tv Dr. Ben Carson at the National Press Club CSPAN November 7, 2015 3:04pm-4:02pm EST
people. and they were supposed to expose and inform the people in a nonpartisan way. when they become partisan -- which they are -- they distort system as it was supposed to work. and they allow the side that they pick to get away with all kinds of things. and i think there's still hope for the press. i think it is possible that some of them will recognize that it's almost a sacred obligation that he was to the people -- that they have to the people to be honest. [applause] now, you know, just in the last
week, you know, my own case, you know, they take something that i say about the shootings in oregon and don't put the part in where i was answering the question, don't put the question in, just give the response and say, see, he's being critical of the people. i mean, the good thing is that a lot of the people in america are on to them and understand what they're trying to do, and that's one of the reasons we're doing well. and it seems like the more they attack me, the better they do. [applause] because people expect that, you know? and, you know, last week, you know, i'm leaving a press conference, getting ready to get on the bus, and a reporter says can you tell, can you tell me what you're going to do about the hurricanes? i said, good-bye, i don't know, you know? the next day, carson wants to be president,s has no idea what to do about hurricanes. [laughter] i mean, this is the level of insincerity that we see.
finish and -- and it really is kind of embarrassing to see that. and it happens on the other side too. it's not just on one side, you know? i was doing an interview with wolf blitzer yesterday, and he's asking about, you know, renewal of the voting rights act. and, you know, of course i want, you know, renewal of the voting rights act or at least the aspect of it that protects all americans' rights the vote. to vote. but, you know, it's a much longer conversation about what needs to be done to it before it is renewed, you know? it was, you know, something based on conditions 50 or 60 years ago. a lot of things have changed since that time. we certainly don't want to empower the department of justice to do some of the things that the holder justice department did based on that bill. so, you know, everything needs to be looked at in its context.
and when news media pick one word or one phrase and they run with it and they try to characterize people like that, i've got to tell you guys, that's why people don't trust you anymore. i mean, you're down there with used car salesmen. [applause] and, you know, we should -- [applause] so what is it going to take to save our country? courage. it's going to take courage by all of us, including the press. and we have to begin to think about those who come behind us. because what would have happened to us if those who preceded us were little chicken livers? whwhatfwhwhfwhat ifwhat i take risk? what if on d-day our soldiers invading the beaches of normandy
had seen their colleagues being cut down, a hundred bodies laying in the sand, a thousand bodies laying in the sand? what if they had been frightened and turned back? i contend to you they were frightened. but hay didn't turn -- but they didn't turn back. they stepped over the bodies of their colleagues knowing in many cases that they would never see their homeland or their loved ones again. and they stormed those axis troops, and they took that beach, and they died. why did they do that? be they didn't do it for themselves. they did it for you. and they did it for me. and now it's our turn. what are we willing to do for
our children? for our grandchildren? are we willing to stand up? are we afraid that somebody's going to call us a nasty name? or that we're going to get an irs audit? or that somebody's going to mess with our job? you know, we have a lot less to lose than they did, and the people who are always telling me be hang in there, don't let them get to you, believe me, do not worry about it. because the stakes are much too high. thank you very much. [applause]
>> thank you, dr. carson. have many questions including many questions about foreign policy. we have president putin intervening in syria supporting the assad regime, and this morning we learned that the president of the united states is ending program for training the anti-assad rebels. how would you, as president, approach the syrian situation? what actions would you take? >> well, i think it's a very serious situation, and i think we cannot simply be passive in a situation like this, you know? when russian generals tell us, you know, we don't want you guys flying in this area, my response to him would be go take a flying leap. we'll fly anywhere we want to. but i think we ought to be establishing our own no-fly zone
in conjunction with turkey. and i think we need to recognize that why is he really there? you know, he said he was coming there to fight isis. has he really been fighting isis or al-nusra and everybody who, in fact, so opposing assad? i think that's the real thing. and you'll look and see that assad is also getting a lot of help from the supreme leader of iran. what's going on there? see, because, you know, these relationships are complex. some people are a little surprised when i indicated that putin and ali actually have a long-term relationship as does mahmood abbas. abbas and khamenei were in the same class in university at
moscow, graduating class of '68. and they were already quite familiar with a young vladimir putin at that time. and i believe that putin is very desperate right now because oil prices are very low. that's what's really been precluding his expansionist activities. not us, believe me. st the economic situation. it's the economic situation. now, he can get a foothold in syria and then begin to spread his influence throughout that region. and if he can gain control of significant energy reserves, he might then be able to have a much more, much more control on energy prices throughout the world. and that will then embolden him because he will be strengthened to do what he needs to do.
but we need to fight him everywhere, you know? we need to be reestablishing the missile defense system, i think, in eastern europe. we need to be supplying arms to the ukraine. we said we were going to protect them if they gave up their nuclear weapons. they gave them up, did we protect them? of course not. you know, we turned our back on israel. you know, i don't think the rest of the world is sitting by and noticing we renege on our responsibilities. so we need to oppose him at every step. we also need to take advantage of his economic weakness by using our economic strength in very wise ways. >> the house is looking for a new speaker, and there's a report that mitt romney called paul ryan and urged him to run for speaker. is paul ryan the guy? should he run for speaker? and as president, how would you work with congress to end the gridlock that's defined washington so often?
>> paul ryan is a fine person. i like him. i like a lot of people in congress. i hope the process plays out. i hope that a number of people will present their philosophy more leadership and that -- for leadership and that there's an opportunity for the members of congress to see who they want to work with as their leader. and what i would do is i would have a policy of talking. you know, the current administration doesn't talk a lot to the people in congress, not even to their own party. how can you come to resolutions without talking? i mean, what happens before people get divorced? they stop talking. the next thing you know, their spouse is the devil incarnate, you know? that's what we're seeing. and, you know, we all basically want the united states to succeed. we have different philosophies about how that's going to be
done, but i think if we're willing to sit down and talk about it, then we find that we're not nearly as far apart as we think we are. we do have to keep the instigators out and the people who try to irritate and agitate, you know? good example of that is, you know, a few weeks ago when i was op "meet the press," and i said i think anybody from any religion or any background who is willing to embrace our values and is willing to put our constitution above their belief system is acceptable to me. i don't know why that is a difficult subject for people to understand. but anyone who is belief system does not conform to our constitution and who is not willing to put that under our constitution, why would that person be the leader of this country? that doesn't make any sense.
[applause] >> in your first three months in office, what would be different and how will the people know it? >> well, first of all, i would call for a joint session of congress, and i would want them to know that under a carson administration we recognize that the people are at the pinnacle and that we work for them and they don't work for us. and we have to begin to also understand that we are americans first and democrats and republicans second. or maybe even third. you know, we have to stop fighting each other. because one of the things that i think threatens to destroy our nation is the extreme divisiveness. and we've gotten to the point where we believe that if somebody be disagrees with you, then you will need to try to
destroy them, destroy their family and their livelihood. where did that come from? i guarantee you it did not come from our judeo-christian values and roots. [applause] >> as president, who would you want as chairman of the federal reserve and/or what kind of qualities do you want in that person? >> honesty and common sense would be good starters. and that's not to say that we haven't had such people. you know, i like janet yellen. you know, i served on a board with her. she's a very decent person. i think she's trying very hard. but you've got to realize that we've put the fed in a very difficult position right now. because of the amount of debt that we've accumulated. it's very hard for the fed to allow interest rates to rides to a reasonable -- to rise to a
reasonable level with an $18 plus trillion national debt. the debt service on it with an interest rate suppressed almost to zero is still $250 billion a year. can you imagine what it would be if we allowed the interest rates to rise to their normal levels? so we need to be working on driving that debt down, and i have some ideals about how that can be done. and that can have a very ameliorating effect and some freedom for the fed. but the other thing is i would like to see somebody who understands that we can't just print money based on the good maim and faith and -- name and faith and credit of the united states of america, you know? we decoupled, you know, in 1971 -- 1933 and 1971 from the gold standard. it doesn't have to be gold. there are other things that it can be coupled to, but we need to have some responsible
underline to what we do. and i think it would make a big difference. >> you mentioned your comments on "meet the press," and i've gotten several questions from the audience about, related to that. one questioner says muslims serving in the -- there are muslims serving in our united states military, our police forces n our courts, our school boards, our city councils, so on and so forth, so how is it okay for a muslim to serve and die in the military to defend our values or for a judge to uphold the constitution even though the faith of those individuals are incompatible with the constitution they are sworn to protect and uphold? long question, but you get where they're going here. >> well, again, a good understanding of the constitution answers that question for you, because when you look at the article ii and
we're talking about requirements for the president, they have to be a natural born citizen. now, why is that the case? be -- i'm sure if you had gone to the founders and said but what about this person? they may not be a natural born citizen but, you know, they've been in america for most of their life and, you know, they're a fine, upstanding citizen, they have served in the military, they came back, they were on police be force. -- police force. can't they be the president? and they would have said, no. they said we don't even want to take the slight chance that we would put someone in that position who had different loyalties. that's the answer to your question. [applause] >> question here about your
opposition to obamacare, and the question along the lines of you're a doctor and, obviously, all the parts of medical care are important to you; preventative care, many of the things that obamacare provides. so the questioner is wondering how your values as a doctor and the importance of people getting health care squares with your opposition to this program that has given so many access to health care. >> chomping at the bit for that one. [laughter] you know, first of all, the reason that i don't like the so-called affordable care act not because it doesn't work and not because it's not affordable, but the real reason is because it flies in the face of the very principles of the establishment of this country. this country was supposed to be of, for and by the people with the government there to
facilitate life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. with that act the government comes along and says i don't care what you people think. this is what we're doing. we're cramming it down your throat, and if you don't like it, too bad. well, that is antithetical to the whole concept of the people being at the pinnacle and the government there to serve it. it basically flips the relationship and puts the government in the driver's seat with us at its beck and call. and if they can do that with the most important thing you have, your health and your health care, it's not long before they can do it with every aspect of your life. and it begins the fundamental changing of america, and that's why i want to stop it in its tracks, turn it around. i think most people did not recognize be what was happening. we have to once genre store the people to the -- again restore the people to the pinnacle. now having said that, i do want everybody to have good care. it is consistent with who i am. and, you know, i've talked about a health care system, but let me
just talk about the part for the indigent. you know, how do we take care of the indigent now? we have medicaid, $4-$500 billion a year. way too much, by the way. we can address that by how do we get the economy rolling again. but if 80 million into 400 billion goes 5,000 times, $5,000 for every man, woman and child on medicaid. that's how much is allocated. what could you buy with that? most concierge practices cost between $2-$3,000 a year. you'd still have a couple thousand dollars left over for catastrophic insurance which is much cheaper because there's something else that we've done with that that i don't have time to explain. but -- i'm not saying that we do that, but i'm saying we have enough money to do that.
what's the result of that? now when mr. jones has that diabetic foot ulcer, he's not going to go to the emergency room, he's going to go to the clinic. instead of just patching him up and sending him out, they're going to say, mr. jones, let's get your diabetes under control so you're not back here in three weeks with another problem. a whole other level of savings, and we're teaching him personal responsibility rather than dependency. those are the kinds of things we should be doing. that will cost us less money, and everybody will be of equal value. you won't have people, i don't want to see them, you know, they're going to have to go to the emergency room. and it's going to cost us less money. that's the kind of thing we should be doing, and that's the kind of thing we can be doing when we take something so important as medicine out of the political arena and start taking care of our people. [applause] >> identify received -- i've
received several questions from the audience about guns and your comments about the holocaust and if jews had been able to protect themselves, much of it could have been prevented. i'll let you clarify that. and also the whole approach to these mass shootings. is having more people armed the kind of thing that can stop more of these mass shootings, do you think? >> okay. well, you know, the holocaust issue, that's just the left-wing press again trying to stir up a controversy. and which i expect of them, that's what they do. but, you know, basically what i said is that when tyranny occurs traditionally around the world, they try to disarm the people first. and that's exactly, you know, what happened in germany. you know? and in the, you know, mid to late '30s, you know, they started a program of disarming the people. and by the mid '40s, look at what had happened. and it's happened in a number of other countries as well. kane yell webster said tyranny
would never occur in america because people are armed. there's a reason that we have the second amendment. and it doesn't mean that i'm not happy to look at ways to keep these tragedies from occurring as long as they don't interfere with the second amendment. that's what we have to keep in mind. and what was the other part of that question? >> [inaudible] >> oh, by having -- well, with the mass shootings one of the many things people have noticed is they tend to go the places that are gun-free be zones. so even though they may be mentally disturbed, they're not so mentally disturbed as to not realize that if you go someplace where people can shoot you, you're probably going to get shot. so what i'm saying is that it's probably a good ideal to make sure that there are people in the areas where we have vulnerable people who can oppose these people. not with just words, but who are trained, you know, they can be
retired policemen, retired military, some teachers might have the ability to do that. but i would feel much safer if my kid or grandchild was in a school where i knew that there were people who could protect be them if somebody like that came in. to me be, what i'm talking about is common sense. to some of the people out there, there is no such thing as common sense. [applause] >> we are almost out of time. before i ask the final questions, i have some housekeeping. the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists, and we fight for a free press worldwide. to learn more about the club, visit our web site, that's press.org, and to donate to our nonprofit journalism institute, visit press.org/institute. i also want to remind you about some upcoming events. on thursday, october 15th, the
club will hold its annual fourth estate award gala. in this year we will honor gwen ifill, managing editor of washington week and co-anchor and managing editor of the pbs "newshour". on wednesday, october 2 19th, we will reprise a press club event from 100 years ago mt. politicians -- in the politicians versus the press spelling bee. and on friday, october 23rd, oscar-winning director and actor kevin costner will be here to discuss his new book. i would now like to present our speaker with the honorary national press club mug. [applause] you have been here before, so you're developing a collection. >> thank you. [applause] >> so a couple of final questions. if the situation was right down
the campaign rail, circumstances change, would you consider being donald trump's running mate? [laughter] >> the press will have a field day with this one. and, by the way, before i answer that question, i just want to mention many in the press will say that i'm sensitive and, you know, that i should not be thinking about running for office because i get offended by what they do. of course they'll say that. but the reason that i expose the press is because i want people of america to understand what they're doing. so it's not because i'm sensitive. i will continue to expose them every time they do something. because as more people understand who they are and what they're doing, it will negate
their effect, and that's -- until they have the kind of transformation that is necessary for them to become allies of the people, we have to know what they're doing. now, in terms of -- >> trump. >> trump? how could i forget? be okay. [laughter] you know, i believe that donald trump has been very useful, because he's brought in a lot of people, brought in a lot of curiosity and enthusiasm. and whoever the eventual nominee is will benefit from that even if it's him. that's a good thing. so, you know, that's one of the reasons i don't talk about him, i don't talk about anybody else. but in terms of a vice president, i would obviously want somebody who's compatible with me. i would not necessarily be looking for somebody who can bring in this demographic or
that demographic. because the things that have to be done are very, very serious things, quite frankly. this can't be tampering around the edges. we've got to go to the heart of the matter. and i don't think we have a whole lot of time to do that. so it would have to be somebody who is very compatible, who understands the urgency of what we are doing who is willing to suffer the slings and arrows to get it done. that's what it will take. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please give a round of applause to our speaker. [applause] i would also like to thank staff members of the national press club and journalism institute for their work in preparing for today's event. for a copy of today's program or to learn more about the national press club, go to that web site, press.org.
thank you, we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> well, now on booktv we want to introduce you to university of wisconsin professor be john diamond. professor diamond, what do you do up here at the university? >> guest: i'm a professor in educational leadership. >> host: and what exactly do you teach? >> guest: i teach courses on inequality, on resource methods, and ial train leaders who are going to go out --
[inaudible] >> host: how did you get interested in education in the first place? >> guest: well, you know, actually my mom is an education professor. she started out as a first grade teacher and later became a professor, and i really just became interested in trying to understand sort of inequalities in education, because i was a sociologist by training. in my doctoral work, i studied sociology and really wanted to understand inequality in schools, how inequality manifests itself, where we hope we can challenge inequality, but it's also a place where it gets reproduced, so i wanted to understand the dynamics of the processes. >> host: well, that leads us into your book. you and amanda lewis, who is whom? >> guest: amanda lewis is a colleague i started working with probably 15 years ago? >> host: here at the university
university -- >> guest: she's actually at the university of illinois at chicago. >> host: you say it all started with a phone call. >> guest: i had been working with schools who were trying to address inequality, particularly the achievement of black and latino students compared to their white counterparts. and the principal of the school called up and said i've been look anything this school for a hong time, -- for a long time, can you come and talk to some of the black students to try to understand what's going on with this achievement gap that we see in our school? why it that black kids and that tee know kids are -- >> host: all right. you talk about the principal as maurice weber and metro midwest is what you're saying. how much of that is made up? can you tell us exactly -- is this a real school? >> guest: it's a real school. it's a real location. it's predominantly middle class, racially diverse and a place that's known for its progressive, liberal ethos and
context. >> host: so maurice weber made up, riverview made up, metro midwest -- is it in the midwest? >> guest: it is in the midwest. those are pseudonyms for real people, real places. >> host: okay. what is it about this school that attracted you to write about it? >> guest: you know, it's a really fascinating class because it's been stably integrated for, you know, probably 30 years, 40 years. and what you find there is not is sort of standard disparity between income. most folks are there middle class including the black, latino families as well as the white families. most folks, again, they espouse this egalitarian ethos. many of them move to this community because it's a diverse place. and so the idea that this is a really progressive community, this is a community that believes in racial equality, that's been stably integrated for some time and where the teachers are high quality, where the resources are abundant, we really wanted to understand what's going on here that there are racial inequalities that
still persist in a place like this? >> host: what are some of the inequalities? and when you talk about inequalities, you're talking about statistical inequalities when you look at the stats. >> guest: right. >> host: what were you finding? >> guest: what we were finding was that, for example, when we looked at grades, black and latino students had lower grades on average. they weren't doing as well on the tests. so the proficiency levels on the tests, black and latino students were not doing as well as their white counterparts. most students were graduating and going on to college, actually, which was a positive thing, but more of the black and latino students were going to two-year colleges as opposed to four-year colleges, right? so there were all these inequalities and differences that pan fest themselves in the school -- manifest themselves in the school, and they sort of made us wonder what was actually going on inside the school context. so we wanted to understand race, we wanted to understand what the racial dynamics were as well as the social class dynamics that might be leading to these inequalities. so we thought mr. weber's
invitation to come in was a good opportunity to look at what was going on more generally. so we started with the black students, and we actually wound up interviewing about 171 people in the community, including teachers, or parents, administrators, staff members to really get a complete picture of what was happening in the context. >> host: walk us through some of your findings. >> guest: one of the things that really struck us is we wanted to understand what was racial about these inequalities. there's all in this research that talks about race and what it means and trying to understand it, and one of the fist things we wanted to understand was this idea of oppositional culture. there's this idea that black and latino students are somehow uninvested in school, in education, and their peers criticize them in ways -- and what we found is that really wasn't an explanation that carried much weight.
what we found, for example, was there was no many negative peer pressure for black students than for white students, that black students or were more pro-school than their white counterparts. we found this out through surveying and in the interviews we conducted. and we found most black students were more pro-school than their white counterparts. so we wanted toty bunk that idea, and we found the evidence really to support the idea this isn't really what's going on in the context of our school in riverview and that there were other things that were manifesting themselves. >> host: such as? >> guest: well, i mean, one of the things that, you know, we have a lot of discourse and a lot of discussion about the racial achievement gap, but what winds up happening is people don't really engage with the idea of race itself, right? what does race actually mean, right? so people often, you know, will throw it into a regression equation, they'll talk about ace rah as a -- race as a variable,
but if you think about race, you have to look his or towically at what -- historically at what race has been used for. race emerges at a time when you have slavery happening, you have all these inequalities, you have genocide of native americans, and what race wound up being is a construct that allowed people to justify those kinds of exploitations. and one of the things that continues to exist is this idea that black and latino students are essentially not as intelligence as white -- intelligent as white students and they're likely to be violent or misbehave. so one of the things that manifests itself in the contemporary context based on the historic context is this idea the criminalization of black and latino bodies and the lack of intelligence that people perceived in black and latino bodies. and these things were readily apparent when we talked to people in the school context. we interviewed blacks, whites and latinos, and there was a pretty consistent story that
people perceived that black students and latino students were not as intelligent, were not going to achieve as well and were not going to behave as well as their white counterparts. >> host: so there was that perception? was there a reality? >> guest: there was definitely a perception and, you know, what we think about with regard to the reality is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophesy. once you've decided someone is going to misbehave, you're going to scrutinize them a lot more n. the hallways in the schools students are supposed to have a pass when they're moving through the hallways during class periods. what we found is white students would say i never need a hall pass. i walk through the halls freely, and white students would say but i know my black friends can never do that, right? so there's this process of hypersurveillance. and the likelihood of being in violation of the pass code is much higher if you're stopped than if you're not. it's almost like racial profiling in policing, right? so that was one of the examples
of how this sort of played itself out. and the white students were trying to make sense of it, and they were saying it's not fair, it's something that happens all the time. the administrators were trying to make sense of it. one talked about having black and white students in their office, and whenever they asked white students if they needed a pass, the white students would say, oh, no be, i never get stopped. so not only were black students talking about this, white students, white administrators and others in the community were talking about how discipline was not meted out fairly or equally among students. and we had similar patterns that we saw in classrooms with regard to how students were disciplined, how they were referred to discipline and thousand they were expected to -- >> host: professor diamond, what does that have to do with test scores or academic achievement? >> guest: yeah. so, you know, when students come to school, they're looking for a number of things, right? particularly adolescents, because we're talking about a high school here. they want to belong. they want their peers to accept them, but they also want to feel
like they belong in the school context. when they're being hypersurveiled, when they're being questioned about if they belong, when they're being scrutinized and punished for things that their peers are not, that sens a strong -- sends a strong message about who's valued in the school context. when you layer on top of that when there was a perception that students who wore clothes that were associated with african-american culture were more likely to be scrutinized than people -- than students who didn't wear those kind of clothing, if they wore, for example, a button--up shirt, they were assumed to be good kids. and, again, this was something that was echoed among many people in the school context. so when you have to deny a part of yourself to navigate your school context, that naturally may lead you to feel like you're not necessarily a part of the environment. >> host: thus, your test scores are lower? your act dem i -- academic
achievement is lower? >> guest: i think what winds up happening is if you feel scrutinized and less likely to be embraced as part of the environment, that can happen. but the other part of performance expectations is what teachers expect from you in the classroom, right? so what we found is that black students talked about the fact that the teachers didn't expect much of them. administrators talked about low expectations that they experienced for black and that tee know students as they navigated the school. parents talked about those low expectations, and those things also become a self-fulfilling prophesy. they provide more or less access to the teacher's time and attention, they provide more or less access to rigorous curriculum, and they provide another set of messages about who's capable in the school context and who's not. one example be of that is it sort of became embedded in the school environment is that the school was about 45 percent white and about 41 percent african-american, about 8.5 percent latino.
but the honors level track and the ap level tracks, the sort of privileged context of the school were 80 and 90 percent white, right? so less than 50 percent white students, but these classes that are the high status classes in the school were predominantly white, right? and so people in the community talk about the fact that when you come into schools, the students mingle in the hallways, and you see them talking to each other, they go to classes, and they go separate ways. you can walk down the hall and see the difference between a regular class which is predominantly black and latino and an honors class where mostly white students find themselves. >> host: what was one other finding that you -- at riverview? >> guest: i think the other big finding is that we often think about parent involvement as a positive thing, and in some ways it certainly is. but one of the things we found is that the administrators and teachers and members of the community felt a lot of pressure from white parents who were powerful in the community. be and those tended to be the parents of the students who were
in these honors and advanced placement classes. so as they tried to create more equity in the context of the school, there was a process that we referred to as opportunity hoarding. it's the monopolizing of the most privileged, valued educational context and exclusion of other people from those contexts. so as the school and administration tried to address these despairties -- disparities in class placement, they ran into roadblocks at every step. so as they tried to limit the number of distinctions between class levels, they got pushback from the parents of the, quote-unquote, high-flying students who said things like, well, my kid needs to get into harvard or wisconsin or one of these elite schools. and if you provide resources to the kids who aren't doing as well, you're going to take resources away from my kid. they did things like as they tried to limit the number of distinctions across course levels and sort of level that out, create mixed-level classes
with honors, advanced placement and regular students, there was what we called internal white flight where white parents would encourage their students to migrate to classes that were predominantly white, even though they may have been interested in studying another class. so, for example, some students wanted to study african-american history or african history, and their parents would steer them into russian or middle ian history because they knew these were white spaces, essentially. and so that was, you know, some of those dynamics of opportunity hoarding were really sort of critical. another piece of this is that when we look at the discipline disparities, there were disparities in terms of how people were selected into discipline, but there were also disparities in how they were treated in the discipline process. and many times the parents with more resources, what we call sort of the cultural capital and the social capital to exert their power on administrators would do things like negotiate away something like their child having drugs in the school. they would say things like,
well, my child had the marijuana, but it really wasn't possession because possession means you mean to distribute it, and they didn't really mean to distribute it, they just had it, and it was in their hands, but it wasn't really theirs, so let's not call it possession because they really have a bright future, and we expect them to go to a great college. and if you put it down as possession, it's not going to happen. and so these were some of the dynamic that is occurred across sort of the academic context, but also in the disciplinary domain that led to advantage and disadvantage in the school. >> host: so despite the best intentions, what improvements did you suggest to retiring principal maurice weber? >> guest: well, one of the things that we wanted to get across is that it's not so much that people intend to do bad things. teachers don't go into education because they want to create an achievement gap, because they want some students to do well and other students not to. but they do live in a society where race permeates everything about the society, right?
whether inequalities persist across a number of domains, and schools are no different. part of the way this happens is not necessarily by the sort of old-fashioned racism where you have people organizing in the streets in ways that reproduce racial inequality, but the sort of day-to-day dynamics that people engage in when they're talking to someone, what they expect of them and how that sort of manifests itself almost at a subconscious level where people act on their racial beliefs even when they don't intend to. and those are some of the mechanisms that led to performance expectations for black and latino students being lower. those are the things that led to discipline referrals and the cumulative impact of those things over time really sort of shaped this inequality in the context of the school. >> so teachers are really on the front line again here. >> i think they are. and particularly, you know, given the fact that we're focused on what's happening inside the school. and, you know, for the society as a whole, there are a lot of
things we could do outside of schools to make a difference. we could create, you know, family policies and other kinds of social safety nets that would mean families weren't struggling as much. but in the context of riverview where we have mostly middle income families, this racial dynamic seems to be a really powerful and important one. and teachers are on the front lines to some extent as are administrators in the fact that they have to be able to deal with these processes of opportunity hoarding. they have to be able to figure out politically how to respond to the powerful parents in the community who are pushing for, essentially, the monopolization of resources for their own kids and be able to push against that in a way that suggests that, you know, this school is for all the students who attend, not just for your kids and, you know, sort of move away from the sort of zero sum game sort of idea that some parents bring to the educational process. >> host: in your book "despite the best intentions," did you find recommendations for students as well? >> guest: well, i think the recommendations were more likely to be focused on the adults in
the context of the school. for students i think the big thing that they need to do is to recognize that some of these dynamics play out, right? when you're in an environment that doesn't value your presence or when you're in an environment that sort of expects less of you, you have to be sort of socialized to understand that discrimination will exist and to build on historical patterns of how african-americans and latinos have struggled to make those environments work more them despite -- for them despite the discrimination, right in and so there's a rich history of people fighting for educational access, of the civil rights movement, of the creation of schools in the south for african-americans, of struggles for latinos to access education particularly in the southwest and in california, and that history is very helpful for young people to be able to recognize that while discrimination exists, i can overcome it. it's called race-related socialization. it's the kind of socialization
that families can engage in, but it's also the kind of education that schools can engage in that teaches people that even though they may face discrimination and face low expectations, those things can be overcome and have been. >> host: professor diamond, are there lessons that you learned in your view that you can take to other schools, all-white schools, all-black schools, private schools, etc. >> guest: yeah. i mean, so that's really the next step in this work. i'm working with a number of schools in madison now and using the book itself as, actually, a common be read for teachers. so i've met with the first and second-year teachers in madison twice this year. last year i met with all of the principals from the school district four times to talk about race and inequality. i'm working at a particular k-5 school in madison now where we're doing a yearlong set of professional development opportunities around race and inequality where we really try to unpack, you know, what does race mean, how does it impact our daily interactions, and how
can we engage in practices that can make a difference about the disparities we see in the context of our schools. so right now we're moving from the book itself to use the book for helping schools address the inequalities that they see. and i'm excited about that work. and there's been a lot of investment from people in k-12 environments to really see the book as an opportunity to engage around those kinds of efforts. >> host: where did you grow up, and what was your k-12 environment like? >> guest: i grew up in lansing, michigan, near michigan state university, and my k-12 experience was one that was, you know, partly about being be on the front lines or just behind the front lines of integrating schools in this town. so i dealt with some racial discrimination, i dealt with situations where i wasn't allowed to go to certain places. faith discrimination in my school and context, and there were racial determinations that were happening in my school. but i also hit the sweet spot in
terms of the integration of my high school where we had a nice mix of students from many different backgrounds, and it was a rich environment for understanding how we can get along with each other. we had folks who were conservative and liberal, we had folks who were black, white, latino, christian, jewish, muslim. and we were all in the same environment. and i think that was a rich experience. so one of the goals of despite the best intentions is to really think about, you know, in these environments what's working well but also what's not working and what can we do to make those environments stable and productive maces for young people to sort of -- places for young people to sort of learn how to participate in a democratic society with people who don't always look like them. >> host: "despite the best intentions: how racial inequality thrives in good schools." amanda lewis of the university of illinois chicago and john diamond of the university of wisconsin madison are the co-authors. thank you very much. >> guest: thank you.
>> this weekend on c-span cities tour along with our comcast cable partners, we'll explore the history and literary life of california's capital city, sacramento. on booktv, one author shares the story of her japanese-american family's survival of the depression, being swept off to internment camps and bigotry. in her book "dandelion through the crack." then on sacramento's open resistance to prohibition and how it earned the reputation as the wettest city in the nation. and we'll meet with another author to discuss her book "none wounded, none missing, all dead," a biography of elizabeth bacon custer whose life was full of adventure, tragedy and determination to recreate the image of her husband, general george armstrong custer. >> elizabeth was the first to come to george's defense and say, no, that is not what
happened. i know my george. i know the character of my george. he wouldn't have done that. and she stood up for him and championed his actions. is so it was elizabeth's voice that rose to the top of all of this not only because she was a woman and people were paying attention to what she had to say because she was george's wife, but because she outlived all of them. elizabeth doesn't die until 1933. i mean, she is there for the 50th anniversary of the battle of little bighorn. she is there for all of history. so she can help shape what is being said about her husband. so it doesn't go so far to the other end. >> on american history tv, we'll tour the mansion once owned by california governor and railroad tycoon leland stanford. as a pro-union civil war governor and railroad executive, stanford negotiated deals at the
mansion that helped complete the transcontinental railroad. >> so mr. stanford was our last two-year-term governor. so he was elected and served all of 1862 and all of 1863. and he was part of a group of men who were merchants, and they were politically active and had similar ideas. and stanford was their first candidate that was successfully elected as governor. so he was our eighth governor, and he was first republican governor of california. >> then we'll visit the japanese-american archival collection at sacramento state university which includes letters, photographs, diaries and artwork from japanese-american communities following the attack on pearl harbor. and sacramento city historian marsha ayman shares insight and artifacts related to the 1849 gold rush which brought 300,000 people to california. >> today we're in the center for sacramento history, and we hold
the original records for the city and county of sacramento. and we go from the beginnings of the city in 1850 all the way up to present time. when you talk about the whole experience of coming to california to search for gold, you're going to need your supplies. you probably would have gone and had your portrait taken in order to document yourself before your journey. but one of the important things you would have acquired once you got here was a map to figure out where you needed to go. and this is a great map of the gold fields. this map would have folded all up so that they could have fitted it into their pocket. everything was lightweight, compact, easy for them to travel with. but this would have been an essential tool, and this dates from 1849 and to show miners where to go. so you can see how quickly the business of mining the miners and producing all of these things. and people were quickly making must be off of -- making money off of the people looking for gold. >> this weekend watch c-span cities tour in sacramento on
c-span2's booktv throughout the day and under is afternoon at two on american history tv on c-span3. the c-span cities tour working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. >> you're watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. booktv, television for serious readers. >> and this weekend on booktv you'll hear from former federal reserve chair ben bernanke talking about the 2000 economic crisis. that's on our "after words" program, and he'll be in conversation with senator sherrod brown of ohio. you'll also hear from be ann romney be talking about her life and struggles with multiple sclerosis, and we'll bring you coverage of the seventh annual boston book festival. also this weekend best selling author on being black in
that same day we are in athens, georgia where law professor will argue there are two banking systems in the united states, one for the poor and one for everyone else. next to sunday, nick littlefield remembers the late senator ted kennedy and edward m kennedy institute, boston or give that focus on the other programs book tv will cover this upcoming week, many of these events are open to the public. look for this are in the near future on book tv.
>> next up we bring you book tvs coverage of the seventh annual boston book festival which includes a discussion on veterans and the keynote lecture by harvard university and literary christen professor james wood, but first, here's a panel on terrorism and surveillance. >> can you hear me? good morning. it is great to see you on this cold saturday morning. i will be moderating the great power ahead on this discussion on new threats in the modern age with three amazing authors who have contributed to dialogue that we have been having since the beginning of mankind. here's how today will start, i'm going to introduce the three authors and let them speak a few minutes on their book and given the opportunity to tell you with their book about and also eight mode