. just to clear the deck, i think this irrefutably documents all kinds of health and equities and is quite pervasive in all do a quick review. first of all, they reviewed about 600 peer-reviewed articles and literature that demonstrated, documented disparity in health care. can you describe all the different individuals at risk and were going to look at that. but these studies were done with? like controls. socioeconomic status was controlled, insurance was controlled, stages of the season comorbidities all controlled and yet these inequities are well documented. so it turns out there's roughly 13 groups of people that experience health care disparities. so let's look at it. african-americans, the appellation poor, asian-americans, alternately, immigrants, latinos, native americans, obese people, people living with disabilities with some religious groups, women and not just minority women and prisoners. now please raise your hand if you're not in any of these groups and you don't know buddy who is that you care about. okay. so let's look at some of the specific situations. again, 600 in the literature. african-americans receive fewer kidney and liver transplant. if they have diabetes are more likely to have an amputation. with prostate cancer, they are more likely than other swift as as a treatment. among all women as compared with men, they receive fewer chart replacements, women do. less medication following heart attacks and even that emt services don't get women to the hospital with heart problems as rapidly as men. and this kind of summarizes actually. [inaudible] tommy what's wrong. well, you're not a white male. this is a way to look at some of these things. latinas i didn't mention. i say that now because we talk about the patients neglected pain. so that shows less pain medication for major fractures in latino males in southern california. major long bone fractures. these bones, thigh bone, bone before the need. it shows that latino males going to the emergency room in a major southern california medical center received narcotic medication for their fracture. and we know that they're not hysterical. you can't take them very well and it's easy to diagnose. it's not a controversial diagnosis. you just take an x-ray. these individuals are 50% less likely of getting narcotic be medication for a first long bone fracture. this is so shocking and dramatic that the city was repeated in atlanta for this time of african-american males, the site seems to have the same result found. so, this has been covered in a lot of ways by different speakers in different ways. but it would just like to share with you it talks about the inertia of racism. we talked about it as socialization, environmental racism. but this is a racial iceberg and an iceberg is 90% below the surface, 10% above and above the surface of the things we've been talking about the most part today, the encounters, torts, difficulties. at iceberg is in a sea of history. i think this is really helpful to me to get a feeling, an understanding of the center should come environmental racism. it depends on the fact that in the sea of history this racial iceberg is supported, has its inertia, power and effect and that is due to compacted still by slavery, jim crow, colonialism, the civil war itself, japanese internment, immigration, lynchings, chinese internment act, the manure doctrine, mexican-american war, all of these historical events are not just in the history book in the past, but their effect in our day-to-day dvds and day to day realities. this is from a book that i'm going to suggest to you. i would like to share with you this definition of race. race is a doing, a dynamic set of derived in institutionalized ideas and practices that source people into ethnic groups according to perceived physical and behavioral humans are your six that are often imagined to be negative, and neat and shared. so see differential value, power and privilege but these care or mistake establishes a hierarchy among the different groups and confers opportunity accordingly. now isn't that what we've all been talking about all day in various iterations in various places but all those dynamics are quite realistic and i think this is a very powerful definition that comes from this book, which i recommend to you. if you are here coming up to something out of this book i promise you. it comes largely from the center of comparative studies of race and ethnicity at stamford, published by norton press. editors are marcus and more yet. it really addresses in a very scholarly way many, many of the various spurious realities we deal with. i only showed this when i talk about implicit bias. and that's presented this morning, if you don't have it come in the privacy of your living room to come find out whether your biases whether there's old people, black people, women, obese people, whatever you want a checkout of the privacy of your own room. so why did i say that doctors had brain? well, my life isn't orthopedics by insurgents another 10 years ago i discontinued clinical practice and got involved in medical education. i had the pleasure of being able to work with others and these issues and these issues head of information i came away red of information i came away with, reality -- i studied in college, but this book is a wonderful collection of subconscious bias and that's called the hidden brain. so that's why set the hidden dream and neglected pain. suppose doctors who neglected the pain of the african-american patients, the stress fractures in atlanta and latino patients in southern california, they're hidden brain was alive and well and these are numerous, numerous examples of this book. here is one of the examples. if you look at this, this is a graph of the pounds -- i'm sorry , liters of milk and pounds paid in an office in england. the different paths represent sequential we. it was an honor system. you go to the place, but your milk and an honor system you put a pound of the kitty. the demonstrators were able to show off alternate weeks, not very much and we tended to go, but more in week nine and alternating, the dark.show more money went in the kitty, closer than on the honor system. on alternate weeks they didn't get his much as they should have. what was man was next to where the milk was on the wall there were pictures. if you look at this, in the first week they didn't get much money there were flowers on the wall. the next week their eyes on the wall. contributions when the good the following week, et cetera. follow it all the way down. but the bottom there, look at those eyes. there was a good payoff that particular week. so when the experiment was over, the people indicated that they had no idea. they didn't notice any pictures or anything else on the wall, but the hidden brain was operative in that circumstance. the study mentioned earlier that you can take someone who says they're not biased and give them at iat test. the are residents by the way. you have them do a test to treat patients. those who are not biased but showed up on the test is biased did not treat the african-american patients with the same treatment they deserve gore should've had in that particular study. the other thing we should say is when you stress, psychologists also more likely to have biases and stereotypes become operative. this is a long list of things that stresses dr. spears sir james and depression, 30% depression and there's this long list. personal financial data, keeping progress of knowledge. you'll need to read 365 things here to keep up with literature for your internal medicine doc or, struggle for reimbursement. this one surprised me. violence and health facilities are four times as common as another prototype or industries. i don't want to say overtime, so the solution is education, education, education. thus we've been talking about. that doesn't do it all. i hope this psychologists here and scholars here will teach us how to reeducate the subconscious. i look forward to that. that will help us a lot. this is a book available. this is my time from a physician's disc, 52 years of experience taking care of patients over the years and how i think some of the things that happen in the doctor patient relationship and how some suggestions on how to provide equitable care and suggestions for patience as to how to hope doctors help them to receive equitable care. and the main theme of thatcomic into the details now, but the main theme is to seek our common humanity. doctors should look for the human element of the patient and interact and relate to the human element. patient should look for the human element and connect and relate to the human element. there's other things we can do of course with a better cultural understanding. and the privilege 63 to a breakfast with dr. king in oakland, california and i didn't have to turn much, but i was greatly inspired and i will always remember the inspiration continues to have been in his presence. we knew were in the presence of a special person. i believe dr. king would want us to continue to strive to be a more humane society and for doctors and nurses and others as you and miss her and to be humanitarian bowl model says that it did try to get closer and closer to our humanity and eliminate all of the various isms we are confronted with. thank you or image for your attention. [applause] >> thank you, palace for your breath again and type of presentation and also for staying in time. we are doing so well. we have our entire half-hour for facilitation. first i'm going to make a comment. implicit bias is essentially the operation of unconscious, automatic association in the mind, associations that are as these panelists help us appreciate, rooted in history and how to rationalize or legitimize or justify a particular system. and all of the presentations touched on those names in some way. they help identify with some of the assist each of our how they are used to justify the treatment of certain groups. associations such as foreignness , violence, laziness, ignorance, dehumanization, inferiority and evaluation, laziness, fraudulent, hypersexuality. as the panel a shows, their implications from across various areas of law from tax to ip, two self-governance, to tort, madison and why is far from neutral. professor waite asked psychologist to help educate, to help us learn about how to educate subconscious. i would also push us to find ways to educate about history, what actually transpires and also to educate on how to question the entitlement that a lot of the panel is presentation helps to reveal as operating in society. i'm going to transition now to the facilitated part of this panel. we have and the audience esteemed practitioners come to think the full scholars, esteemed social scientist. we have as one of our two co-facilitators between, and dean's camille nelson will lead our facilitation. i would like to ask for panelists to come down. i'm going to remove the podium and if you could please come down around the desk. .. at. >> has the analysts get situated, i want to start a for asking you to please cent-a-share your thoughts. dr. white said at the closing implicated the reason we are here today is the impact question in. what is a growing body of work with the intersection of law throughout to social sciences. what next? do we have to search to find common humanity across various disciplines? how does that look? we look at the tax system. irs. patented attorneys, legislators, those that do with our quest for sovereignty. how you feel about that potential? where do we go from here? i would love to hear from the panel of experts as well. questions? comments? professor? >> i wonder if we might not start by having the panelist give us some insight to based on their work where we go from here. and what you may have wanted to say to us but you are so proficient of time keeping. >> we went to make sure to chime in to eliminate your microphones other virus they can give us more wisdom. dr. white? >> irate about racial disparities at nursing homes where do we go now is to change the lens of the focus of the questions we are asking. health care reform is individual responsibility a. moving away from the institution in causing problems. with the obesity crisis legislatures and a policy keep people from drinking soda with the tax but it ignores the reality there are no course restorers our health care facilities. positions have moved out of those communities. we need to acknowledge the structural bias that if you give people to access it is great. but what happens when they have health insurance and not being treated? we need to focus not just individual but all issues that cause racial disparities within health care. >> i was going to attempt to respond in the generic question. i am a surgeon so i oversimplify. cut it out or don't cut it out. i have arrived at the conclusion the world is the eternal battle could guys and bad guys. we don't have solutions now. we should look whatever our discipline s there are studies to be done this a you can work to establish those. people have to have access. the psychologists and give us more and more and manipulating the ability to control unconscious bias. end but some are trying to work on organized things but we need to do more with public education so people understand the paradigm. they can help the doctor. that is one area. focusing on humanitarianism humanitarianism, getting rid of the chartwell education isms. that is the conflict and the challenge in my opinion. >> i was fortunate to be often a panel last week and i shared a very similar presentation but talking about intellectual property rights within indigenous communities. one panelist suggested in his presentation, of the types of things you talk about fallen to a category of justice fatigue. we fight to the big fights but people don't think of economic incentive for intellectual property. so one place because people are missing out to and what can raise their level or ability to be considered by increasing their wealth by monetizing what they have control over. as this is compiled with the second and company, new 1/2-- have to look it model. >> professor conway with the christoph example the in the litigation and award tied to what the professors said this morning would gain opportunistic way. it is interesting on her point* from this morning because he could establish the darkening of his image would prove harmful. >> she is the movement personified on how the case should be litigated and how appellate courts should respect to the jury for recognize seeing a identity and persona those who are the fundamentals power of the intellectual property arena. >> i want to follow-up uneconomical six. how much money you can keep helps build wealth. i wrote to why the above is paid to much in taxes. above the had 5 million most of that wasn't coming from his book. it was a book royalties that is taxed as wages that 35% but the effective tax rate was 32% of the typical effective rate of the five million-dollar couple is 23%. workdays single-handedly trying to reduce the deficit [laughter] no. he makes half from stocks and dividends and capital gains tax at no more than 15%. we have the myth of the more income the higher the tax bill. we have to tax systems for pro separate and unequal. up at 35% but those who have enough money to own stocks pay taxes at 15% every dollar you get to keep $0.65 vs. $0.85. people's eyes glaze over and they turn the channel but it is your tax story list in and get mad and right congress. everybody says they're laws that way because congress is captured by special interest. they are captured by congress. is quicker to get through the senate but the typical public at large less than one it in five own stock in a way that makes them eligible because they own in their retirement accounts behalf to own it the way warren buffett owns it. list them one added five make an eligible for the 15% so we're left behind. war and four in may 9 at 10 own stocks in a way that makes them eligible for that 15 percent rate to their not captured by rich people. they are stock the mix of eligible. don't expect congress to fix this is in your financial interest and unless they realize it they cannot keep their job then they will not >> thain q4 am i inane the presentation. professor you mentioned president's day losses with the native people and could you eliminate? >> even eight -- 11 ase. >> there are two or three we highlighted. the tribal line order act flow sentence for a longer period time with higher fines but in order to access the authority they have to use the western kors systems to provide some rights then they can access that higher sentencing authority. the unintended effect customary laws are silenced the reveals that government that looks like traditional government structures are less capable to put out justice in the appropriate way they and western government that is one major example the other is more stock driven -- stock trends like the federal power over native people which gives congress unfettered authority to legislate. that there is a relationship that persist even though the a.d. is our antiquated. >> professor? >> what is the easiest ways in most cost-effective ways of how it comes out in statements made by others is to call people ought to he lost the faculty vote to the reporter was incense and said i think you vote against him because he is so good looking. three vote was called and he got the job. call people out. in have been december louis in a hostile -- high-school. the pit -- epitome of what we want. shrewsbury's successful, very sweet and kind hearted. somewhen made his statement she thinks she is better than us. i said wait. what is that based on? because she is beautiful? did you say she was beautiful? she is wonderful. people straightened up that i had the gall to call out. we're lawyers. you don't have the evidence. we have taken evidence class is. you don't state your opinion but you have to testify to the facts knowing this we should know better for things we cannot back up. we need to be conscious. people need to justify what they say. >> the conversation we have had over the last few weeks but impossible solution of the hiring scenario within the educational system? extrapolate into other settings. or the objective approach do have the confidence of could judges where the court system? what is the role of education and curricula of that has the mandatory component of cultural competence in the law? as we think about our curricula in how we develop that with faculty governance, how important it is it we think about these innovations? >> i said what would shock half of the faculty do you realize if title seven is enacted you have to disclose your vote to. as legal scholars we should set the standards. teach people about lot, just as coming employment discrimination. it happens every day as far as i know. it is an abomination -- abomination. we should not need a court to tell us how to higher for goodness sakes. we should said it right and have others think through how it should be done. i am blown away from the academy talked-about people's credentials and a blind voting. if that action is filed you better be ready. >> if you don't already please know the american association of medical colleges has a tutorial for research committees and does a nice job to review these issues with the unconscious bias. i will just suck in to what you said about speaking up. that is very important. lastly, the idea of cultural literacy. you should know how to read. i think all educated people with the cross-cultural interactions but those interactions are cross-cultural. tell we have basic education and it would receive? >> i have been a law professor since 1961. most of our fall will bring the law of which is the rules are for the bad people. as a defense why he was not to begin the fed is the challenge. it is very interesting to pick up on the last comment how well laid out the principles are within medicine. how well we teach the students. from your presentation, we have always to go. we don't structure or nothing in the year that same expectation to teach students or professors about the potential for bias to talk about gender race to put in context within the last 20 years we neutralize the terms in teaching sell it is not just the reasonable man but now the reasonable person. that has only developed over the last decades. we have a long way to go and can start now. >> but it to think about institutional responsibility to control bias. listening to the doctor i was is zero biden because she was teaching us we are unapologetically utilitarianism to benefit those we want to benefit. intellectually property law is underlying the property regime. we have a false narrative talking about promoting authors as if they are individuals. but the real benefactor are the institutional copyright holders. the pharmaceutical companies. they lead you into the area of hiv/aids. it is pervasive. they cannot break this institution regime have to reject institutional responsibility when the status quo is meant to protect that? >> it does not matter talk about diversity. or is the structure so deep and entrenched with the it leviathan? >> a question going back, do we have time? regarding the hawaiian islands how much of the land is sovereign, owned by the native hawaiians? what are they doing with the land that they have under their control? but to improve their linus shift to bring in much needed revenue. unfortunately in new england the only business in the tribe's have our casinos. but at least they're doing much better than they were before hand. >> your question and raises many important points. native hawaiians are not recognized by the federal government as self-governing as many on the continent are. recognize the formal governance that is part of the chapter. i hope you can read it. but it has been 10 dain and put it has been expressed of of the committee for indian affairs the chair has to have some sort of parity between the other native communities with respect to self governance that some sort is forthcoming. as far as what may end, that is high and the controversial. the native community would say everything. many would agree there are certain pockets native hawaiian authority

Related Keywords

Australia ,China ,Minnesota ,United States ,California ,Austria ,Russia ,Connecticut ,San Francisco ,Mexico ,Netherlands ,Massachusetts ,Hawaiian Islands ,Hawaii ,Belgium ,Vienna ,Wien ,Cambridge ,Cambridgeshire ,United Kingdom ,South Korea ,Spain ,Canada ,Malaysia ,Japan ,Germany ,Oakland ,Kentucky ,Georgia ,Colombia ,Sweden ,Khama ,Sakhalinskaya Oblast ,Paris ,Rhôalpes ,France ,Italy ,Americans ,America ,Canadian ,Chinese ,Mexican ,Korea ,Britain ,Hawaiians ,Hawaiian ,Soviet ,Japanese ,American ,Warren Buffett ,Martin Luther King ,Camille Nelson ,Bethany Berger ,Russell Kristof ,Jane Macrae ,June Tony ,Arne Duncan ,Dorothy Brown ,Daniel Conway ,Robert Williams ,Robert Smith ,Allen Melvin Gordon ,December Louis ,Brown V Kendall ,Justin Levinson ,Susan Serrano ,Deana Pollard ,Deanna Pollard ,