tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 18, 2016 3:26pm-5:27pm EST
the physical markets, mostly, changes in the w. t. i nymex price, are you looking at real world or are you looking at psychology and mostly about psychology. left a couple slides here with details on supply-demand and i will go back here because i don't like that anyway. and sitting in the middle of this segway. and the poor refiner the deals not only with complications in the crude oil markets in the first three talks but there are product markets. bears a global surplus of crude but a global surplus of products. there is now a new export product in the world there's actually several of them but the u.s. and saudi arabia have changed a lot of the dynamics so
let's hear a little bit about what refiners are up to. [applause] >> i have moderated before. >> i promise content, we started a little bit late. we won't take away your time. these are excellent discussions and we pause for questions at the end. >> i will try to be efficient with the time. thanks to you all for attending and your attention. i guess we will get this loaded as soon as we do. we will talk about part of the business that makes money. can you hear me? did i not get it? down here. let's see. excellent. there we go. i will talk about a segment that makes money and let's get on with that. we have seen and heard a lot from this guy, we will hear a lot from him going forward.
we know he loves winning, the u.s. is not doing enough winning but the fact is the u.s. refining is doing quite a bit of winning especially against our competitors in europe and south america. and get to the basics, what determines who wins in the game of refining. obviously the refined products are important, color-coded this so red means something refiners can't do a lot about, green something they can do something about. can't do a lot about refined product demand growth regionally or globally stuck with what the market gives them. they can to to lot about competitive supply, refined product, they do something about it and the last two or three weeks fairly timely responses from refiners' primarily in the midwest and on the gulf coast
and trimming back there run rate to respond to growing seasonal product supply and we will work through it, seasonal product growth and tank tops and 7 levels. what they can do is make assessments to shape products to make the more valuable products over the last year to make more diesel diesel is more in demand and more gasoline growth is returned and investments to access markets with better supply-demand balance in more attractive markets. location location location as far as feedstock, refiners are located, most of these are growing can the situation where you couldn't get the crude out of the area, double discount
for international refiners. there are other feedstocks as well not as important as crude but intermediates, gulf coast refiners trade intermediates, access to cheaper ethanol, to blend natural gasoline in the gasoline pool what refiners can do is make investments to process, in the last several years. and they made significant investments for growing volumes of latin and canadian heavy crude. they can make investments to improve access include. east coast refineries don't have direct access, they make significant investments in rail facilities.
operating costs are important line-item in manufacturing operation, natural gas is the most important variable cost and the refinery use to generate process feeds and hydrogen for refining processes and shale gas boom in the u.s. has been a real boom for u.s. refiners with cheaper access to gas, in the expensive russian gas. size is important when it comes to cost, and merger activities have been largely justified by being able to reduce redundant costs at the refinery level and the corporate level. they can also invest in projects to increase energy efficiency, operating efficiency and refineries to a better job
managing costs more successful than the guys that don't. regulatory environment guys in washington care about that and from state to state, for municipality to municipality location location location they can't do a lot about where they are located, these regulations impact demand in a negative way, increase costs and affect access to supply, impact their ability to execute projects in a timely and cost-effective basis. we have a lot of people here that try to mold and shape the legislations or limit the potential -- sometimes they are successful and sometimes not. wise decisionmaking turns of compliance can differentiate between a winner and a loser and make wide investment decisions
to make appliance more cost-effective. this -- looking at demand and seeing a little bit about howard developing countries, that is all man has been in the last ten years. we have increased total world refined product demand by 9.2 million barrels including the impact of global recession in 2008-9 with two years of decreased demand. 14 million barrels a day in emerging economy eased, developed economies lost 4.5 million barrels a day. 1.4 million barrels was the u.s.'s share, declining demand. we have seen a bit of a change in current low price environment, it responds to low
prices 45% according to howard's numbers, 45% of product demand growth came from the u.s. and europe and we have seen slower growth in producing countries low oil prices negatively impact their economy is. the regional basis kind of the same story. most of that 1.4 million barrels a day of decline demand in the last ten years came on the east coast more of it came in the mid continent and the west coast where as the gulf coast and rocky mountains show positive, positive demand growth. and strong energy industries in those areas. similar to what happened worldwide, parts of a company show the greatest demand growth
in 2015 responding to low prices east coast and west coast and more subdued it growth levels in the mid continent naturally declined. partially related to the impacts of slowdown in the energy business. we build refineries where the demand grows generally generally build capacity to try to match that demand grows and over the last ten years, fairly well matched 9.2 million barrels a day of demand growth building a 11 million barrels a day of additional refining capacity. when you consider normal utilization rates, even presenting crease over the ten year period. as you expect most of that came in areas where demand was growing. asia 80% of them took place in asia, middle east showed strong
refining capacity, both grassroots refineries and expansion of existing refineries took place. one exception is latin america. there was strong demand growth last ten years, the actual capacity went down by 200,000 today. when you consider utilization rates, they went down even further. countries where demand was falling in europe and developed parts of asia they had to rationalize capacity, in those regions in the last ten years, one exception is the u.s. despite demand falling in the u.s. as it did in europe, as it did in developed asia we added 900,000 barrels a day of refining capacity. why is that? when we went against the trend we increased level of competitiveness compared -- we
were winners as the donald woods day. underlying u.s. refiners to become winners have been a free market in the oil business maybe we don't think so at times but economically and politically stable. it is compared -- it is all relative. and the price of crude oil by the early 1980s. and 300 refineries average capacity less than 60,000 barrels a day. and living on subsidized crude set asides. when reagan deregulated the energy markets totally in 1981.
all of a sudden, refineries when to the term darwinian kind of process and it did go through survival process. and and greater than where we were in 1982. it has evolved into the most advanced complex set of refineries in the world. four five times as much capacity, refineries and the rest of the world two three times as much total of grading, and gasoline and diesel as refineries and the rest of the world. we are going to be heavier to
process crude and more value products and reliability rates higher than anywhere else in the world. we also have the deepest and most talented cent of labour pools all away from management to technical to skilled and hourly people. that allows refiners to run refineries. and lower operating costs despite higher wage rates also allows them to execute projects at lower costs than anywhere else in vote world. to expand or make capital improvements in the gulf coast's anywhere else in the world. to put final frosting on the cake, low gas prices have been a
boon to u.s. refineries. and to look at the magnitude of that and the average u.s. refinery, what he sees versus what refiners in europe and singapore seas throughout shale gas boom area, in 2013 gas prices skyrocket earlier in singapore and asia, and down below those levels blowhole period, increasing our advantage compared to refineries in those areas. with the decrease in energy prices and if you look at the
table on the left you can see how that translates to dollars per barrel operating costs at the refinery level, in 2015 u.s. refiners had anywhere from a $2.50 per barrel crude processed operating cost advantage to lower gas prices, that went down somewhere to the $1.50 range in 2014 has gone down further to around $1 in 2015. crude prices lower crude prices have bigger advantage for u.s. refiners, prior to the boom in domestic production, u.s. imported significant items and crude overall into the complex, brent compared to l s generally -- linked crude not brent but
all crude linked to brent traded at import on the u.s. gulf coast, basically meant it was priced anywhere from $3 to $5 a barrel above and as we start displacing those imports and domestic crude started making its way in a greater way to refinance we had a period of time, 2011-2013 where it was essentially zero, a volatile but averaged near each other. during the same time regional crude differentials really blew out, w. t. i rose to $20 a barrel below being priced below brent, canadian heavy refiners' texas those margins. they got their feedstock get a huge discount because they couldn't make it to market. as we build pipelines on the
gulf coast so refiners could access to them that discount move to the gulf coast for some period of time. now as the environment has changed, obviously production hasn't declined very much but it declined, growth has stopped and we have moved back to where it is volatile and we are trading at the same level depending what day you look at it and moving more towards an import level depending on what happens over the next couple years. all this has driven a huge change in the supply balance between the u.s. and the rest of the world. the u.s. is the world's largest importer of refined products. by 2006 we reached levels, this is a six month rolling average, we reach levels, net importer of 3 million barrels a day on product.
with that increase combined with a decrease in domestic demand and increased competitiveness allowing us to access and take market share away from other world refiners particularly european refiners and to fill the growing product gap in latin america we saw allow us to complete the reverse pattern, the world's largest importer of refined products to be the world's largest exporter of finished products and total export products, a switch of 5.5 million barrels a day which is huge, the u.s. is a big country, twice as much refining capacity than anywhere else in the world, dynamics and different in different regions. on the east coast, the refining sectors, and that loss to access investments to access those like
titles building rail facilities. very competitive market and disadvantaged by the jones act with export crude exports liberalize european refiner could potentially get a barrel of crude in the gulf coast cheaper than a refiner and the east coast of the u.s.. that too benefited most from the crude surplus, refiners experience significant discounts as we discussed. a lot of that advantage has gone away as pipelines have been built to move that that crude further down the line. it has gone away in the lower food price marked. and if it was out there by itself, the largest refining system in the world, it is significant its prospects depend what part you are talking about, the best access to early on, the panhandle of west texas and south texas did very well and realized some of those
domestic discounts as significant midstream infrastructures were built so most can access those crudes. the big thing is they're very dependent on product exports, that is where products are exported from. 35 is and refined products produced in had 3 go to export markets right now. had 4 very small their advantage in supply and demand standpoint the only region impacting production of crude exceeds consumption of crude and products, they are also good access -- not any more growing but containing production that was growing, good access to the production next door and demand had been good and stable until recently. limited room to do much, they
are far apart and any expansion would have been related to regional demand. had 5, used to be the most profitable refining area in the country and last year it was again. very challenging environment 0 environment, regulatory environment. they had supply and demand until recently, not that has moved the region itself to a small deficit, small surplus one of refineries are running. the key is not all refineries run all the financially had major outages, exxon mobil facility down most of the year is still down, at some significant gasoline shortage, difficult to replace product and bring in overseas if not connected very well to the gulf coast and in times like that you can enjoy a very good markets, they are indigenous production included also. it is declining and limited access just last week we heard
valero who is applying for permits for a rail facility got turned down by the local planning commission it is a challenging environment for regulatory environment and will always be a challenge for them. what has that meant for margins? the golden age of refining, was demand driven from 2005 to 2008 into 2008 where refiners' experienced the best market they ever had. they did really well there financial crisis obviously hurt margins and hurt demand driven by dropping demand but the golden age, the supply golden age took place in 2011 until now was even better especially for those refineries you see in the mid continent in the rocky mountains. 2015 margins declined a bit but
they were very good driven by strong demand in some devised by low prices, u.s. west coast had particularly strong margins because of supply shortages. margins have gone down. this is the winter season as they typically go down. i think it is relatively temporary, west coast is still strong and will come back on line next two months and we can see those margins contract to some degree, the u.s. is winning against the rest of the world. and the rest of the world, they are higher, you see a pickup in demand in europe, recently they contract and largely because of these compressed advantages from the cost side crude cost side. looking from a sector
standpoint starts from 2013 base, all segments did really well. up until 2013 crude prices started falling in the second half of 2014 as soon as crude prices started falling the guys the independent producers, the green line did the work and felt the quickest. to integrate majors they have been moving toward being more upstream oriented. they held their own from equity performance, they are below average basis in 2013. refiners had done better and taken a hit in the last three or four months as margins contracted to some degree. comparing integrated majors to the independent refiners you can see net income driving the growth in equity values driven
by positive margins which led to a positive net income 30% gross net income last couple years as crude prices fell and demand went up, just the opposite of integrated majors upstream focus these days, whatever profits they made refining was subsumed by the losses experienced on the production side. net income is down 80%. that is not special items and by the way the independence 7 largest publicly traded that the integrated for the four majors, bp and chevron. the integrated have been moving toward getting rid of their refineries and going towards the production side. that strategy worked well for them when prices were up, they got a good job where 8%, and in
2011 through 2013, 80% of earnings come from the upstream side 20% from downstream excluding ancillary businesses and corrections and adjustments but in 2015 that is completely reversed at 30% of their earnings came refineries that were still remaining. that wasn't enough to compensate for their loss on the other side. so some final thoughts on key issues, lower longer, and overused phrase that sound like everybody is in agreement that we are going to be lower longer pretty clear those are not good for the upstream segment midstream segment, more complex for the downstream segment. and incentivize demand, low prices lead to higher margins
the don't track food prices. but most of what you get rid as prices fall in the first year or two so you get less demand baying out of low prices and they stay lower long-term. you have compression of crude benefits differential benefits as we have seen already, natural gas benefits in the rest of the world and regionally specific, regions where product demand is related to the health of the oil industry, that is bad for refiners and bad for their ability to access crude. we have seen that not just in the u.s. but across the world. lifting crude export ban almost all the time in the last couple years that i spent in washington was related to that issue. a lot of people did lot of study on this. was a big deal hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars
spent on studies showing why it is good, why is that. when it finally happened in december it went down with a winter because the market change, didn't matter anymore. will limit incentives in the near-term, midterm. the longer term it will matter. we will see crude production growth the market exports, it will seek discounts, and also removed the incentive to build these so-called crude to product projects around the ban. east coast refiners are disadvantaged, oil market distortions a barrel of crude from the gulf coast in philadelphia. the regulations will be
important regulated business obviously. what happened in the next election will tell lot about what happens in the first two items and those standards being revisited. and go to 15% and petroleum based material, people talked about this, who knows what is going to happen, that is a big deal and other alternatives, carbon tax petroleum focus taxes we had one thrown out recently that have seen the light of day, in 2016 could be a different story. they build facilities to respond to regulations. lot of times that is regulated on a county basis and that is important to refiners. some more stringent environmental regulations will go forward regardless, two or
three, 10 parts per million is already in effect. that will increase costs for refiners to some degree, it will make octane more expensive, and low sulphur bumper deals have impacts on the markets and the diesel markets. product demand is key. we only hear about people oil anymore, when people talk about peak demand howard showed the eia doesn't believe in peak demand, petroleum is here to stay for awhile but it is harder to predict where it is going to be. if it does relate to economic growth is harder for to predict economic growth, is going to return to demand and developing countries, strong demand in developed countries because demographics, maturation levels lifestyle changes will be important particularly in developed economies, work from
home, things like that to suppress product demand. it will be impacted by technology potentially in alternative fields. a breakthrough is a breakthrough because no one can foresee it so who knows? autonomous vehicles get talked about, what impact it will have on demand is hard to say. it could increase or decrease. i don't know. that is difficult to judge. overall i believe u.s. refineries will be winners in the world of refining, their ability to maintain and exports will be key domestic demand only seen it a short-term renaissance here, will essentially be fairly stagnant going forward especially critical for the u.s. gulf coast challenged by additional refining capacity not just in the places the import our product but as david mentioned
the construction of refineries and export countries, some that come on line. benefits of domestic production growth in u.s. refining is there but the upstream industry, helping midstream industry will help make a healthier refining industry. skipping the point about regulations, but that is a key one and continue to be leaders, we have to make sure regulations don't handicap as too much. it is always possible that they could. this is a huge trade balance issue the most important manufacturing industry in the u.s. in terms of trade balance when you look at the numbers. one thing i do expect if things go as we expected there will be more rationalization, japan asia and europe.
they still have over hang capacity. with that, i am done. i went over a little bit but that is okay. [applause] >> we promised a lot of content on. it was delivered with an exceptional amount of insight and humor. let me take two questions before we call it a day. the only rules we have is identify yourself, wait for a microphone and ask your question and we can wrap up. john. >> petroleum consulting. howard, a couple of major legislations require strategic petroleum reserve to sell a lot of oil, volumes are undefined. what assumption do you have in your projections for sales?
may affect the production and management. thank you. >> let me take a stab at thatperiod this is part of a sort of makeover image of the saudi royal family decision-making which has always been very quiet, as i mentioned earlier they are taking a higher profile through mohammed bin solomon and he was the one that proposes your cup i think it's to say that we want to be part of the commercial world more than we are today . it's the outside message to be inside message is, we want to distribute the income around from probably our major assets
to the saudi people. i would be very interested to see what kind of restrictions they may put on who gets to own it , who will trade on the saudi exchange so getting onto the exchange first which seems to be a doable thing is not all of it. obviously, it doesn't go over 49 percent so in terms of , i would be surprised if it went over 10 or 15 percent the model with some of the downstream refining during joint venture arrangements so it's a sharing pickup it can bring in some money which is not a small thing for them. remember there was an 800 billion dollar pile of stuff which is now more like 600 billion in terms of just the current account funding required at these lower oil prices to it i do not think as others have made a point that this is a major part of their
decision-making looking at their financial position. i do not agree with that. i think not only is it a big pile but there's so much more behind that all of us would loan money to saudi arabia. we don't give interest but we get a fee so it's okay. >> this discussion today has left fodder for future sessions. thank you all for coming and please help me join in welcoming and thanking our panel. [applause] >> with congress on break this week we are featuring book tv in prime time and coming up tonight its books on us history darting at the eastern. it's a discussion of the book
he's united states, a nation in the making. 1890 to the present that's my author john sedgwick on his book the war of two alexander hamilton, ehrenberg and the duel that stunned the nation are coming up at 10 pm eastern, william p joins on the march on washington. we round out the night with author tom lewis on his book washington: the history of our national city girl it's book tv in prime time starting at the eastern on c-span 2 pickup tonight on c-span 2, a debate on the drone strikes and counterterrorism strategy , recently hosted by the chicago council on global affairs. it features to former defense department official taking opposite sides. here's a preview. >> some of you may ask why we are still talking about drones. isn't isys the only item on the national security agenda and i think you are right to ask that.
but my view on the comments i want to make, i will bring these two topics together because i link a policy of counterterrorism that still came to focus on the use of the drone as in part responsible for the rise of crisis. isys came up from, according to the cia, nowhere but of course they were around. the cia just didn't watch as it was focused on using drone killing. drone that terrorize the people who are affected not just the targets but those who have to live under the constant threat of attack and they are open to the recruitment by groups like isis when they say the people who sent you the drones are our enemies and we are going to train you to fight them . in fact, the drone has become the single biggest recruiting tool
we still wind up killing innocent people but i'm suggesting to you that if we were to use so-called police tactics , if we were to send you a special operations force to arrest these individuals, we would still have massive collateral damage. we would still wind up killing lots of innocent people because the militants against which we would direct these so-called police tactics would have to armed supporters around them and they would use shelters in
the civilian population to force us to cause these civilian casualties. >> that entire event coming up tonight at eight eastern on our companion network, c-span . >> i think we are going through , we are on the cusp of a progressive revolution. i consider both hillary clinton and bernie sanders progresses. one of them is going to be the next president i believe so now's a good time i think to take stock and say, how did this guy do that we thought was a real progressive, how did he do and what did we learn from that experience? as we move to the next administration? >> sunday night on q and eight, radio talkshow host and author bill press talked about his book buyers remorse for how obama let progresses down which takes a critical look at presidency.
bernie sanders recently spoke out in favor of the book. >> the blurb does not endorse the book but repeats the point he makes in every campaign speech which is too full. one, we need a political revolution. that's his phrase. and that political revolution means that the progressives have to keep the pressure on the next president who we hope will be a democrat and a progressive, bernie or hillary to stick to the progressive agenda and follow it through not compromise it away. >> sunday night at eight eastern on c-span's q and a. supreme court chief justice john roberts recently sat down for a conversation at new england law school in boston to talk about the inner workings of the supreme court, the confirmation process, leadership and politics. he also offered advice to the
law students in the office about parent briefs and local arguments. new england law school dean john o'brien is the moderator. >>. [applause] thank you. thank you very much. welcome ladies and gentlemen and our honored guest chief justice john g roberts junior . it is a privilege and great honor to have chief justice roberts as our honored guest tonight.chief justice roberts, brilliant career as a lawyer and judge is detailed in our program and a more formal introduction and appreciation
will take place after this conversation . i know that our students and faculty here at new england law boston has been thrilled to meet with chief justice roberts over the past two days and all of us have been looking forward to this chance to hear his views on a variety of issues. but before we begin, the conversation and on behalf of our entire community, i think you mister chief justice for being so generous with your time in visiting new england law boston. [applause] all right. i've read some surveys that have caught my attention . one from the annenberg center at the university of
pennsylvania shortly after you were confirmed . it pointed out that 15 percent of those polled could identify you as chief justice. that's interesting.66 percent could identify at least one judge from american idol . more recently, a survey by then american council of trustees and alumni of four-year educated college americans found that a significant number , 10 percent, identified judge judy as a member of the us supreme court. so, how's she doing? [laughter] >> she's doing great. >> seriously, what do you make of this lack of knowledge of the court and does it concern you? >> it frankly doesn't bother
me very much that people can't identify who the particular members of the court are . one reason we wear black robes is that we should be anonymous and simply articulating what the law is and is not occupying any role in which our personality is pertinent. that part doesn't bother me. what does concern me and i know concerns a lot of other members of the court is that people don't have a very good understanding of what the court does. in particular, they don't have a good understanding of how we are different than the political branches of government. people when we issue a decision is usually discussed as you are in favor of this or that when in fact our ruling often is that whoever does get this side, this or that is allowed to do it and it's not
unconstitutional. it's consistent with law but we often have no policy views on the matter at all. and that's an important distinction. between how we function and i think it's one that people often lose sight of . >> during your confirmation hearing, it seems you were more than candid in discussing your views as to the proper role of a judge yet others have described the confirmation process as less than edifying . why is that do you think? >> i do think , i'm not sure the senate particularly cares what i think about it but i do think the process is not functioning very well. you look at two of my colleagues justice scalia and justice ginsburg for example. i think they were confirmed, maybe two or three dissenting votes between the two of them .
and now you look at more of my more recent colleagues, all extremely well qualified for the court and the votes were i think strictly on party lines for the last three of them or close to it. that doesn't make any sense. that suggests to me that the process is being used for something other than ensuring the qualifications of the nominee . it's a process now where members of the committee frequently asked questions they know it would be inappropriate for us to answer . thankfully, we don't answer the questions and it's a forum i think they have a different agenda when they participate in the hearings. it's not something it's easy for us to change . i don't see how we would do
that. it's up to them to conduct the hearings as they see fit but it doesn't seem to me to be very productive these days and there's a problem with the way it comes out and it relates to my first answer. when you have a sharply political , devices hearing process, it increases the danger that whoever comes out of it will be viewed in those terms. if the democrats and republicans have been fighting so fiercely about whether you are going to be confirmed, it's natural for some members of the public to think well, you must be identified in a particular way as a result of that process and that's just not , we don't work as democrats or republicans and i think is a very unfortunate perception that the public might get from the confirmation process. >> whether it's the confirmation process or occasionally campaigning , sometimes the process seems more like speechmaking and sometimes criticism of the
nominee or the court itself and as the leader of the court , does that trouble you and are you ever tempted to reply or respond to some of these criticisms? >> criticism of the court doesn't bother me at all and i think that's important because it's a big part of our job really not to care what people think about what we do , at least in terms of the merits of our decisions . now people object to how the court is being run or there's something like that, that's something else and i certainly have no trouble with people doing that. but again, it's often based on a misunderstanding or calculated perception about what we are up to. if we are told they political
political decision that remains the decision of the political branches and the fact that it may lead to criticism of us is often a mistake and we do have to be above or apart from the criticism because we of course make unpopular decisions. very unpopular decisions. a case like the westborough baptist case which involves the group that engaged in some very vile speech at military funerals , the sort of thing i think most people would agree is just awful and yet the court, i think by a very comfortable margin, maybe it was eight 21 said that type of activity is on a public sidewalk , was protected by the first amendment. that is certainly something the
court can expect to get criticized about a lot and it's the reason we have life tenure so we are not susceptible to being swayed by that sort of criticism . so the criticism doesn't bother me, partly because the framers established the court in a way that we could be could not care about the criticism and also because sometimes it's based on a misperception of what our job is as opposed to what the job of the proof political branches is . >> just a little bit following up on that kind of perception . when one of your colleagues, joseph scalia was here he told what i found was an amusing story about the time when the court found that flagburning was protected speech and as much as it horrified him
personally, he agreed with i think the vast majority of the court that this was in fact protected speech. but for the life of what it was important, he couldn't stand up on flagburning and he hoped no one else would think that he would be thinking along those lines. the reason that it was an amusing story is because after he said he tortured himself with this, the next morning his wife mrs. scalia came down for breakfast humming, it's a grand old flag. [laughter] >> i can see that, yes . >> doesn't concern you sometimes that people mistake you're applying the constitution to a set of facts and maybe not understanding that these are not necessarily your own views. >> it does, of course.
i issue a lot of opinions where if i were in the legislature i certainly wouldn't have voted for the program that was under review . i don't necessarily agree with the substance of every piece of legislation just because i determine it's within the constitution for congress to enact it but you say people don't recognize who the members of the court are. that's not a problem. but it is a problem that many people don't appreciate how our job differs from the job of people in the executive or legislative branches. >> can we talk a little bit about leadership ? following your confirmation , how difficult was it for you to pick up the reins of leadership in relation to this group of eight other very strong-willed , independent people ? >> well, i did learn early on
that when you are holding the reins of leadership you should be careful not to talk on them too much.you will find out they are not connected to anything . [laughter] as you might imagine, it was a matter of some concern. i had for 25 years been arguing in front of the court and literally looked up to them . they had been together as a group for 11 years without any change . i was coming in as the youngest member of the court with the least amount of judicial experience and coming in as the chief justice so naturally i was not quite sure it was going to work out but all eight of them at the time were extremely supportive . i don't think it had much to do with me personally but rather an understandin
it is very much a congenial group. we are all equals when it comes to discharging our constitutional responsibilities and any leadership i am able to exercise is only with the support of the other members of the court. >> chief roberts, you talked about the value of consensus in the court's decision . again, with these strong-willed, independent people, many people thought aiming for consensus was like dreaming the impossible dream . can you talk about the value of consensus to you and whether that remains one of your values? >> i think the public but also the lawyers appreciate that if you have a decision that is say nine nothing or eight one carries more weight and force than a decision that is 5/4 or
worse, to affirm a plurality for something else or dissent here. i think it's natural for members of the public to say if you can't get together and agree on what the answer is, wires we supposed to have such great confidence that you got it right? and for lawyers and practicing attorneys and judges it's hard for them sometimes also to figure out what the court is up to when it is splintered like that. now i do think it's worth trying to get broader agreement. you do it sometimes by talking about issues a little more than otherwise to try to get people to see everybody! view and maybe that causes people to come around but you can't compromise the way you can in the legislature. if justice a fence something violates the fourth amendment
and justice be thinks it doesn't, you can't meet halfway. it either does or it doesn't. so in some areas you certainly are not suggesting it wasn't when i talked about that that justice should compromise their conclusion about what the law requires after k for a consideration. i think careful consideration might lead to a broader agreement and how you shape a decision can also have that same effect. this agreement might emerge only when you get to a particular level of decision if you can decide a simple case that is familiar to lawyers. if you can decide the case on statutory grounds or constitutional grounds it always makes sense to decided on the basis of discussion and perhaps that's an area you can get a broader agreement . if you make a decision narrow, perhaps people can sign on to a narrower resolution but if you decide to issue a decision more broadly, that's when people start saying, i'm not prepared to go that far and so it's a
good idea to consider whether it makes sense to decided on narrower grounds if you can get more agreement . >> it seems to me there is a lot more consensus than sometimes some in the media might have you believe . the five four decision here and there but in focusing just on those five four decisions, you would think there's a misperception as to how much consensus there really is on the court . >> i do. more of our decisions are nine nothing than anything else. the number varies. some years at 45 percent, other years something else but we agree entirely more often than anything else. if you throw in the eight one, seven toews it's a big chunk where we generally agree
across the board. you can look at what our docket is like in the cases on it and i think you will realize that we are not all going to agree on a lot of the issues that are before us but yes, the ones we disagreed and where we disagree tend to be the ones that tend to be the hot button issues that people focus on so they must think we are at each other's throats and narrowly divided through the year when that's not at all the case. >> i'm just wondering whether you see yourself as having a leadership style. you served as chief justice rehnquist and he said to our students in the last few days , he learned a great deal from him. do you see yourself having a certain style and those that differ in your view from some of your predecessors? x i know it differs from many of them . i've done some reading recently about charles hughes and what
frankfurt said about him is that he looks like god and he spoke like god. i'm pretty sure no one's ever said that about me. none of my colleagues have ever said that. chief justice rehnquist , first of all he was beloved by the members of the court .they all admired him for his leadership ability . justice ginsburg said that he was the best boss she ever had. she said that a little more frequently for my taste and i've heard her say it several times lately but he, i think, generally lead with a pretty soft touch. you have to appreciate that things are appropriate and it's in many ways unwritten what things are appropriate for chief justice to decide on his own and what things need to be
submitted to the conference as a whole. and you know, you try to be careful in that respect . you do have to appreciate as i mentioned earlier, you are not at all the boss in the usual sense and chief justice rehnquist had a good sense of when he should exert and assert his authority as chief and when he shouldn't and that's something you try to be careful about. >> one of the things i think the faculty is still talking about is something we all learned at lunch when you were kind enough to have lunch with the faculty today and that is your role at the smithsonian and i think that's something very few of us know about. would you mind telling us a little bit about that? >> it may come as a surprise to many people but the chief
justice, by virtue of his office is also something called the chancellor of the smithsonian . which is an even better sounding title than chief justice . [laughter] there's some odd historical reasons why that is so. but part of the reason, i think is that you have a board of regents that administers james smithson's trust as well as federal appropriations. they serve for a limited time and they wanted somebody there who would have continuity and could tell the regents well, when you make this decision you need another 12 years ago, this is what happened. certainly not because i have any expertise or experience in research or curatorial sciences. the smithsonian is the largest research and museum complex in the world and the idea that they would turn that over to me is kind of a surprise.
it's not an ex officio job. i do preside at the meetings and try to stay out of the purely policy areas and let the people who know what they're talking about discuss it but it's a fun thing. it takes more work than i expected but it's a nice distraction from the legal work. >> if i may, let's talk a little bit about collegiality among the members of the court. if particularly after a five four decision you listen to the media and maybe even read some of the dissents , you would think that the members of the court art constantly at one another's throat. yet we've been fortunate enough to have six justices from the court, in recent years here and every single one of them who visited new england law boston talk about the great respect and affection that they have for one another .
is that your experience? is that something you try to foster yourself? >> it's certainly my experience and something i was very happy to discover when i came on the port . we are nine very , we have strong views on important issues and we have to sit down and discuss those and reach some type of resolution and obviously, in a lot of these cases , important ones we are not all in agreement. but as we all like to say in the conference room where we meet, one table with nine chairs around it . we've had very serious discussion. we've had sometimes pointed disagreements but there has never been a voice raised in anger in that room . partly because of the nature of being a group that is thrown together to decide these very
important questions for an indeterminate period. if you think about it, take nine random people out of the room , throw them in a room and say you will be working together for the next 25 years on some of the most important and divisive issues the country faces. naturally , you immediately come to the realization that you can't and up shouting at each other every time you decide one of those issues. it's more of a long-term relationship. and you do come to appreciate the good faith of the people with whom you work. that's certainly been my experience. if you are going to have a knockdown, drag out fight after a big case this year you need to understand there will be several more the next year and more the next year. the process of having to decide those cases and reason through them really has a bonding effect , even when you find out
you are on opposite sides of the issue. it's a very unusual thing in the court , unlike most jobs or other situations. very rarely do people do the exact same thing , even if you are in the same department of a corporation or whatever. you're responsible for different areas or whatever . your faculty members working together but you are teaching different things. nine of us have the same job, take the same oath, read the same cases, read the same briefs, go to the same argument and are tasked with coming up with decisions so there is a strong bond that develops among the colleagues. we are very supportive of each other . i understand that doesn't always shine through in some of our opinions and that's more a matter of style for some justices and one thing i will say is that it's an awfully
good thing that we get away from each other in july and august. [laughter] justice brandeis said he could do the 12 months worth of work in 10 months but he couldn't do it in 12 months. and i think there was a lot of wisdom behind that. but all that aside, it's a wonderful collection of individuals and it's often , no one in that court is like anybody else on that court. it's a fascinating group . make , at very diverse interests and it's a real honor and pleasure to be able to work with them , most of the time. [laughter] >> you mentioned opinions a moment ago and in crafting an opinion , i'm very curious as to what's your intention.
who are you writing for? obviously it's the party, lawyers, law students in the future. some of these college educated judge judy fans. you are you writing for when you are crafting your opinion? >> i like to think of it as i'm writing for my sisters. i have three sisters and none of them are lawyers and yet they are intelligent laypeople that have active and busy lives and don't necessarily involve the government but they keep up with what's going on and i like to think they could pick up one of my opinions and be able to read it and understand what the is . understand how it's been resolved and understand the general view of how. the reason we write our opinions is because we have to justify the anti-democratic position which we are in. if you don't like what the
president is doing you can throw him out of office. if you don't like what your congressman is doing , you can throw him or her out of office. if you don't like what we are doing, it's too bad and because of that , this process has developed that we have to justify ourselves. we have to explain to you why we issued this decision . congress doesn't have to explain to anybody why they are pursuing a certain course. the president doesn't have to explain the actions he is taking although they obviously do but they are entitled to do what they do because the people elected them. we are entitled to do what we do because we are interpreting the law and not imposing our views and to make sure that's the case, we explain it to you. i would like to think that intelligent laypeople can understand that explanation and if people don't like the explanation or don't think it holds together, then they are justified, i think , in viewing
us as having transgressed on our role but i write for people who aren't necessarily lawyers. but do follow public affairs and can read the opinions intelligently . there's no reason to think that's necessarily the right answer. i think my colleagues have different views about it. you could be writing for the lawyers so that if it's in a particular area of law you feel comfortable using the legal terms and background principles. you could be writing for the academy , in other words they are the ones who spend a lot of time reviewing our work and you want them to understand at a particular level why we've done what we've done but i like to think and i'm sure it's not true in every case, but i like to think the money is not a lawyer but is a thoughtful person can pick up an opinion and read it and not necessarily follow the nuances but have a good idea about what was at issue and what was decided . >> chief justice roberts, in
reading your opinions you seem committed to clarity but also to keeping it interesting for the reader. for instance, in a case described by the new york times as quote, and achingly boring dispute between telephone companies , you livened up your this dissent by suggesting a lack of standing, quoting bob dylan. one of my favorites by pointing out when you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose. what would your objective in quoting bob dylan? >> it's consistent with what i said earlier. i think an intelligent layperson appreciates bob dylan spoke . his poetry if not his music. [applause] second of all all, it was after all a dissent so
you have a little bit more leeway there . it may have been achingly dual dole to the reporter but it was an important standing decision. i wouldn't have dissented if i didn't think it was important . and bob dylan captured the whole notion by standing and what was at issue there when he said if you don't have anything, you've got nothing to lose. in that case, the party didn't have any stake in the case and had nothing to lose.the case should have been thrown out on that basis. i know bob dylan what have agreed. >> you did clean up his language because the original language, the double negative , when you ain't got nothing you've got nothing to lose . >> actually i did get into a little bit of a discussion about that with somebody. that is as performed .
the liner notes show that it doesn't have the eight in it so i'm a bit of a texture list so i went with the liner notes. >> amid justices who you admire for their writing, anyone in the past that comes to mind for you? >> yes and i think many of the judges here would have the same answer and certainly all the justices. robert jackson is at least in the modern era , the most eloquent craftsman . he leads passages , but sort of things when you put the menu say i wish i could do that. and most of us can't. but mostly because he has a very good eye and understands , he sees things and how things
relate to other things in the world. he has this great passage, it's a first amendment religious clause case and he goes to the president but he's making the point and says , what would architecture be like without the pedal or painting without religious concepts and music without religious masses. he makes a particular point about the case that was before him but he's able to draw on all those experiences that are familiar to people and again , it would somebody who doesn't necessarily know about the law but would appreciate the point he was making about it in that case so he's a very eloquent writer. it's nice to come up on one of his opinions and read it but the other thing is, someone like john marshall, his opinions are very accessible from you think margrave versus madison, it's the old-style
print and the pages are faded and it so long but when you sit down and read it, it someone anybody can understand. very , very clear. it wasn't until this. in the late 19th century where judges in particular think the opinion wasn't legitimate if it didn't have to 24 whereas as an hereto force and all that in. there are a lot of good writers out there and i think it improves the understanding of their legal judgment and its accessibility when they have that skill. >> if we can talk just a little bit about you, chief justice roberts. in high school, you are captain of the football team . [applause] >> there were 24 boys in my graduating class . half of them were on the soccer
team . >> why the law over the nfl? >> i did expect to be, my original ambition was to be halfback for the chicago bears but somebody named gale sayers already had the job. as they say, it was a very, we were the smallest high school that played football in the state of indiana. so it wasn't that hard to be the captain. [laughter] >> you are regarded as one of the finest advocates of our time , arguing 39 times in front of the supreme court in the decade before being confirmed for a seat on the bc circuit. any advice for our new england law boston students and alumni about preparing and conducting an oral argument ? >> yes. the one thing i would say is i would be a much better oral
advocate and brief writer today than i was before i became a judge. you really do get a different perspective on the process when you are on the other side of the bench . brief writing is very easy. i was talking about this with the students but the page limit in the supreme court is about 50 pages. we do the word count because we got tired of lawyers punching everything in but it comes out to about 50 pages and as you are getting ready and pick up the first brief and it's 50 pages, you pick up a responders brief and it's 50 pages. you go to the next case, it's 50 pages. the next one is 50 pages. all of a sudden you pick up on and it's 35 pages. can you imagine the impact of that? you are the lawyer, you're trying to reach the judges . can you imagine , it's 35 pages. the first thing you do is look
at the cover, find out who your new best friend in the bar is . but then you also realize that he probably has a good case. it only takes 35 pages and she's done. she must have a lot of confidence in the strength of her argument. and the second thing you realize is that you are going to read those 35 pages very carefully because you know that she went to the trouble of distilling it in a way that there obviously can't be a lot of fluff so you are going to read it more carefully. judges say it all the time and people think it's because they don't want to work so hard but no. it's a very good idea tactically . i look at it as, if you really can't explain why you should win in 35 pages , do you really think you need the additional 15 pages ? and if you don't, then it does hurt you to have them . so i think that's very
important. it's hard for lawyers . i spent many years having clients and by the way, don't check my briefs and see how many pages they were. this is something i learned , not necessarily something i did. it's hard to explain to a client when you tell him this is what we are going to file in court. they're going to say no, i pay for 50 pages. you are shortchanging me but you have to have the professionalism and the confidence to say, you hired me to handle this for you. i think we have a better chance if it's 35 pages instead of 50. and on the oral advocacy part, again it's the same sort of thing. everybody tells you don't avoid the questions the judges want to ask but you really have to take that seriously. you don't need the windup. if the judge is asking one of the lawyers a question , it's probably not a comfortable
question. it's something they want to try to point out a flaw in your argument and get you to explain it. but welcome the question and john w davis said that in a famous piece. you know the judge is concerned about it .you are given the chance to address it but do it directly. if somebody says, in this case , didn't the person in the same position as your client raise the same argument and that was rejected, right? if it was, say yes. as soon as you say yes, the judge is going to listen to what you have to say. as soon as you say oh no , that person was different for this obscure reason that doesn't have anything to do with my argument , the judge immediately says now i've got to pry out of this lawyer what their position is on this particular case .
he or she is not going to give me a straight answer. you develop an immediate hostile relationship as opposed to being in a position or the judge says okay, this person understands we are both engaged in this process.he's going to help me out with this answer. he's obviously going to respond in a particular way that helps his client but at least he's not fighting the question. it's not good when you leave as a lawyer and say this was great. i had this big problem in my case and i didn't get a question about it. that means you haven't given an opportunity to tell the court what your answer to the problem is. >> what are some of the attributes or qualities i know this is a difficult question but that president bush saw that led to his nominating you to be a chief justice? >> i don't know , to be honest with you. [laughter] i don't know but i
do know that he gave it a lot of thought. i went to the interview process with him was very uplifting for me. not because of how it worked out at the end . frankly, at the end of the interview i didn't expect it to work out the way it did but i was impressed with his understanding of the courts and the government and his general view of the responsibility on him. there's always , there seems to be a strange and unusual story behind every appointment of a chief justice . for john marshall, for example. he was not john adams first choice. john j was. it was a time when the jeffersonian's had taken over. jefferson was about to be inaugurated , however ellsworth had health issues and john
adams needed a new chief justice and his thought was john jay. john jay is the perfect person. he's got experience with it. he's done being governor of new york which he thought was a better job . i'll write him a letter and he will take it. john jay wrote back a letter that's a fascinating letter, the gist of which was , the supreme court is never going to amount to anything. i was well out of it before and i'm not coming back. and so john adams as secretary of state brought him that letter. adams read it and said , looked up at his secretary of state who was john marshall and said who should i nominate now? i guess i have to nominate you. and the rest is history. morrison wade was grants fifth or sixth choice .
a lot of corruption in the government then. everybody nominated turned out to be involved in some financial impropriety and he literally said to his attorney general at one point, who is that guy in ohio who introduced me at the reunion of the army of the potomac. i liked him. the attorney general didn't recall but found out it was this guy named morrison weight and grant said let's give him a try. and he was confirmed. it turned out to be a perfectly fine chief justice . it's interesting. his portrait in the east conference room , his picture of him and then a little portrait enclosed in the portrait of grant so at least he was appreciative of grant. think about that whenever you are asked to introduce somebody. you never know . edward white became chief justice because although taft had assured charles evans
hughes when he appointed him as an associate justice that he would elevate him when the vacancy came available, he suddenly realized that use was 47 years old and if he appointed him chief justice , president taft would never be able to become chief justice which is what he always wanted. his wife wanted him to be president, he wanted to be chief justice. at the last minute he defied it decided to point the 65-year-old edward white instead who was probably as surprised as everyone else. and it all worked out. became chief justice after white died on schedule . [laughter] and then taft left, charles evans hughes became chief justice again so you never know quite how the appointments come about. >> the biggest challenge you see or challenges you face rather? >> i do think at least for me,
i can't speak for the others. i do think the incredibly rapid development of technology that's going on right now is going to be a challenge . it's not going to be any particular area but cuts across many different areas . we had a big case a couple years ago for example, about the smart phones and whether police needed a separate warrant if they arrest you . you got a smart phone, do they need a separate warrant to access your phone? not all of us are as familiar with the technological devices are or what things are on them or the capabilities and it's a challenge. how does that fit with the fourth amendment? their work smart phones back then. it's one of those things where you get a lot of guidance from
history in that case. the fourth amendment is there because the founders around this area didn't like british troops executing general warrants and kicking the door down and rummaging through their desks . and if you think about it, right now, today, which would you rather protect if you have a choice?do you want to keep police out of your desk without a warrant or do you want to keep them out of your smart phone? how many would say the desk? how many would say your smart phones? of course. because it is your desk. it has all your documents. it has everybody you talk to. it's where you've been, it's what you've been reading, everything. it's a new technology but you have to apply the old standards. it's not just in that area. how does the first amendment work with respect to speech on the internet? if everybody's a reporter when they blog , how is the freedom
of press working with respect to that.business areas, the intellectual property . it's a real challenge now as the technologies developed and what is the role of the tiny little chip that somebody has and how the entire system functions. what does that have to do with monopoly analysis and things of that sort. i think that's going to be the challenge across the board in all source of different cases . >> i often wonder whether someone who has attained the position of chief justice of the united states would ever entertain doing anything else . william howard taft served as chief justice but was also president of the united states. i just wonder whether you have a winery just starting now. >> what a horrifying thought. [laughter] no, it's a life term
and i intend to fill out the term . >> thank you chief justice roberts. thank you for sharing and thank you very much. i appreciate it. thank you very much. thank you. okay. >> justice anthony scalia's body will lie in repose in the great hall of the supreme court. 9:30 eastern tomorrow, the court will host a ceremony attended by former and current pre-court justices, family and friends of justice scalia. his former law clerks and
supreme court staff. following the ceremony, the hall will be open to the public until 8 pm eastern. the president and first lady, members of congress and other dignitaries are expected to be among those paying their respects. live coverage begins tomorrow at 9:50 a.m. eastern. and with congress on break this week, we are featuring book tv in prime time. tonight is books on us history starting at eastern with a discussion of the book these united states : a nation in the making 1890 present. that's followed by author john sedgwick on his book war of two : alexander hamilton, aaron burr and the duelist on the nation. at 10 pm, william p jones on the march on washington and we finished up with author tom lewis on his book washington: the history of our national city.book tv on prime time tonight at eight eastern on c-span 2. >> this weekend, the c-span city tour posted by our
partners take you to greenville to explore the city's history and literary culture. on book tv in 1939, september 1939 when europe went to war, our allies , primarily england and france looked to washington dc for goods and materials they needed . washington dc looked down to the textile capital of the world and all of a sudden government contracts came funneling into this area , asking the mills here to begin producing for the war effort for our allies and of course the united states as well. >> on american history tv . >> we are standing right here at river falls and this was a pretty nasty spot . it's hard to believe looking at it it's one of the best parks in the country but this was a very depressed , nasty place. and it's a great story of how a community can get behind apart
nobon soire.. attention. can you hear me? welcome. i am very excited to be part of the panel of interesting women. on my left margo jefferson, a very old and dear friend. cultural critic and author of the just published negroland:a memoir and on michael jackson and many other things. she has also been a staff writer for the new york times and won a pulitzer prize for criticism in 1995. her essays have been widely published and anthologized and she teaches writing at columbia university.
katie roiphe is director of the cultural reporting and criticism program that you n.y.--new york university and author of several books including the morning after, sex fear and feminism on campus, and uncommon arrangement. rejane senac is a researcher and professor at the center for political research in paris. she is a member of the steering committee with research and lecture program on gender studies and the share of the commission of higher council for gender equality run by the french prime minister's office. the most recent book conditional e quality, gender parity, published this year, 2016. sandrine treiner is head of french public radio station
previously worked elsewhere and has written several documentaries as well as an adaptation of a dress and no. her books focus on the female condition among recent of which the idea of a portrait of a young french communist militant. i thought it was -- i came up with the idea of this panel this summer. because is a question i am never not thinking about. the -- "the second sex" was published in 1949. in one sense, there are
differences between then and now and a great measure of progress. on the other hand you open the newspaper every day or turn on the television and go on line, you see one story more horrific than the next about enslavement and my generalization of women. so it seems pertinent to ask the question are we still "the second sex" and is there anybody who thinks we are not? do any of you think we are not still the second sex? >> we have to have this equal to simone de beauvoir's brilliant work. male dominance is at its shakiest. women are now the majority of the work force in america, the majority of managers in america, college graduates for every -- and radical advances.
that is not the whole story. >> when i was 15 or 20 it was not an issue at all. i was born a child and i was about to become an adult and i would have never -- that question. it happened a long time after that maybe 30 or 35 years old. i would say according -- we are now living at a time of backlash you would see women everywhere, but i think we are
facing two opposite problems. the first problem would be that we have wonderful researchers who worked a lot, all kind of equality issues and gender issues. and they are pretty much far away from the citizens and most of the citizens do not understand at all what we mean by talking about those issues gender issues and things like that, that is the first one and the other thing, on the
opposite we have some difficulties to make understand the steps we need to, the concrete set, we have to face altogether and indeed all our professional societies still a problem and we have a lot of difficulties to understand what we still have to do to become equal. >> many decades after the seminal book of simone de
beauvoir, still the analysis, the fact that gender inequality the picture is still a picture of gender inequality in the world is a political issue, moreover i think to make the differences, a significant improvement, the seminal book and the fact that gender equality is not active nowadays. we have to face a picture of improvement and equal and low.
a huge block in terms of raising the issue of gender equality. i think nowadays in political software of complementary if you look for example -- still 5% of women in the world, heads of state, 5%, if you look for other markets we have a huge gender pay gap between men and women. and that shows the persistence of inequality and gender norm in
our society. >> i think among other things the variety and range of any quality throughout through the west, non-western worlds that is remarkable thing. it used to be in the second wave of feminism that we western women we were in a kind of vanguard. we could get culturally smudged. look at the things that are happening, abortion is being utterly attacked. and physical violence against
women. >> even contraception. everything that we publicly took pride in is under assault. 8 huge problem of the range, diversity in a negative way discrimination and oppression also make it very hard to address so many toxins how to you handle each one? there are huge divisions between women in different countries and different classes and ethnicities this complicates the problem. >> i wanted to ask, in particular scott keeter traveled to america before doing research done "the second sex". and introduced her to richard wright.
and just postwar racism in america. and right after the second world war, she framed the notion of the woman as other and the objectified other, and the generalities to objectify someone diminish the object, she used race and religion to frame her arguments and 20 years later in the 60s, white women were told you have to take a back seat, issues of class are much more pressing. >> they will not say out loud and actually the issue of race and the men in each group, you
have to take a back seat and support this. and struggle against racism. >> i want to ask everybody on the panel do you see the struggles as separate, can or should they be separated? how did the experiences as women of color, do they relate to each other? not saying one is worse or better, but double whammy. >> they mutate constantly, one will covers the other. with some form of discrimination is entirely racially based, feminism the second wave of feminism for my generation did not exist in the 1950s enter the 60s when i was coming of age but when you start to learn about
this you realize they were constantly sex, class and race are constantly interacting, collaborating, sometimes competing with each other very much competing and that is one of the problems in the intellectual formation, each group is inclined to feel in terms of justice we operate in a scarcity economy. people of color are not wrong to feel necessarily, practically if you are putting women ahead and probably in some way as the operating system you are discriminating or deciding to forget about another group that needs attention so we are constantly struggling with this need to to play groups against each other and reward one over the other.
>> anyone else had a thought? >> one of the problems in american feminism is the tendency of cirque in feminist police to identify as victimized in the same way as a woman in saudi arabia is victimized without distinction and a friend of mine wrote an amazing book called excellent daughter about women in the middle east a you read this book and you can see their experience is worse than the average liberal college freshman whose problems are at the same level. we collapse these extinctions radically is eager to jump in and say i am victimized and that there may be a loss of that. >> is that true? >> that is the main challenge.
and for me between racism and gender inequality or sexism is geopolitical gender inequality in terms of natural realization of of this inequality, and it is important to challenge, to focus our these to reshape in a political issue to get their connaught to carry a new frame, new political and institutional frame and joy not to fall into the trap of but tension between
victims, competition, not so i think we don't have to fall into this trap, in particular in the political agenda public policy, and we have not to forget the reason and challenge, and to prove this issue. and not a reformist approach, between this kind of geopolitical inequality. >> let me ask specifically you found common ground, you have to find a definition. and different degrees of struggle of oppression of
freedom, what do you see? >> it is 8 trap. and in order to solve the problem, like division in terms of equal citizens and for me it is contradictory. we are facing this in our society. >> i think exactly the same thing. it is a trap it is like if we were wondering whether we should fight for the gay rights or the
woman writes, it is impossible to think this way or that way, and a lot of differences but one of the big differences is in france we just discovered we were living in a mixed society. we didn't know about that, really. and it is true. it has happened ten years, not before and may be less. we were all supposed to be the same, but and the same citizens thinking the same way, having the same allegiance which was forbidden in the public space and everything is not totally different but it has suddenly
become different, we are not used to it at all and with specialty, a lot of problems now, you all heard about the veil, the islamic veil, it has been a recall problem that's decided the feminist movement or the left-wing, you know a lot of things we don't know about that kind of issues. >> "the second sex" started as a memoir. simone de beauvoir said she was moved to write it because when she tried to define who she was the first sentence that came to
her was i am a woman and i wonder if you would speak personally. you said you didn't really realize more think much about this or that until you were 35. i wonder when it occurred to you. i remember i didn't think much of it either until my mother told me one day i should not raise my hand so much, i wonder when you became aware of this, maybe you were scared. >> i gave a generational portrait. there was rapid social change, my mother came of age and told her only ugly women are lawyers. and when i was a kid trying to watch the brady bunch my mother would stand over my head giving me feminist critiques saying girls should not be cheerleaders i know.
i was already bored and impatient with this idea that women have equal opportunities by the time i was 5 years old, and i was watching the primary debate with her. she likes obama. and she looked at me with inert distain. the it in her world, why would that not be a woman president. and i think back about that change, something dizzying and hard in terms of what is available to us. i did not feel i could do what i wanted to do. the sexism was subtle and more complicated and shrewder in the world i grew up in but it wasn't -- race with a feminist
consciousness. >> as i said, i was born right around the time simone de beauvoir was publishing. i grew up in a relatively in line and in terms of my family and schooling and environment meaning if you want to be a doctor or lawyer or whenever. choreographer, you can do that but you must not violate any of the structures and strictures of also being a successful woman. you really had to do double duty. being a successful woman not only came as i am sure many of your women but with a battering of laws and conventions about
how to look, how to dress. in the old days you were supposed to only cross your knees if you were a proper girl. there were hundreds of rules like that especially in person because the history of race dictated black women were essentials be seen as beasts of burden who pretty much had proven they were sexually lewd, intellectually inadequate like their brothers and not capable of being this thing called a lady, a wellborn, oilman ridley the so i grew up crawling up with all of that too. it is a strange message. you can do what you want but you really can't if involved breaking any rules.
still being considered less. >> every american knows this, ginger rogers and fred astaire were a famous defense team. she did everything backwards and in high heels. that was always the thing. did you have a moment, you are 40 and you came of age in another world, was there a moment, is this what you do for a living, this is your passion and research, did you have a personal moment where you realize there were things people were telling you you could not do or this society was in some way a barrier? >> i prefer to speak of simone de beauvoir, both to be around
and functional to take into account the inequality between women and men, and the old identification and singular reservation. for me, the main point is to face a dilemma and somehow experiment but also in a more collective and political experiment. in order to object to inequality, we have to have a picture of women and men in the public's fear. and also if you want to live in a real equal society