Skip to main content

tv   Public Affairs Events  CSPAN  November 29, 2016 12:00am-2:01am EST

12:00 am
another core principle is that it's free. we wanted to be free to redistribute so it means that you can copy, modify, redistribute versions commercially or noncommercially. people can take the concept and repurpose it into whatever they want and were happy when they do that. what is this mean? in order to make it legally possible we have to respect the law so we respect copy right, we don't allow copyright violations but is broader than that. you can play try something without technically violating copyright but we don't want to plagiarize things. it's important as an ethical thought within the community to say whatever problems are with wikipedia we can say that we made that. we cited our sources and this is important from an ethical point to be for us in the community is very passionate about it. if you think about the kinds of
12:01 am
legal problems that we might have dealing with copyright infringement is very minimal for us. the community police does the copyright complaint rise to the legal department. another core value is civility. one of the earliest rules of wikipedia is no personal attacks. we all know if you go online to any kind of discussion of anything it can quickly descendent to vicious personal attacks. tax on you as a person. this is against -- all pretend to you it doesn't happen. people get upset and yell and insults but there is a fundamental pipe in the community that is wrong. but if you've done that you should apologize. if you don't apologize you should be banned and we do ban people who can't behave in a proper manner. it's. it's not a perfect system but it
12:02 am
works well. it does help to attract a good group of people. who really care about getting it right. one of the areas where newcomers actually have a hard time because they come from other environments where the way to get something done is to yell at people and insult people that's normal behavior fear. you come to wikipedia had its like like whoa, he immediately start off to edit the entry on hillary clinton and you immediately come in and start going you left us in were like hold on were writing an encyclopedia so relax a little bit. let's try to improve the entry together. one of the strangest rules is iar which is ignore all rules. this again has two meanings to it. one is it's basically we want to
12:03 am
be able to question our roles. are they actually valid and helpful? so we want people to say if you see a way to improve it that's against some alleged role go ahead and do it but you better be ensured that you're improving it. it's not an easy thing to ignore all the rules. the rules themselves should be written in a fashion that they should be intuitively obvious for people. things like don't go around calling people hitler is obviously good idea. this is basic kindergarten ethics. don't lie about who you are, don't write biased things, don't misrepresent misrepresent sources, these are basic things. if there is a rule about the exact four night formatting of a footnote that if you don't do it
12:04 am
right no one should yell at you they should come and fix the footnote and give your pointer. and so and so i fixed your footnote here's a style guide to how we do it. that kind of nice behavior so we shouldn't be -- the truth is we been doing it for long time and this is a feeling that the community. were experienced at writing an encyclopedia newcomers sometimes aren't and then they put off but when the community corrects their work. we try to be nice but we are human beings. finally i want to speak about our business model. the foundation is a charity. we are a 5o1c3 nonprofit. were run in the fifth most popular website in the world which is an astonishing fact. that's unusual. we have about 250 or 270 employees mostly in san francisco. we have san francisco. we have local chapters run the world for local nonprofit organization's that deal with press local. it's an unusual model and
12:05 am
importantly more than 90% of the funding is from the small donors. people who are giving 50 or hundred dollars, occasionally a banner that says please give to wikipedia and it's important that you do so. as it turns out, the last numbers i crunched it cost about 1 penny per month, per reader to provide wikipedia. if you give $20 to wikipedia then the next 20,000 people people you can say i paid your wikipedia will this month. and i hope you do. we take fundraising seriously but we been reasonably successful. we run it in a conservative way, we build up the amount of reserves that are recommended for nonprofit of our size.
12:06 am
is something we have to take seriously. it's not easy to get the money we need and every organization could use more money to do more good work. power doing okay doing okay and it's important that people do donate. finally, talk about laws and our position in the world. laws can really damage our work. with the internet works is not an automatic. there's a a certain set of legal framework and things that are necessary to preserve the ability for websites like wikipedia to exist. they often think of laws adjudicating conflict between silicon valley and -- there is a big issue which i'll talk about the soap of -- bill and we
12:07 am
thought that and we want. or there's a trade up between freedom and security. i live in the u.k. know where the knee-jerk response to any kind of security problem is to walk down and spy on the internet and treat everybody in the u.k. as a potential criminal. these are not very clever ways of doing it. what we ask lawmakers is to consult with us before back in laws. far too often lawmakers propose laws and it's fairly clear they do not even have the most rudimentary understanding of how the internet works. that's a bad thing. but it's very where rare for us to speak on political issues. i do personally sometimes. i try to limit what i say politically to issues i feel like my community will generally agree with me but i divide my personal views 12 are doing at the foundation. on this issue, the law was going to law and require the building of a censorship framework technologically not different than what china does. it was about blocking overseas
12:08 am
websites without a hearing. it was a very poorly thought out legislation. we were told at the last minute was being rushed through. it had bipartisan support there's a few great people in congress who stalled it through christmas which gave us enough time to talk to the community and discuss what to do. we decided to do a protest. in january of that year, 2011 it's been a while, we decided to go black for one day. so it went completely blank not just in the u.s. >> early 2012 was the blackout. >> so the fall of 2011 where discussing anyway, on that day
12:09 am
it went black and you can imagine the results. people in crazy, we heard that 10 million people contacted congress that day. we heard that the house of representatives phone system crashed. it was kind of a big deal. what we felt was important about our role in that was that we really put forward the message, we are noncommercial, or group of volunteers trying to provide the world with a gift. this is not about is it google versus hollywood. that's not the issue. copyright many years ago you could think of it as an industrial regulation it didn't directly impact most people. publishers and authors of books and their relations with each other. now everybody deals with copyright all the time. one of my favorite examples to get people to step back and think about copyright is that if you take a video at a kids birthday party and in the
12:10 am
background there is miley cyrus song playing and then you upload it to you to and send the link to grandma so she can look at the kids birthday party, a normal use of copyrighted content, it's very likely that google will detected in silence the soundtrack. i'm not blaming google, but this is strange for this is not what we really think of as piracy or economically impactful. i think think it's time to revisit these issues. another issue were active on is what's known as the right to be forgotten. obviously existentially this is not possible to have a right for other people to forget you, like you can't really control what's in other people's minds. what i say as it should be called the right to censor google. it's a concept in europe that for certain types of content and not talk about libel or any of
12:11 am
the kind of edge cases we might wonder about. as things that are deemed to buy the person it's about, the irrelevance of the bigger problem with it is not just that it's a violation of freedom of expression but the way it's implemented is through legal decision from a law that existed before google. it's about database information right which when the law was written there is thinking about things like your personal medical record. to save your company is your personal medical records you should have a right test them to delete that. i don't have a strong view on that but it's very different from this newspaper wrote in article about me ten years ago and i don't want people to read it anymore. that's a different story. so the problem we have now is
12:12 am
that if you want to get something deleted there isn't a well-formed legal process. i say if you're going to require google to delete a link to a newspaper, you, you better get a judge of all. that's the lowest possible bar they should be doing. that doesn't happen. if google doesn't do it they can be subject to fines. as a publisher like wikipedia if google is deleting links which they are we don't really have a clear course of action. we can complain but there's not an obvious way for publishers to deal with this. the whole thing needs to be revisited. this is the the political activism that we do. it's quite easy to get the public excited about turning wikipedia offered day. that's a a very powerful tool but we don't want to use it too often. we don't want to be like oh i wonder what they're moaning about today there and strike at the time. it's a tool that we should be willing to use when the moment is right and we cannot positive change. i met a conclude in the will have time for questions.
12:13 am
when it's hot all the forces of anger and hate. right now we are in this incredibly, highly intellectual and clever election cycle where issues of substance, of course not. the world the world today is filled with faces of anger and hate. the media is a disappointing surface. i think we can pity is and should be, is much as human beings can make it a plate for reason and discourse. to prepare oneself to make valid judgments about the world. you don't come here to tells what to think, you come here to get information you need to make up your mind. so the world of the wikipedia editors in the discussions and debates -- this is not our world. wikipedia is about building bridges not walls. i think wikipedia is a force for
12:14 am
knowledge and knowledge as a force for peace and understanding. thank thank you very much for your time. [applause] >> please wait to be called on. wait for the microphone so everyone can hear the question. >> i think will be waiting for the microphone. >> herb rose, how do you decide about disagreements as to certain entries in wikipedia? >> disagreements are normally, they are resolved through a process of dialogue and debate. very often one of the great things about taxes there's very often away if you keep rewriting to accommodate both points of view. i give the example of abortion
12:15 am
but let's take another example. something has happened in israel and one group of people are saying it's a massacre, the other people are saying it was a defensive operation. wikipedia can't decide that. they will be competing sources on it. but what they can do is step away from it and say well at this particular time -- said this and this person responded this way. other people said this and that, this was a result of a tribunal held later. we can give you all the facts of what the perspectives were and you can judge based on the best evidence available what you think about it. that works in most cases people are able to say actually this is what an encyclopedia do. it's not come to the final conclusion. other mechanisms we use is
12:16 am
there's a passion for reliable sources. we look for high quality sources , so it's not simplistic in saying will accept the new york times looks at the daily mail will sate daily mail is not that great of -- but they sometimes do breaking news, journalism and import things that should be credited to them. question about blogs. should we treat hush we treat it? it depends. in many cases blogs would not be considered a reliable source. as a result where camby is with if a politician writes on their own view of something in their own blog that's a good source for what their own view is. there's a lot of subtleties. there's no magic bullet. no no algorithm or simple answer to some of these things other than chewing on it and discussing and
12:17 am
debating and working hard to try to reach a consensus. >> this is one of my mentors from back of the day. >> hello it's good to see. let me first say that what you have accomplished is just a green, awesome. my congratulations to you. having said that, my question is a little bit ironic because i want to pick up a your allusion to hayek and the nature of the knowledge. your slide suggested i think there's a little bit more literal about it that it seems to me that wikipedia achieves a degree of objectivity and accuracy that could be described as a result of human action but not of human design in the sense
12:18 am
that it emerges from the spontaneous order people interacting the way you describe. granted, there is your design but even the rules are evolving. so just be interested in your take on that. >> i think that's really true. certainly when you have people of good faith and working together who may be very different ideological perspective the imprint thing is when i specify that their kind and thoughtful because kind and thoughtful people who it i disagree with are much better to work with then a raging ideologue who won't listen to anybody who i actually agree with. that's an annoying person to try to edit with. there is that. is that. what comes out of wikipedia is not necessarily something that you would get from a smaller group of people, but the ability
12:19 am
for anything to be challenged at any time means a few things, it can be challenged if it's wrong but as people are writing their thinking in their minds, i need to need to make sure i cover a possible objection. the mets a big piece of it. i have a friend with a different philosophical perspective of everyone who says all knowledge is just convention so for him wikipedia is true because it's conventional. i said okay i don't agree, i think your reality exists but there is something important about dialogue and working to knock off the rough edges by acknowledging different perspective. >> to be fair here, but i'm also always looking for women to speak up because it's true, all the way down to about five years old the boys always raise their hands first. >> is wikipedia's presence in
12:20 am
what i might call the apparatus of civilizations knowledge base rises, it seems to me that from the standpoint of all kinds of political actors the stakes rise for a lot of holders to influence the content and so in particular have you noticed, and i'm just making this up, but it's easy to imagine this happening if you think about the kinds of the scale of resources that are available to state actors, the chinese might say tomorrow let's hire 10000 people and just have them revisit through wikipedia and writeup new pages and so on and if you have this hardy band of three or 5000 people trying to cover all knowledge and you have 10000 chinese going after something they care about how do you see
12:21 am
any evidence of this? and if so, how do you imagine yourself? i see the question. so here's what i think, i think, we have not seen any large-scale effort sort of state efforts to flood them with editors. it's something we worry about in the abstract but not something we have seen. i had a conversation once but i think will help illustrate the problem. actually two conversations and they both involve russia but it could be other places. i was in russia having dinner with an editor of a popular magazine, nonpolitical. is very skeptical about wikipedia and he said what are you just go pay ten of your editors $100 each and i'll just make it say what i wanted to they said will think about it.
12:22 am
you have to do that and you would have to trust that none of those ten editors would leak or announce this fact that the editor-in-chief from a magazine was bred bribing someone, that's great news story and people would be happy to expose you. furthermore, your editor in your editor-in-chief of the magazine. it's easier for you to do that. like if i want to change what's in the process much easier for me to control you than it is to control hundreds of wikipedia volunteers. move to the next question some of so there's a conflict between ukraine and russia and crimea, someone said to me actually russian wikipedia is very different from ukrainian and from english wikipedia on certain aspects so the question of the plane that was shot down, what are the facts there. russian wikipedia tended to be one-sided which i regarded as a problem is someone said it's
12:23 am
obvious the russians have agents controlling wikipedia so i asked a ukrainian board member who speaks russians and i said what's going on and basically what they said was were aware of the problem, the problem is not that the russian wikipedia and's are controlled by the government is that the government controls all of the sources of russian language. therefore it's harder for people to reach neutrality when they go to newspapers they normally regard as legitimate and reliable sources because they have quality newspapers in russia that are quite good at many topics in which case they told the line. that is a problem when all the sources in the language they one thing, obviously people speak other languages this is no longer world where people can control information. for a time you can.
12:24 am
we see this more often on minor things, there will be minor disputes between different countries about different things. i spoke to a parliament member lithuania once i talked about, he was a history and he talked about a famous battle between with the wing in poland. could read english, german, lithuania and polish. he read them all and he said basically what i see is the lithuania version tells the lithuania version of the story, the germans, they don't even cover it it's not big there, and english tells both sides of the story and explains why there's a historical conflict about the sources of what different people believe. and i said it doesn't surprise me because lithuanians, if i ask people born in the u.s. or any english-speaking country who
12:25 am
invented the airplane, that's a simple second grade answer, the wright brothers. apparently if you ask french people you get a different answer. it's not because there's any genuine nationalist conflict between the americans of the french is just that people know things that they grow up with. if you go to wikipedia, somebody called us out and said french wikipedia and english are very different, now if you go to english wikipedia and read the history of aeronautics you learn about a brazilian guy in france and most of the time i have this cartoon view of how it was invented. it's people with -- this is really off-topic but the wright brothers stood they invented the first plane, it went further than it would have if it work lighter. but it didn't go up which is
12:26 am
important for an airplane in the brazilian guy is the first guy who went up. so it's a legitimate claim of priority. but this this is the kind of thing that hopefully by having an open system and open dialogue or people from different cultures can commit a challenge and say in second grade i was taught -- so let's talk about that and now we can begin to learn more together. a lot of the wikipedia volunteers are passionate about that and learning new things that are surprising in some way. >> my name is cindy crawford, this is related to the last question from a commercial perspective. i was wondering was wondering if you find if there's movies or products coming out if your offered page entries if
12:27 am
it's available to the public? >> so we discourage that. the tricky thing when people try to use it for marketing purses purposes it can backfire. people write a press release and publish on wikipedia and they say this product is not out yet, they're just going to delete it. also we think wikipedia is an encyclopedia nonadvertising directory. we discourage it. there's a set of guidelines for people and the person has a right to engage in the public dialogue but we say to them there are right ways and wrong ways of going about it. the most important thing to do is to engage with the community and an honest faction. ideally you would say there's an error and you can send to the
12:28 am
news coverage. a lot of times celebrities who are quite controversial and they said my wikipedia article is terrible. then we'll see what this is about. i often think it's about this 18 outrageous or obnoxious things they did or said in their lives and it's not that, some some minor factual detail, and it really bothers them that we have it wrong basically if you have a conflict of interest the best thing to do is never edit the page directly, engage with the community, what did you do if there is an heir about you in the new york times, you don't try to change the new york times, you call them up or you email and say you have this wrong can you correct it. obviously some organizations are more responsive and we try to be very responsive. i would say to people if you have that experience and it didn't work keep escalating it,
12:29 am
e-mail me personally because are passionate about getting it right. [applause] >> thank you for an outstanding presentation, especially like the part about asking legislators to consult with you before they pass any stupid laws. >> . .
12:30 am
thank you again for your generosity in making this evening possible and everyone for being here. have a great evening. [inaudible conversations]
12:31 am
come with a requirement for some kind of framework for putting data into a central repository where people can have access to it or it can be searched not only on an individual item by item basis but on a scale basis because we've run 2.5 million we are going to get more and more and move towards an on-demand service them general counsel issues facing congress and the music industry over digital music services including copyright laws, ticket price inflation and the competition
12:32 am
between. interviewed by the technology reporter for politico. >> they do buy tickets but they keep other fans out of the market for tickets and what we are finding is some fans want to go see a concert and they can mash the buttons on the computer all day long so they are not able to get tickets in the first run at the list price so they are left with the opportunity on buying them after the secondary market and pass them along to promoters who raise the prices. >> eight eastern on c-span2.
12:33 am
12:34 am
we are asking students to participate in the video competition by telling us what is the most urgent issue for the next president and the incoming congress to address in 2017? open to all middle school and high school students grades six through 12 students can work alone or in a group of up to three to produce a five to seven minute documentary on the issue selected. a grand prize of $5,000 will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. the deadline is january 20, inauguration day. for more information go to the website student
12:35 am
up next a discussion on president obama's legacy on race issues in the criminal justice.. this was part of the harvard university kennedy school conference on race and justice in the age of obama. it's 90 minutes. hello everyone. it's a pleasure to be here to introduce the next panel. i was so enthralled by everything that happened in the first two hours that i forgot i had a little part to play in the next session, so forgive me for this unplanned delay. i'm going to introduce the moderator and let him take it from there. the moderator is douglas blackmon by pulitzer prize-winning author of slavery by another name the enslavement of americans from the civil war to world war ii and the
12:36 am
coexecutive producer of the acclaimed pbs documentary based on the same name. i will also add he is a friend and colleague. he is also a contributing correspondent at the "washington post" and executive producer and host of american for rummymy public affairs program produced by the university of virginia's miller center and airs on 100 public affiliates across the united states. his book is important in helping to frame how we understand historically the long journey from the period of convict leasing to the great raw material that didn't make their way to detroit by osmosis but io fact by the unfree labor of of african-americans and private lease contracts a story that is haunting and all too connected to the contemporary crisis of mass incarceration.
12:37 am
there is a lot more to say and it's wonderfully detailed so if you want to know more i will share it with you but in the interest of moving forward, read his book, watch the documentary and pay close attention to what everyone has to say now. thank you. [applause] when the interviews were done -- [inaudible] it was on before. i first met him by watching video of an interview slavery by another name. as i was watching the interview, one of the greatest filmmakers i
12:38 am
called him up and said who isgoi this good looking guy with a brilliant voice i didn't know. it's great to be here and with such a great trevithick group of people. let me quickly givbut we quickly biographies. for efficiency i'm going to do it in the order that i have here.ha either way, the panel as you can see in the program is in the civil rights in the obama era. we will try to focus the conversation on that, ratherer than the more expensive question the previous panel engaged in. appear with me, we have megan francis assistant professor at the political science washington trained at princeton, she specializes in the study of american politics, race,
12:39 am
constitutional law, constitution of civil war south, the author of civil rights and the making of the modern american state and currently working on a project i'm interested in knowing morere about examining the role of the criminal justice system and thed rebuilding of the economic power after the civil war, so very closely related to slavery by another name. matthew guterl with a focus on civil war to the present, african studies in american studies and chair of american studies at brown universit brows written four books on race and the progressive era and the history of and cultural context of racial profiling and on the lives of the great josephine alo baker. the deputy vice president in the office of research advocacy legislatioand advocacylegislatil council of laice raza and the advocacy politics, but tina
12:40 am
issued perspectives, voterle mobilization, coalition building and currently oversees the organization's work on the efforts to expand latino engagement and civic life public policy debates and is a graduatn of the kennedy school where we e are. we also have ron sullivan in the areas of criminal law,w, procedure, practice and cri techniques, the theory, the director of the harvard criminal justice institute and the trial advocacy workshop and also serves as the first-everalso american master than harvard history as the master at the college was a founding member and senior fellow of the jamestown project and then heather and thompson is something of an emerging celebrity in the american serious media. she's crossing over all the boundaries for the public
12:41 am
intellectual, professor of history at the african studies,- the residential college and department of history at michigan she writes about the history as well as the current crisis in the mass incarcerati incarceration. her works appeared in "the new york times," atlantic, huffingtonpost and elsewhere and when i was referring to the recent book blood in the water, the uprising and the legacy as a finalist for the national book award and has been a sensation the past year. it's a book i heard her commiserating about many times over many years wondering if anyone would ever read it so congratulations on the wonderful responses that you've gotten. why don't we just quickly here from the panelists on the topic and i will narrow the slightly, that we just heard a discussion that i would say it's pretty critical and harsh in some
12:42 am
respects of the lost opportunities and limitedis, peh success in more general terms about issues of race and broad questions of opportunity that how would we compare your assessment of civil rights more specifically against the backdrop of the sense of some lack of fulfillment in terms of the broad questions to not say it's the ultimate summary of what we just heard. but just suppose your view of civil rights versus the critique we just heard why don't we just start at the very end? >> the interesting thing to menf is its related back to the previous pan off if there are undue expectations to deliver on
12:43 am
the other issues that would be completely unrealistic to expect of anyone else. on the question of civil rights, just in general the expectations of the president coming in and given the state of the country at the time i remembered thinking it starts devaluing the moment you drive it off the lot because the expectations are so incredible and realistic and with that said, our organization in the country we were critical on many counts and i think making although we were not then originators and i understand the
12:44 am
president to this day is sensitive about. what i would say is the same way people have said in the past is a democrat that could take in welfare reform like bill clinton did, however you may agree or disagree and we had a number of disagreements on that, or they did a push that didn't get there but in some ways it is the reverse of that. with president obama there was an attack and he was measured in how he would engage issues of race and sometimes openly and
12:45 am
aggressively. in some ways he also accepted certain frames that have been there for a long time. so it's an issue i worked on for a long time. it's a regime that has seen. nothing but the last decade and part of it was the border does not secure and that they can't trust the democratic president in the wall so i will then they can play. there was a lot of skepticism so
12:46 am
it's been more than any previous president and he's still notpu enforcing the law which many of us thought that was the mantra for the last year so trying to attempt to and it applies in aai couple other areas as well. now i'm not advanced under the civil rights nevertheless have those kind of impact, so latinos and african-americans have severe unemployment rates as a result of the loss of wealth and those unemployment rates have gone down. there's been a move by the department of justice to rejecto the use of private prisons and
12:47 am
that is significant because it is a huge moneymaking proposition it interesting enough when you move away from the three strikes you're out policy, you increase those who keep feeding that machine. it is a beautiful strategy when you think about it. you've created it and then you create to make sure your city passes a law that says they have to be filled and paid for, so imagine the scandal that would be in any other circumstance. so there's that piece that's
12:48 am
important but we should also mention it's the largest law enforcement entity in the country so the whole rule that applies, they don't even apply to the department of homeland security. but anyway, health care coverage is up significantly and the use of private prisons there has been a sentencing reform. on immigration lets not forget about the backup program that the d. for action in the previous panel people mentioned, that often cited with many who've moved on to doy significant pieces ofti legislation and i think in somee ways i feel part of the
12:49 am
conversation is what he should have done on his own, but i think that that is kind of their own context. i don't care how well intentioned a politician is. it's always part of the equati equation. whether it is on criminal justice, policing, immigration. bringing it back on the civil rights side i think the consciousness of not falling into what was trying to be madeu
12:50 am
there was a lot of caution ornd how to frame certain things and in many cases pieces of legislation were lacking in that way and you could see this wasn't just about the presidents that the whole of congress. you could see people who were trying to be careful not to create a backlash among the white voters so not necessarily the most vulnerable communities and the needs of job creation. with tax reform come the same thing they continue to be on the chopping block and even when you win you have to continue fighting the fight over and over again. focus on the middle class.
12:51 am
i don't know how many we've gonk through, not only not talking about that but a war on the po poor. there hasn't been an attempt to challenge the frame. they like to talk about the middle-class but it's gotten more vicious and it's part of the talk about who is more deserving and the thing that is incredible to me is when you are the working poor, you have to spend so much to survive and make it that imagine if people
12:52 am
had some support that energy could be used in the same way that you and i use it to sitting here. here. >> let's see if we can move down through the panel so everybody gets a little something and then we will move it up. >> i'm going to continue the dow regime and the tensions between the title of the conference thae ends with the age of obama and the panel that is under obamaer and tension between the two t things into the zeitgeist of the last two years or what ang particular administration or person in that administration could do to make this answer very differently. if i'm talking about obama, the civil rights is terrible at the end of it. we've got rollbacks of the voting rights and reproductive justice is in shambles, questions of sovereignty have been questioned, not resolved.
12:53 am
but that doesn't get us to the question of the policing and the militarization of the civil authority and then even scaling out further, you could have the diminishment of the office itself treated disrespectfully by the larger context that has ashamed the issues. so i will leave the age of obama thinking it's incredible the questions i care about deeply, politically and personally and i know we are 27 days away from an election in which one candidate called specifically for a voter suppression and who cares very little about civil authority ani jurisprudence and who may well bite the slate clean. i took my blood pressure medication. [laughter]
12:54 am
this is a rational assessment of where we are at the end of the year's. year's. >> i will jump in very briefly and piggyback on the last comment to say i think it is an extraordinarily complicated question for a number of q reasons. if you think about it on a purely descriptive register as you did, yes absolutely. if we think about the question in a different sort of way, it allows for some sort of hope. a president can't wave a magic wand and say civil rights repair. that doesn't happen. the executive is constrained. one sign that gives me some hope that the justice department has
12:55 am
been busy here then it's been in any administration prior, maybe except for johnson. the law that congress passes has reached in many different ways. i will give you an example and hopefully we can talk more. there was a mention of martin in the last panel. it was the correct decision for the department of justice to not intervene. they have to show that the time she dealt felt the blow and was motivated by racial animus.
12:56 am
how do you prove that? but that is the law. the case wasn't lost because of poor lawyering but you can exercise your right to self-defense in the way that zimmerman did. people didn't pay attention when the bills were in the statee wei legislature.e. [applause] we have to put pressure.
12:57 am
this administration has done everything it could have done given the limitations. >> i'm going to say somethingck quick i never believed that we could understand civil rights without also understanding at the same time with civil liberties. the things i want to talk about. the guantánamo, torture and ground strikes. they are so many areas that have gotten worse.hes the last six months he made twot
12:58 am
important moves. he will leave and guantánamo will not be closed. he released less people than president bush. that is very important not because they haven't been cleared by all. i think it is the lack of will o on his part. it's important to talk about the notarization abroad into the torture. the reason it's important tomp think about that, the different forms of torture because they
12:59 am
always come home to roost. when we think about the local police departments here we notice it because of the extra surplus materials. we also know the ideas of interrogating individuals have been practiced so we can't ignore what happened and notgoin think about what's going on he here. but obama in his first yearbut
1:00 am
expanded dramatically and then expanded it. as many reports have shown many civilians have died as a result of the strong strikes into the government hasn't been held accountable. the other thing that's important without me saying it explicitly talking about guantánamo and the strikes is the marginalization that's been a side effect of the policies.this questio
1:01 am
there was this question a citizen raised about the danger that many feel and what if either of them were president what would they do to protect the. he's decreased the number of american troops. that is important to pay of amei attention to. >> i'm going to break protocol and refer to my notes.
1:02 am
my head is spinning from the last panel. when i think about the assessment of civil rights either i would like to make the broader point about the federal effort, the broad federal effort to address the civil rights crisis in the obama presidency and i guess i will start with the big one person to give back to the statistics. the broad thing that strikes me is that it really is about the peril, what's being laid there for me are the perils of this tinkering around the mgins of reallyundamental civil rights
1:03 am
crises. i am not sure this is the peak of obama as it is getting us to think about this age of obama that laid in terms of howow limited which is ironic to say but how limited policy responses in fact are or can be to eithere immediate civil rights violations in the urban communities are policing more broad civil rights catastrophesi and crises such as mass incarceration but there is a disconnect between the plan forg change and the reality of hownd they are implemented on the ground. p
1:04 am
it's a very profound response on the one hand a policy response to the crisis and more than any other president in the commutations for example the letter that obama sent to. because you demonstrate your ability to turn.ndamenta this is still down to the individual. sow we have 7.5 million people.
1:05 am
of course one can do nothing but applaud and say what in the world took so long to come up with that response. and indeed in the description i found it very publicly and profoundly moving that obama referred to the suicide demonstrating why the policy change needs to happen, but again structurally we did not eliminate from the federal prisons because whatever that grows. this is a deeply flawed. i'm sure we will get to thatnt
1:06 am
later. at the same time expanding. it'the way that it make the policing possible and the crisid of the mass incarceration and how we can expand a very easily the mechanisms and i appreciate this question.
1:07 am
it's a path to citizenship andea arguing what it means to be $1.4 million in three years but here is about that. in the name of criminal justice it's because they are criminalsu which brings us full circle. this disconnect and the --
1:08 am
>> i don't think the organizerse knew that i should disclose. i've also been quite critical. on the television show that i produce which by the way was was disputed by my good friends here in boston and it airs locally or saturdays and was taken over those held by the mclaughlin group.
1:09 am
you and the president expressed great concern that the fact is you remain the mass incarceration or so i share a lot of the concerns and it's the byproduct of an understandable that there is a failure it had to be eroded in the decade previous and which all across the country.
1:10 am
any efforts to address some of the issues and the justice department had been hollowed out and either serrated. that's not a political statement but you have the events of 9/11 and an imperial approach to begin with and is. as it relates to those. most of us didn't fully understand because we thought
1:11 am
these issues were getting okay or somewhat. it would be the structural issues. one quick indicator if you got rid of all federal prisoners tomorrow you would about. there's 844 which is more than
1:12 am
all collectively and it's got a meaningless gesture. in the department of justice ase we speak before the end of this year. most people don't know this but congress limited the number of people through budgeting moves and if they cannot. as of again in a tiny way, it can have the legs. an
1:13 am
i believe there is a question sl under way what should happe havn in the obama administration. most will not have been acted upon up to that point but all that is to say it is a complicated situation and needs the three-week race in america, the structural elements of the one in particular individual or leader at the time.
1:14 am
any thoughts on meth does anybody radically disagree on the sins of the obama administration. i think that there were expectations in the beginning even in the current context of donald trump, there is annon th attempt to paint the phenomenon that came out of nowhere but it includes driving a stake through the voting rights act. we have seen voter id laws in a number of places.
1:15 am
they are trying to paint and it came out of nowhere. there's been an incredible nurturing about the economy and in that aspect we have seen immigration used because 76% are not united states citizens and
1:16 am
serving structural fixes thehe same way. the way that it's been here asnn you mentioned trump gave a terrible response. as long as you are agents of the state you are good. as a member, that is the best thing that came out at the plate in terms of structural need that are not moving forward among
1:17 am
other things, this is not a new thing int and the potential silr lining is what trump has done to make the implicit explicit. what has been done in the politics is like a blue whale whistle. it's an opportunity that will not stay there so we have to take advantage of it fairlybut a quickly. but he is a logical follow-up to the presidency of an african-american person because it made real in a way that is
1:18 am
also undeniable that change was underway and now people could feel it was in front of their face and there's the backlash. it's played out in policymaking the ability to move some of those things forward. >> because of this backlash i just want to cut we live in a political economy where the notions like being tough on crime as currency. i chaired the committee and others were on it.
1:19 am
some of the things are absolutely amazing never been done before and probably won't be done again. people have certain messages and certain ways to be relatively palatable but actually do the work. lot one of the reasons it's going slowly is because they are looking through each project. all the stuff has been reviewed
1:20 am
and one of the things they are looking for is if anyone has a prayer.gime a they wouldn't have had time to matter what was in their pocket. the worst thing for people with political circles is extraordinarily careful. it's one example in the history
1:21 am
and viehistorian view you brouge southern evolution which is a kind of periods of dramatic change to the civil rights regie regime and extraordinary backlash. therthat is almost the inevita inevitability. we should have anticipated that more so because there was everything we were related to be radical racial progress but what is your take away from the
1:22 am
>> as the president and fairly centrist, conservative technocrats but the symbolism is so powerful. it's the likes of which we haven't seen because it is confronted with a symbolic president with concerns about race and specifiraising specifia cryptic that may be felt but be nevertheless that is extraordinary and it makes you wonder how deeply.
1:23 am
up th the seaport in depth the t it makes me think about the lont view of some of these things, so getting the militarization of the police back, or before the tank, the slave patrol. it makes me think about the kind of legal history of child labori after slavery and following it all the way through conduct policing and agricultural companies to makthe agriculturae incarcerated or captured from one way, shape or form. the product continued to be mo move. i need a history for the bigger. that is a great call, the
1:24 am
challenge of th the day this ist the constituency. people who buy those techniques those textbook text books are nn by the people and they are not forced with this constituency. >> history doesn't feed the hungry man. the first focuses on thefocusesn campaign against. there is a radical campaign to
1:25 am
protect against violence in the early part but one thing i do want to focus on is the form of backlash that you see in the moment thatame up and a new project i'm working on tries to protect my. shifting the movement to other causes one of the issues i try to focus on is thinking about backlash into the raise private individuals and corporations use their money.
1:26 am
large-scale with morality and legality. i want to touch on theo unrealistic expectation to lobby the congress to ease the war on drugs to try to lobby congress
1:27 am
and declassify as a class one substance and i believe it has a large impact so i would like to get your opinion whether it was realistic and if there has beenn progression. there is the practice in the country and there's anthat has o overwhelming majority for which the federal government has very little relationships and to secure speed up 55 the federal government can do some things
1:28 am
with money but mainly havinga hu said that, there's a conflict nw people reach in the sames medicinal for example but when there's a particular issue on who wins my answer to the question as if a state function and i think this administration has done an incredible job under the leadership into
1:29 am
discontinuing not now but again it's a small fraction so ipr pushback and offer the pragmatic leadership areas that will have no affect on the ground and i will give one quick example because i respect this issue but think brown v. board of education.
1:30 am
you have to deal with the prisons. it's the rul the rules of the rs have extraordinary power and have to negotiate through all that. the president could have said i'm going to commute. is there this space for leadership that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be screaminu bloody murder because that is
1:31 am
the congress and so forth as well. >> i think that we have said a few times. it will have and impact. i want to pushback on the disconnect between the policies on the one hand and maybe have it are implemented only after.
1:32 am
it's for both state prisons and the intense focus on drugs. they look at these other resources. but where are the other resources, so then in effect they do end up still getting arrested unaccountably for low-level marijuana and probably because of the dime bag. probably because of small amounts of cocaine or opioids or whatever.
1:33 am
i just want to connect the dots above the bar. it was by the federal government and the police practices that came from that it begins with the federal government asked models, but it's also the case that could be thait could be tha administration failed in that have heralded. or in this case pitting more. those people, to be there --
1:34 am
>> it is a miscalculation that speaks to every assessment. there is different scriptures that a certain approach to immigration and we took a sof issue on a. when i'm adopting some of their ideas they will want to worker with me and. the attorneys say directing them to no longer double.
1:35 am
it's to church with every possible thing and to federalize as many as possible if there were more severe penalties. there's the panel this morning and the panel last night at a part of what we're hearin we arm
1:36 am
the audience members and from each other is a distant disenchantment from the presidency and the government specifically to address questions of inequality and it strikes me that isn't what it was meant to give in the first there's a reason why policing i done at the state level. slavery was largely built and there is a reason that other fairly prominent falls were never meant to fix the problems of the state and local level and we are still dealing with a system that we were not meant to have the question. absent structural change in the setup, the executive office isn't going to be able to fix the problem.
1:37 am
>> thank you for coming and taking the policy and showing us what can be done. i'm on the board to free speech for people because i believe that it so corrosive. when you mentioned they are pulling back the rates i wonder how we as citizens and activists might translate that into values like how can we get into the churches and think people understand the issue particularly now that sanders is no longer talking about it actively and hillary clintonry said she would support [inaudible] said to focus on money anding
1:38 am
politics and making that connection please. >> [inaudible] i would say we need to get into the churches to make that point because i think you're right, they've had to do a hell of a lot of heavy lifting for the problems of heavy lifting although the question is how do we in fact start moving into those spaces as white churches and white organizations and white voting groups and disorder have that moral awakening.
1:39 am
>>naudible] stack we didn't have a microphone onto that you saidou there was a conversation where there wasn't much diversity -- i share a lot of the concerns the last two years wanting to think how we change that so especially with the blacklight smatter movement and well-intentioned people have often had black people to come and talk to different groups and i am concerned. for people that are already born
1:40 am
the burden of a much more labor are we asking of them and is it right to also be the ones that care tcompared to damage by heru in the sense that there's these spaces which they will need very different voices and% this. you want to get perspectives and often times it is people that can do that. i don't have the perfect answer for you but the great place to start is the demanding that we talk more about these issues ane four broadening the circle there is specific people we go to.
1:41 am
i think it needs to be distributed more equally but i love that. i think that question is applicable to a lot of different issues. you have to be a friend to make a friend and i find among the progressive groups, there is a tendency to come into communities of color and i've heard this in california between
1:42 am
two to reform movement saying we are tired of you coming for us to hold up our signs that we have to strategy and policies and ideas about it and when they need bodies or something like that so that is part of it. the other part of it is he a friend to make a friend. how is that issue connecting with people particularly among the progressives why are people voting against their own self-interest without kind of making those connections or t bringing it to the level people are ilocal peopleare in need ofn because there is something substantial that they are faci facing. on to green cord fo two green c, that happens to be.
1:43 am
i can tell you as a result of the supreme court case, on the side of immigration there was an group of folks lying i wanting e balance of the supreme court but it different to experience it that way than to be like don't you care about the supreme court. i think part of it as being competent and how we engage people and it's not just about language, english or vietnamese or spanish, it's about the cultural competence of what is the conflict.ri while connecting points, once they are. mundane
1:44 am
what might seem mundane at the time. the shooter was not invited because the cuyahoga county which is cleveland didn't want that person indicted. because of the activism he was voting out of office. michael brown, number two come the backdrop is. it's a criminally low standard. what can we do, can you file the notion to compare them to know
1:45 am
but you can't elect. we can't wait until there are these massive blowups. let's think about it respectively and get engaged. whether you are pro- organs that, they work themselves out in concrete ways that you're behind the eight ball if it's been agonistic to the good use of public resource. >> i'm glad you said that because i get asked the same question all the time and i say i don't know what your issues
1:46 am
are there that you elected the sheriff and district attorney and the sheriff is the person that put in jail the largest number of the 2.2 million people. and every county in america there is discretion over how that works. there is discussion gets strung up the back and prosecuted. they are talking about the community every citizen lives and you can actually have an effect on that if we allf we are collectively think it's before president obama right now if you think they should be released before they leave office in three months, where are the protesters demanding the release of those people. i haven't seen them. when the governor of virginia did this remarkable thing of pardoning 250,000 who had completed their sentence as a world probation and restored the
1:47 am
rights and then he began a methodical process of re- pardoning all the folks and now it's 20 or 30,000 in and i suppose there isn't a giant chorus of the claim all acrosssr the country. why aren't the people in the other states play or not the democratic governors undervernoe pressure to or they must like to consider those things. i think there's a curious combination of frustrations there was a kind of timidity of afflicting blacklight smatter but it's a fresh competition whether you have the immediate circumstances of their public life and at the time that it is a huge hunger and demand.
1:48 am
that was at the local and state level. they couldn't get caught. so they would report it back too students and tell the young person to they deny that the beatles wou would. >> it is true. there is a demand all.
1:49 am
folks are not demanding on a daily basis. in detroit where i come from the entire community is coming out saying why are you doing this and call me or what can i do it comes back to power, it's about money and power but certainly i don't feel it's about people speaking out. >> that's how they speak out ith goes to the point of education and vote for persecuted people that do exercise discretion. i grew up in the community but then didn't register at the ballot box.
1:50 am
for a whole host of reasons, it's the crawl from georgetown to law professor -- butler. that will send a message for them to stop taking uncertain communities and that is the sort of thing i'm talking about committed and mean to cut you off. >> thank you for your comments. i work at the business school working on a project on the history of african-americans at the business school and i want to build off of your comment onn money is power. o
1:51 am
the context being built on money and power and forced labor but forced we ever have a moment we talk about reparations without laughing. it's a form of economics but i think we would be able to dotha? that. they were not as entrenched in the dialo dialogue as i would lo see. i don't ever hold out hope that would have legislation and some
1:52 am
policy responses to that. if you look at the platform is on economic has been taken and a stolen vastolen and think abouts in which the communities of color are in terms of reparations for slavery i think some of the work that is peekinu done right now and that has already been done, like this could work in history.y. it's not we don't know thesethes individuals were is wanting to
1:53 am
understand the industries thatra survived.also think thinking about. it's kind of a business area that a number of insurance companies i'm sure are aware and one of them is the slave holders
1:54 am
but i do think we had thist moment where we were like -- now we are deeply entrenched in the justices and a lot of people. is it crazy because i don't remember a time. people were engaging in this long history more than before and i think it will take time. >> i would add one thing and that is the notion that there is more terrorism today than there has been before. before. i exceede treated up after the e events but that was by far thete
1:55 am
highest number of buy any incident if we go back you have huge numbers of people killed. others here might have even beeh there. the administration's bar to secretary powell from taking that congress that was the peak of the reparations movement that was so for all of the time. i used to joke.
1:56 am
anybody that was in any fashion mainstream would scoff at thee notion. the entire membership of the black caucus was there. of the african-american leaders and others who were in the roomm to discuss the reparations topic, he was trying to win over more and jesse jackson makes a surprise appearance. it was viewed as a great distractiodistraction in the mos did many civil rights leaders in the past. he walked in the room and as with always come he took over the space complexity.fight fo
1:57 am
became a central objective of the movement in america and has me do that, other things must fall away. help away. it was an extraordinary moment. periods could be highly consequential and two days after that, the planes crashed in the world trade center and nobody heard the word repetitions for long time. >> institutions like this,, harr harvard, brown. students are interested in them.
1:58 am
i applaud the work that you're doing not that you need to be applause otheapplause or encourt you have it anyway. thank you for image. apostasy neck coming up on c-span2, a look at the fight against opioid addiction. then the wikipedia founder jimmy wales and leader of the challenges of running the legal department southern poverty law center holds a conference on tuesday urging president-elect donald trump to the nines acts of page following the election
1:59 am
live on c-span. we are asking students to participate in this year's video competition by telling us what is the most urgent issue for the next president donald trump and the incoming congress to address in 2017. the competition is open to all the middle and high school students.
2:00 am
$100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded and shared between 150. next a look at the fight against opioid drug addiction and new ways of studying the impact. mr. gingrich, the founders for opioids recovery spoke at this event hosted by the american enterprise institute. it is one hour and 20 minutes. ..


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on