tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN May 3, 2016 9:49am-11:50am EDT
>> live today on the c span networks at noon eastern. consumer advocates from the credit card industry will talk about chip netechnology on c sp. we'll discuss agency operations at the center for strategic and international studies. and democratic presidential candidate. hillary clinton is campaigning in ohio today. c span will have live coverage that will stop in athens where she'll give a speech on jobs and the economy. and the indiana primaries are today with 57 republican delegates and 92 democratic delegates at stake. we'll be live tonight with primary results. candidate speeches and viewer reaction on c span.
>> both iraq and afghanistan i helped both countries with their constitutions being sort ofor o issues among iraqis or afghans. your influence is considerable. heads of state or government very anxious to meet with you. >> sunday night, former u.s. ambassador to afghanistan, iraq and the united nations, zalmay khalizad discusses his memoir. >> we saw that the extremists such as zarqawi exploited although we have then corrected it towards the end of the period that i was there by the surge, by reaching out to the sunnis, by building up iraqi forces, by establishing a unity government, killing zarqawi at the end, to bring about security, violence
was way down. but, unfortunately, when we left and the vacuum was filled by rival regional powers pulling iraq apart, violence escalated and we have isis now. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. we continue now with the discussion on ways to combat military sexual violence. this next panel focused on how to better address sexual assaults in the militarmilitary. the service women's action network held the discussion last week. it's an hour and a half. >> so as we said earlier, now we are going to turn our attention to a discussion about the ways individuals can interrupt the cycle of violence. kate is our moderator, commissioned in august of 1996 and has served for over 19 years on active duty in the u.s.
marine corps. a combat veteran, she's participated in numerous operational and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief deployments. throughout her career, she's had challenging assignments, including a year as the marine aid to the secretary of the navy. she was selected for command twice, most recently as the commanding officer of the marine corps's only all-female unit, the 4th recruit training battalion. she holds a bachelor degree and in 2011 she graduated with distinction from the marine corps command and staff college earning her master's of military science degree. she's actively engaged in the struggle to end gender bias in the military and is a vocal proponent for equal rights and the elimination of double standards and lowered expectations for female conduct and performance.
and i am really, really pleased to announce that kate has just joined the staff of swan as the chief operating officer so let's welcome kate. [ applause ] >> hello and thank you for coming today. i would like to point out that tina who's our coast guard representative is taking autographs afterwards because she is -- in our s.w.a.n. logo. >> that's not why i came. >> and that's not why she came. it's a pleasure to have everyone here. i'm still on active duty and getting ready to retire. i retire 1 july and i have to start with the disclaimer the views i express today are my own, not representative normally of the marine corps. but i have to start with that. as i introduce our first panelists i would like to start off by saying the topic of mobbing and bullying is near and
dear to my heart because my relief of 4th recruit training battalion was a mystery to me. i spent a year to figure out what happened to me came to fruition and i was referred information by a fellow s.w.a.n. member in preparation for this panel and it restored my sanity because i learned that i was actually a target of mobbing. and so, mobbing is probably not a topic that many of you are familiar with but it's a very important topic and central to how we conduct ourselves in the military and thrilled to bring up the first panelist, her name is dr. maureen duffy, a subject matter expert. she's also a family therapist who works with targets and their families to recover. and in addition to writing about the subject extensively in the press and in professional journals, the oxford university press recently published two of her books about mobbing, bullying and aggressive behavior
in the workplace and schools. without further ado, i would like to bring up dr. maureen duffy. [ applause ] >> hello to everyone. and i just want to start by saying that it's a real honor for me to be here with you today. and maybe if we could turn the lights down we'll be able to see some of what i have up here. thank you. but in addition to that, i just want to preface my remarks with a comment that unlike sexual harassment, the whole area of mobbing is only at the beginning. we who are active as researchers, scholars, activists
in terms of generating kind of baseline imper call data so we don't have the impressive volume and robust empirical data you may have paid attention to for the first part of this talk. what we do have and what i'll be presenting this afternoon is a good deal of very robust qualitative information that speaks to the experience of having been mobbed, what the elements and aspects of that experience are like and what the health harming effects of that are. so this talk, just to orient you, is the only reason i say it, is going to shift a little bit from the empirical data to
looking more at the conceptual and phenomenalogical frameworks. these are the books that kate mentioned that my colleague dr. lynn sperry and i wrote. about mobbing. and in so doing, we extended the work of heinz layman in sweden, the psychologist, who studied and worked with targets. in the 80s. and also, i think i would like to just credit the work of dr. ken west-hughes in canada whose work on mobbing focused primarily on higher educational mobbing in higher ed. and then also, i would like to include doctors ruth and gary
nami, the founders and directors of the workplace bullying institute for their tireless work in both trying to understand these processes and in trying to generate awareness and solutions. so, i thought that i would start with maybe just might want to take a peek at the results of two std studies to do with job satisfaction and negative outcomes in the workplace for those who were targets of nonviolent workplace aggression that was not sexual harassment in nature. so you'll see in the first study job satisfaction was low er for those experiencing nonviolent
workplace aggression than for those experiencing nonviolent workplace sexual aggression. and then in the second one, outcomes of workplace abuse were more negative across a continuum that included add included, attitudes than workplace harassment. this is not to suggest that bullying and mobbing and nonsexual workplace harassment is more health harming or more damaging. i think what it is to suggest, though, is that there is a certain interconnectedness amongst all these forms of abuse and harassment in the workplace and that each of them has its own particular signature and
each of these has its own particular set of workplace -- of personal and organizational negative outcomes. chief among those in the cases of mobbing and bullying are health harming effects. so mobbing, you might ask the question, why mobbing, why not bullying? i hope i'll be able to talk about that in a way this might make some sense to you. i'll start with just a brief framework for what mobbing is. mobbing is the targeting of an individual or group of individuals in the workplace subjecting them to a series of hostile and abusive behaviors that are designed to cast the target in a negative light, to destabilize the target, to show
them as being somehow not worthy to remain in the workplace as an entirety or in the unit of the workplace. so elimination from the workplace, removal, either mandatory removal through termination or voluntary removal which is an awful lot of what happens in mobbing cases where people just say, i can't take this anymore so they leave. so the goal in mobbing is removal of the employer from -- the employee or worker from the organization or unit of the organization or part of the organization. and the other core part of our understanding of mobbing that we built on from heinz layman's work is that it always includes, you know, individual dynamics, group dynamics or dynamics so the organization is very much a part of this process, both in
terms of action and failure to act when it needs to act to prevent these sorts of destru destructive behaviors from taking place. and likewise, it's responsible for developing interventions and solutions to both prevent and stop it. who's involved in pork place mobbing? well, the organization through culture and leadership and that, of course, includes, you know, supervisors, managers, hr, policies, practices, trainings, lack of trainings, whatever it might be. the group or group of co-workers often is a unit or sub unit in the organization and the target is the individual. in bullying, and this is -- i need to preface this comment by saying that we don't have a
consensual definition among scholars and amongst even activists and advocates about what precisely are the distinctions, but again, building on the work of layman, my colleague and i and others view the organizational involvement as the bellweather for assessing whether or not the hostile behavior targeted against a person is a case of mobbing or is a case of bullying. so here in this graphic, you'll see that the organization is absent. so this could be a case of an abrasive or cruel supervisor inflicting harm on a worker in the organization but the organization itself, if it became aware of this kind of behavior, would take proactive and clear steps to stop it.
mobbing, hazing and social exclusion. i was asked, also, to comment just a little bit about hazing. and so, i have been fascinated about the role of membership in a group as central to the experiences of both mobbing and hazing. and to the whole process of social exclusion which hopefully i'll be able to comment on in a minute. but you can see there the definition of mobbing as getting rid of from the social group and hazing you see as kind of the flip side, that this is a process of inflicting abusive, hostile behavior on a person in order to kind of mark them as legitimate, to enter or to stay in the group. in mobbing, where power is
concerned, you know, people can be mobbed to a supervisors and managers. it is not always top down so power in that case is more emergent. it arises and then is distributed amongst those involved, let's say, in particular in the cases of bottom up kinds of mobbing. hazing usually the power differential is preexisting. okay. becoming a target. who becomes a target? well, basically, anybody can become a target of bullying or mobbing. but we do know a little bit. we need to a whole lot more but we do know who's likely to become a target in mobbing and those would be individuals who are likely to stand out in some way. very often standing out with strength and with competence. they're also those likely to
speak out in some way so they may speak up, speak out, question, challenge certain practices and policies and very often challenge certain practices and policies from the legal or from a moral perspective. and the process of ganging up. how does this kind of horrible thing that results in often significant health harming behaviors get started? usually mobbings begin as a result of a workplace conflict, the resolution of which has been unsuccessful or there have been failed attempts to resolve it. people start to take sides. news of someone kind of in the crosshairs in the workplace travels fast as most of us know. right?
so, that person already begins to be identified as somehow different. and then others who still are in the workplace begin to either try to stick up for the target which doesn't happen very often for obvious reasons or they distance which happens a whole lot or they join in the mobbing. and so, what i have done here in the next piece is just list a whole series of negative acts that are the kinds of acts that are done to a target, imposed upon them. and i have used the word or the phrase unethical communication, which was heinz layman's phrase but i think, also, it's very powerful phrase because we can think about unethical communication at all levels in
an organization. at the org level. how an organization deals with communications that it disseminates and, also, that it receives and also that it becomes aware of. likewise, in a small group, a work group, and then likewise at the individual level. we have the ability to think about and reflect about our own way of responding to certain kinds of bad news about co-workers. but here just some of the -- just a quick look at some of the abusive behaviors because we say abusive behaviors and people say, well, what are they? this is not an exhaustive list. i always put gossip at the top because it's a low-level behavior that can have really large, negative results, disproportionate maybe to how it starts and it's also a point of
opportunity for intervening. it's a point of leverage because we can look at gossip at all of the organizational levels and actually do something about that without too much difficulty. rumors, false information, failure to correct false information about a worker. i mean, that's where the organization obviously comes in to play. ridicule, belittling, the list goes on. xesive criticism. isolating, cold shoulder. all sorts of social exclusion kind of tactics and here i just kind of highlighted what i think of as the toxicity of gossip. even though in social psych we know that it has a cohesive effect, gossip, but i don't think those studies were looking at malicious and hostile gossip, the kind that drives workplace mobbings. then what happens in a mobbing,
organization gets involved. does a whole lot of things that generally fuel it. and that are counter productive. often by labeling the target and kind of going along with what's out there in the communication loops about that person. then the elimination process which i mentioned. and then post elimination behavior. it's disheartening to think that once a person has been eliminated from the workplace that mobbing behaviors still go on. so you can see a list there of some of them, celebrating the person's departure. continuing to talk negatively about that person. and then, you know, a huge one in terms of the person's ultimate livelihood is
difficulty in obtaining a reference. and here, i just included this to depict the power of the social exclusionary process in workplace mobbing. ken west-hughes calls mobbing the stressor to beat all stress sos and we know the health harming effects are just super profound. so, for example, one quick study 2008 study that was a collaboration between harvard, mass general and the hospital of the university of rome and they assessed mental health of mobbing victims. italy is one of the countries that uses the conceptual frame work of mobbing more than bullying and the results were -- were very stunning to me. and they were that over 50%
those who they had assessed considered suicide. 20% were considered to be at medium or high risk. and then here's just a graphic of the health harming behavior, health harming effects of mobbing. so you can see they're broking down into physical health consequences, the research for these is pretty robust. psychological, emotional health consequences, ptsd symptoms. i indicate as opposed to ptsd because of issues with the diagnosis that we don't have time to talk about now but they are important. psycho social impact. and i just might add here in the case of someone in the military mobbed out, military life is not 9:00 to 5:00 life, obviously. and for roles and positions
where that is the case, where the identity is more totalizing, the impact of being driven out of an organization as a result of a mobbing is more profound the more complete the identity is. and then, the -- what is that last one? the top of -- oh. on job. well, that's a whole other one with obvious implications. you know, financial, health, life insurance, re-employability, reengagement in work. they're just profound. and then interventions. again, because mobbing is a process that includes three levels of life in an organization, the organization itself, the small group and the
individual, interventions really can be tailored to include the organization as a whole, small group and the individual, not only targets, but all workers within an organization. and you see that i have values driven as the top in each of those categories. and that's because of i think my belief that in this, you know, i shift from the more scholarly side to the activist side here, that work should be -- so this is a should statement, a place of dignity for people because we spend an awful lot of time there, don't we, over the course of a life? and so we want, because of that, to ensure to the best of our ability that everyone there,
whether they are folks who have had adverse childhood experiences and then more traumas on top of that or not, that work, the workplace should be a place of dignity. and those of us who are in the area of workplace mobbing and bullying are working hard to try and in collaboration generate interventions and you can read those. you don't need me to do that, that kind of speak to all of us being responsible for helping to both prevent and reduce it. and so, we could say that in some real way it starts with us and what we do about negative communication that we become aware of in the workplace. so, none of us are -- there's no neutral position in this. so, i hope that was a little bit
of an overview although very quick of what workplace mobbing is, its health harming effects and a hint of the directions we can make to try to make the workplace better for all of us. thank you. [ applause ] >> okay. our next presenter is dr. jessica gallus. she is the sexual harassment and assault response and preskrengs program. the s.h.a.r.p. program. she's developing a program of research on sexual harassment and assault prevention and focused much of her time on studying the impact of trust, cohesion and professionalism on team performance and resilience. i should also say she's a human capital expert. [ applause ]
>> good afternoon, everyone. how are you? good. thanks so much to s.w.a.n. for having me here. i'm really excited to be here today and to talk about some issues i'm really passionate about. to get started, i just want to give folks a brief overview of what i plan to cover today and i'll primarily be talking about one of the army's training platforms, elite, that has just rolled out and some of our future training efforts, but i want to start with the broader context for why this information is important, why the continuum of harm is something that we need to focus on to get at prevention of sexual harassment and assault. before i get into some of the work that the army's doing, it's
important to remind everyone that what we're dealing with here is not just a military problem. as one of the brave moms and advocates noted today what's happening is a greater reflection of our society, many pockets of our nation from universities, colleges, to religious groups, to sports teams. and based on what we know from the research continue ducted by the cdc and other research agencies, we know that we have folks coming into our services who are carrying baggage from prior victimization. we also know as dr. stockdale pointed out that prior victimization makes individuals more vulnerable to future experiences of sexual harassment and assault. and this is part of the reason why it's so important to have a proactive approach to prevention and a need to arm individuals with the tools they need to recognize behavior and climates that set the stage for these kinds of mistreatments to happen.
it's also important to high light that we often times think of sexual harassment and assault as a women's issue. and we've talked a lot about the vulnerability of women in this arena. we have had quite a bit of discussion on male survivors today. one of our audience members aptly pointed out that, you know, women, there's a much higher percentage of women who are survivors than there are, you know, the percentage of men, but the way i look at this is that there are still thousands of male service members who are suffering in silence because of the culture of the d.o.d. and the culture of our society, really, and shame people carrying with them, especially when it comes to male survivors, so i just wanted the point out that this is not just a female or women's issue, that this is a
particularly tough problem for our society, and also, for the d.o.d. where we're talking about service member who is are operating in very hyper masculine cultures. fortunately, we are starting to see some movement on male survivors. we have a number of brave folks who have started coming forward on these issues. and we're starting to make a little headway in that area. i am going to get to training at some point. so, why does all of this matter? for most organizations, sexual harassment and assault are a concern because of the impact on the bottom line. but the army's bottom line isn't monetary. it's readiness to meet the mission, it's our ability to fight and win our nation's wars. and this is part of the reason that understanding the continuum of harm is so important to prevention in the army. if we can stop behaviors before they happen we can avoid the negative impacts to the soldiers who may experience them, their
teams, and the greater organization. and the impact to the team and organization is particularly important in the the d.o.d. and especially the army, given that soldiers predominantly work in a team context. now, i'm going to get into a few of the training efforts the army's goidoing to get after so of these challenges. i'll be talking about a few products that the army's put tonight to address the continuum of harm and i'll talk mostly about what we call the elite team trainer or the elite cct since this tool was just released to the army. and this elite ctt addresses the latter half of the continuum of harm so you can see on the bottom of the screen you have the continuum that goes from less severe or low level behaviors to more severe and elite command team trainer addresses the aspects on the
more severe side of the spectrum so what do commanders need to do? what do sharp professionals need to do once an incident has taken place? i'll also briefly go over elite posts so our prevention and simulation trainer which is a tool to help sharp professionals focus on what prevention and outreach opportunities need to take place to help maintain a culture of respect and eliminate some of the low level behaviors from even starting. to give you some background on elite and the elite products, they're a collaboration between the university of southern california's institute for creative technologies, the army research lab and the army sharp program management office and sharp academy. so we have a very well rounded group of shakeholders involved in the creation of the products from research scientists to technical and professional experts who understand the role
of sharp professionals to those commander who is are responsible for program implementation. and what's unique about the elite products is that they address a number of needs for the army and one need is what was highlighted by one of the audience members in terms of the death by powerpoint. how can we develop training tools that are more interactive, more dynamic, more engaging so service members actually become a part of the conversation rather than having us talk at them about some of these situations? and they're also a means for commanders and sexual assault coordinators to address these issues. here's a little more background
on the development of elite ctt and elite post. both were developed with a level of rigor based in science. for example, what do we know from the research on learning and gaming to leverage as part of the foundation for these tools? the information in these tools aligns with army policy and directives related to harassment and assault. what are the steps soldiers and leaders need to take to be consistent in the actions outlined in policies? the tools were developed by a number of stakeholders including commanders, sharp professionals, again, those are the your sarcs and vas, researchers and individuals from the sharp program management office and sharp academy. we wanted to make sure that the information provided in these products was up to date and that the scenarios reflected the current challenges of commanders and sharp professionals so they were heavily involved in the creation process.
so let's get into some of the basics on the command team trainer. the concept for this product is that the army needed a way to engage commanders and their sharp professionals to be on the same page responding to incidents. we wanted to do so again in an engaging and interactive way. this training is heavily focused on right of bang issues so how command teams should respond to sharp related incidents once they have occurred and the primary reason that we focused on response is because we needed at the time to focus on response initially. we are now more focused on prevention but we needed tools put in place so that commanders and sharp professionals were prepared to deal with incidents as they happened. one of the main components that's addressed by elite ctt concerns the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder. in this case, the commanders and
sharp professionals. what does the commander have to do following an incident and perhaps as important or more important what should the commander avoid doing? how should the coordinator and victim's advocates best work with the commander to help the commander help understand to get the response right? what do commanders and sharp professionals need to know to distinguish between sexual harassment and assault? these are just some of the areas covered. unfortunately, we don't have the internet capability to give you a preview of the training, though you will be able to see some of the pictures of avatars in the next slide. here's a closer look at this application. so the command team trainer consists of these parts. the first part is up front instruction. this part of the training uses a virtual sarc or avatar-based sarc to go over the golden rules that they need to follow.
and i'll get into some of the specifics on the next slide. remember the golden rules are founded in research and with the expertise of sharp professionals and commanders. the second component are the animated vignettes and half of the vignettes for the tool were on sexual harassment, half are on sexual assault and they provide trainees with examples of effective and ineffective behavior for handling some of these challenging experiences. the last piece of the elite command team trainer are the practice exercises so this is the part where folks are really asked to engage. this is where we give students the chance to see if they can apply what they have learned. and in some ways, i guess the best way to describe it is elite ctt and the elite products are a version of a choose your own adventure for lack of a better term. so each exercise includes a scenario followed by a number of choices and feedback is provided
based on the choice selected. you can also see then how the consequences of your decisions play out. here's a bit more on the instructional frame work for elite ctt. again, this was based on smee input. the idea is to give leaders and soldiers and sharp professionals some mneumonic devices to remember they'll be able to interact once an incident happens. so you can see the first piece of the frame work focuses on respect. provides the frame work for how to respond in instances related to sexual assault so you see things like providing support, responding without judgment. the second is call silas, providing steps needed for effective response to sexual assault. and you'll see with both of these, some of the steps apply to both commanders and sharp professionals and some highlight the unique responsibilities of each.
once the tool was developed it was tested with a number of stakeholders including instructors of the sharp academy, sharp approximatals, soldiers, sexual assault response coordinators and commanders. overall the feedback has been positive, many find this more e gauging than the traditional death by powerpoint approach. a number of people noted how this would have been a really helpful tool prior to taking command. some also highlighted this should be a requirement for incoming commanders. and one of the things that i want to emphasize and this is along the lines of what ms. farrell was saying is that we really need to put some measurement behind the training approaches we're taking and we need to capture whether or not what we're doing is having an effect. so i don't want to put the -- put this information up here and say that this answers the mail in terms of assessment.
while we appreciate the positive response, we're just starting to dig into the true effectiveness of this tool and we are doing so with the help of the army research institute who is in the process of putting together a pre and post assessment for leaders going through precommand course. and so, the idea is that we would assess commanders before they are introduced to this tool, after they're introduced and ideally making sure any changes we see are not just changes based on recent training but change that is have actually been incorporated into how they actually handle these type of incidents. we also did some testing that was needed so that this could become an approved game-based training application for the army so there's a comprehensive validation process that takes place and this past january elite command team trainer went through this process at the
national simulation center. so it's part of this process a number of stakeholders from the sharp academy and fort level worth tested the product. they completed the three parts of the training and practice exercises. and we just launched this tool in early april. and it's now part of the army games for training portfolio. so, before i wrap, i wanted to give a brief and broad overview of another gaming tool that's currently in development. and this is the elite prevention and outreach simulation trainer, otherwise known as elite post. the tool is designed explicit for sarcs and vas so this is where is the command team trainer right of bang, that is let of bang focus so what can we
do to prevent sexual harassment and assault from occurring in the first place? we're just -- we're halfway through i would say this process. we are in the step of developing avatars now. we have worked through a lot of the training scenarios and are still finalizing those. and we should have a complete product at some point this fall. so this was a very quick overview of some of the army's training efforts at addressing sexual harassment and assault and i want to end with the idea that training and technology are not a cure-all for what are some very complex and tough problems that the d.o.d. and other parts of society face. training is one solution. and the army's doing cutting edge work in this area but it is not the solution. the solution needs to be multifaceted and at the core needs to focus on a culture of respect as the foundation for
prevention. thanks. [ applause ] >> okay. our next panelist is someone i would want with me in a dark alley if i were cornered. she's the director of defend yourself and for more than 30 years lauren taylor has taught more than 20,000 people from all walks of life the skills they need to stop harassment, abuse and assault. she's widely been published on topics related to interpersonal violence including in "the washington post" the justice department's nij journal, the miz blog and every day feminism. she co-founded safe bars, a program with innovative bystander technology to disrupt harassment and aggression. please join me in welcoming lauren taylor. [ applause ]
>> hi, everybody. before we actually get started, i would like to ask everybody to come a little bit forward. move up in the room so that we can actually do some stuff. this is a powerpoint free presentation. so if you're in the back, if you could come up to the first, say, four rows that would be truly wonderful. this is the audience participation part of the day. i know you've been sitting a long time. so defend yourself and other -- other empowerment self defense organizations around the united states and around the world
dwell in the solution and not in the problem. we're prevention oriented. we're also healing and recovery oriented. we help people learn how to take care of themselves. we respect everybody's existing expertise in taking care of yourself, including respecting what everybody has already done in any violations that you have faced in your life. and in any given room, particularly of women and girls, which is primarily who we teach, those most often targeted for abuse and abuse and harassment and assault, i'm sure you've heard this today, more than half of us have experienced a violation, childhood sexual abu abuse, physical, abuse, being in an abuse relationship, a rape attempt, a completed rape. if you include street harassment
or public state pa hasment in that place, 100% are survivors and we have all been harmed by the fact that we live in a culture that causes us to be afraid. so i would like to introduce you to some of this by having us do it. just to point out, i'm sure there are survivors in this room as there are in every room, and i hope that everybody will do what they need to do to take care of themselves. i'm sure sitting around listening to statistics and such about sexual assault and violation might have been triggering and i'll ask you, whatever you know to take care of yourself, to do that while i'm also talking about it, asking you to do things. all par tis passion atio pags i classes is voluntary.
you don't empowering people by telling them what to do. so that said, if i go out here, can everybody hear me? >> no. the cameras can't. >> you can take the mike with you. >> no. you have to stay. >> it's the other -- >> no. there's two mikes. >> you can't see you. that's c-span's mike. >> so, in the back you can't hear me? >> right. >> it's the camera -- filming. you have to stay -- >> oh. got it. okay. okay. i don't think i've ever taught self defense behind a podium but it's just another challenge. so what i would love for everybody to do is stand up. and if you use a wheelchair or for some other reason are more comfortable seated, everything we do can be adapted for all levels of abilities and disabilities. i see this woman in the front row is standing with her hips in
the wonder woman position. how many of you have read or watched the ted talk with amy cutty's power positions? yes. we use that a lot in teaching self defense and i hope that everybody who hasn't seen it will google cuddy and power poses. it's very helpful. i don't know if anybody noticed but before my presentation in the back in the wonder woman position. so what i want you to do is in the confined space that you have, take one little step back and put your hands up. and how you're going to put your hands up is like this. and with kids we call it a stop sign but basically it's your body language setting a limit. thank you whoever did that. it's your body -- you're using your body language to set a limit. now, you could be doing this in a low-key situation. we have been hearing about the continuum all day. you can do this in a low-key
situation. someone is merely saying something that bothers you up to a full-on attack. this reinforces what you're saying and if it's a full attack this is your guards. so you already have your hands up. they're ready to go. they can shield your head and face which is the most important part to protect. so everybody in your stance. and you want your hands also to be close together. one reason is that this gives a different message. another is the most vulnerable parts of our body down the center line. you want to be ready to protect those. not this. so everybody's here and i'm just going to say some words and i want as you a to echo me back. words and phrases. everybody ready? take a deep breath. breathing is an incredibly important part of self defense. for one thing it helps break the freeze response. okay. just echo after me. stop.
>> stop. >> you need to leave. >> you need to leave. >> take your hand off me. >> take your hand off me. >> i'm not okay with that. >> i'm not okay with that. >> leave now. >> leave now. >> stop. >> stop. >> stop! >> stop! >> i know you can get louder than that okay. so let's do the getting more intense part one more time. we'll start with no. just repeat after me. no. no! no! no! oh, that was better. okay. now i -- okay. that was better. so you need all of those levels and even all the levels in between those because there are so many different situations in life that call for maybe no or no! and everything in between. so it really depends on the situation and of course you would in a longer class start using your own language. this is just me offering some samples. but the important thing about it are the underlying principles. oh, you can sit down.
thank you. you will be getting up again. the underlying principles are -- use your voice, body and face to give a consistent message. if any one of those channels of communication is doing something else, you will not be as effective. okay? voice, body and face. so, for example, if i went like this. stop. when's the problem? i was smiling. very normal. a lot of us gate smile when we're nervous. so we train how to keep a serious face. so you can see how if any one of the three things is offline, your message won't be as clear. so using a voice, body and face to give a consistent message. the message is what you want to happen. okay? so i said, stop. i said, take your hand off me. i said, leave now. those are all examples of what i've decided i want to happen. one thing common in classes is people won't necessarily know what they want to have happen and especially for women part of
our socialization and i know i'm overgeneralizing but in general often we're cut off from knowing what we feel and so without knowing what we feel we can't know what we want and without knowing what we want we can't say it so part of taking self defense training is learning to walk yourself through that process preferably quickly because you might need to do it quickly. so that you can get to what you want and saying it. so use your voice, body and face to give a consistent message. you tell them what you want. if they don't do it, you repeat yourself and get more intense and that's what we did with the no. was we started with a low-key no and we ended up with a super loud no and basically that process is what you would use in almost any kind of verbal situation. i know you all were talking about the continuum today. we do a lot of continuum work in our classes to help people understand where the real risks
lie and to get them away from what they worry about because they've seen it on tv and that kind of thing. also, to 'em if size the point that most things start down at this end. most things start with talking. most attacks and women and girls are by people that we know. obviously, if it's an abusive relationship, that's 100% people that we know. but even if it's a sexual assault, depending on which research you're reading is anywhere between 75% and 90% people that we know. so, even with a stranger, someone you don't know, it often starts with talking. so the good part about the fact of the low-end of the continuum, the bad part is it's stuff that happens as often as every day. the good news is that we have a chance at interrupting something before it's ka lats. so we emphasize verbal skills a lot. physical skils we teach as last resort technique. so i'm going to ask everybody to
stand up again. and our skills are designed to be used by people of all abilities. i am a martial artist, 20 years in tae kwon do but we don't teach martial arts. we teach things that you can come into a workshop, maybe it's an hour long, maybe the workshop is three hours long, maybe it's ten weeks long, whatever, but you can walk in and walk out with skills you can use that day. so i'm going to teach you one real quick here. make a fist. but we're not going to hit with a fist because unless you train in something that developing your knuckles you could end up with the emergency room with broken knuckles so we hit with the padded part of your fist. calling this hammer fist because it comes down like a hammer. kate, can i borrow you? i promise not to hit. i mean, i promise not to touch
you. i'm going to ask you to come over here because i can't move from this. here's some of the things you can do. come closer. here's some of the things you can do with a hammer fist. you can come down to the nose. all of our targets are based on extreme pain or temporary disability. so we're looking for something that will end the situation so that you can get to safety. so you can come down on the nose. you can go into the temple or into the temple. you can go into the throat. those are just a few things you can do with this very multifaceted technique. thank you. >> thank you. >> let's see everybody with your hands up. and you're going to take your stronger hand. hands together. hands together. yeah. take your stronger hand and pretend to come down on the nose and sitting right behind somebody, be sure you don't hit them. okay? so look like this. on my count, one. okay. now we're going to yell because that makes you stronger.
right? i'm sure this is used in military training. right? people -- call and response thing. i have seen it. and but even if you look at, like, tennis players go ugh when they hit the racquet, the ball, target. or people who do clean jerks. people yell. it makes you stronger. also in self defense if you're yelling you're breathing, that breaks the freeze response. okay? so everybody with your hands up. coming down and we're going to yell no. ready go. >> no. >> come back right back here. you don't know what you're going to do right here. two. >> no! >> and three. >> no! >> now pretend you're getting attacked and i'm not there yelling loud for you. i want to hear you yell as loud as you really can go. i'll yell with you. one, two, three. go! good. beautiful. okay. you can sit down now.
do you feel -- hmm? do you feel the difference in your body? okay. so just a couple of -- that is a mini, mini, mini class. that's an appetizer of what we do. we work on understanding the frame work of risks. which is along a continuum. we practice verbal techniques and we practice physical techniques. the physical techniques while you'll probably never have to use them give you the belief in yourself that enable you to practice the verbal techniques in every day life. let me just say a little bit about the frame work of empower self defense and the principles that we're based on. we don't believe in tips. or shoulds. which should what a lot of supposed prevention material is about which basically just constrains behavior. you know? don't park next to a van.
don't wear a short skirt. be aware of everything all the time. yeah right. like who can be aware of everything all the time? we -- we work on the most common violations, so, you know, i tell my students do not ask me if you're on a desserted island and there's three guys with macheted and you're duct taped to a palm tree. we deal with the things you're most likely to face every day. we are very trauma informed and have a very strong no victim blaming stance. we honor whatever skills anybody used to get through whatever they've been through and we are just here to add more tools in your tool box whatever you face going forward you will have more options. we are yue might note and this is a topic today, experientiale. we do do some conversations but there's no standing around
talking at you. we will be in a conversation to have, you know, people work out a different -- a problem together and the importance of the support of the group and the bonding in that experience. research on self defense efficacy has shown that the result of self defense training is very powerful, even without using self defense. i believe that people in the military are uniquely positioned to carry out a lot of the principles that we believe in because they -- they, you, some of you are not in the military, understand the power of the group to change culture and social norms. they understand the importance of the group in standing up for one another and in supporting one another.
they have a strong leadership structure -- that's the word i was looking for. strong leadership structure that can be put into place structuret can be put into place in the interest of gender-based violence prevention and recovery. just a couple things. one is, as you know -- but i need to say it again as a disclaimer -- that was incredibly small taste of some of the skills that we share. i have two handouts on the table on the way out. one of them is a link to an article that i co-wrote with a colleague and it's from an online article. if you go to the online place, you can find all of the links to self-defense efficacy, research and all of that kind of stuff. i will send around during the q
& a for anyone who wants to get our newsletter and i thank kate for inviting me to this. thank you. [ applause ] >> i'm probably lucky. our last panelists were she's a psychiatrist who retired after 30 years of distinguished service. she was the founding director of the defense centers of excellence for psychological help and brain injury. when she retired and she's been a key adviser to senator gillibrand regarding military sexual assault and serves as the commissioner of the new york city department of veteran services.
>> well, thank you so much, kate. it's a joy to be here today and i just have to say very, very briefly, i'm filled with a sense of grace, gratitude and grit. grace because it's such an unbidden blessing after having the privilege of serving 30 years in uniform and to now still be serving in new york city and at a time when the struggles are real but so are the strengths. and i hope you'll join us in really transforming the narrative around veterans, that veterans are families. yes, we have struggles but let's lead with the strengths and so much of the time the strengths come through the struggle. our veterans and our families are our country's leading
natural renewable resource. and what is it to be renewed? it's that commitment to service. kate, i was struck by your comments. i haven't met you before. i don't know your story other than what you shared. as jessica talked about, this is all about human capital. as i heard your list of assignments, your duties, your increasing sets of responsibilities, you excelled everything you did in the united states marine corps and thankfully you're still here and you've decided to keep on serving. i, for one, look forward to seeing you in new york city and wherever it is that we can sit down over a cup of iced tea and plot out the next phase of -- battle comes to mind but it's struggle. it's really struggle. so thank you for your service.
that sense of gratitude, i must say, dr. duffy, like kate, i didn't know what happened when i left the army in 2010. over 20 national news stories puzzling over the abrupt circumstances of my departure. you would think as a psychiatrist that i would have had some clue, i scoured. i scoured the literature on bullying, bullying in the workplace, some of it fit but it was just wholly inadequate to describe what i had both witnessed over time and what i had experienced. all of that was amplified even more over these last several years when in working with senator gillibrand and in so many targets of mobbing, so many
survivors of military sexual trauma, to know that in two-thirds of the situations where the men and women who have been assaulted report that violation, that retaliation is what they then report. and so i don't know how many men and women have been really saying to have found themselves through your work but i will tell you that from the time i learned about your work in late 2012, i have given your books to everyone that i think can possibly benefit. and every time that i give a presentation, when i insert the word "mobbing," someone comes up to me in the audience and relays
a very similar story. so the fact that swan is taking the lead here in washington, d.c., just in the shadow of the pentagon, just across the river from the capitol, gives me great hope great comfort, great courage and, yes, gratitude for the work that you have done, dr. duffy, for the work that you, lauren, described. i will tell you another great resource i've found in these last several years on this journey came through a recent book "the body keeps the score." folks, when we know from neuroscience that what goes offline is our thinking brain, why is it that we continue to lead with cognitive-based interventions? the body keeps the score.
and that's where it has to start. just compare. don't say anything now but just think about what it was like during lauren's presentation to get up, to say those words. stop. maybe it's the first time for some of us in this room that we've ever said the word "stop" on our own behalf. just think about it. notice how that feels. and lastly, grit. folks, it's not going to be easy to change the system whether it be in the military, in the workplace, whether it be in the playground, in our schools, in our condo associations. but it starts with talking about it and it starts with the work that jessica is doing in the army. if i wasn't doing what i'm doing in new york right now, i'd want to run an organization called bubba. but today i'm so thankful because jessica is already doing
it and she's doing it with the support of the leadership. where are you, jessica? there you are. okay. she's doing it with the high left levels of support in the army and i will tell you, that gives me confidence that we're moving away from what has been a really individual focus. has it ever struck you that we know how important leadership is? all of our research tells us unit cohesion. a veteran told us a few years ago, this was right before i was getting out and trying to glean all of the wisdom i could and he said, man, when i was in the army, it was all about unit cohesion. that's our center of gravity and what makes us so strong. now that i'm out and i'm a veteran, i can see that community is the civilian equivalent of that unit cohesion, our center of gravity. and what you are now doing with this work is you're recognizing
that just as unit cohesion and leadership were absolutely the attributes that we point to when things go well, when things fall apart, why wouldn't we start at the organizational, at the group level? not to ignore the individual but let's start organizationally and at the leadership level, organizational group and then, yes, we can pay attention to that individual as well. so let me just say -- took all sorts of notes, you know, learning never stops. this is so great, i'm going to take this to my veterans back up in new york city. but i've got to tell you that my confidence in what our military is doing is not ill placed. we, after all, in the military, we serve in an institution that is the world's best at blocking
change. right? but when required to change, there is no organization on earth that is better at tackling change. and leading the way. we've done it with race, gender is a work in progress, lgbq and an incredible work in progress. and with this issue of sexual violence and workplace aggression, we can call it continuum harm if we need to. but let's never forget what it is. sexual violence and workplace aggression. you know, the arc of sexual aggression and gender-based violence in our society and our world is very, very long. but knowing about the work that
you're doing and knowing the work that lies ahead and that we will be doing together, that arc is starting to bend towards justice. thank you so much. god bless. [ applause ] >> that was like slow motion. i'd like all four panelists to join us up on the stage so we can start some q & a. i'm sure there are some great questions out there.
and i'll prime the pump just in case nobody wants to be first. so i'll ask the first question. so this room, when i look out at the room, it's obviously the opposite dynamic in the military because it's predominantly women. my question for the panelists, the majority of the military is men and clearly they need to be an integral part of solving the sexual assault problem. so if you were secretary of defense for a day, what practical solutions would you put in place to engage men and make sure they understand that as leaders they have just as much an obligation as the women in this room to stop the problem? >> in terms of engaging men, i think that the engagement doesn't necessarily have to be gendered, although in terms of
response i think there are instances where gender engagement is needed. i think a lot of this comes down to creating a climate and culture for respect. so, you know, a lot of at least from what i've seen, the trainings that the d.o.d. has provided has been around what not to do and what i think the d.o.d. really needs to focus on is helping equip leaders with information on what to do. so not everybody knows what behaviors are involved in creating a culture of trust, a culture for respect. and i think if we can emphasize some of those more positive characteristics that the organization needs and why they are important for not only people's well-being but also for performance and readiness, i think we'll be ahead of the game. >> i would bow to the greater knowledge of the people who do work on men's engagement and
there are many slices to the pie of ending gender-based violence and, you know, i happen to have chosen this particular slice but there are incredible groups like -- which is based in d.c. but has a national presence, like justin katz, you can watch his talk, like calcasa, the california coalition against sexual assault which has a huge program for men and boys, all of which work basically on developing the skills that you were talking about and on redefining what is a healthy masculinity so that we can have a culture of respect. so the way i would bring men into this is by reaching out to the men who already have thought about this deeply for decades. >> thank you.
questions? >> [ inaudible ] my question is for you, doctor. i've been working with the sharp program since 2009. when i first went through the advocate course and what i've seen with the sharp program -- specifically speaking to the army program. i'm not really familiar with the other services -- but kind of since the program's inception, i felt like there's always been a lot of talk at the top levels and we've gotten a lot of top-down push, which is great, fantastic stuff has come out of that. however, i feel like no one at any point has really reached down to the victim advocates and at some point you guys have but there's a lot of -- i feel like there's a lot of input to be taken from the folks that worked at the victim advocate level,
the sark level, looking at the line units, looking at the survivors and victims and the predators out there, and i feel like there's a lot of untapped resources. i know you guys talked about talking to the sarks but i wonder if there's not any reach down to get that informational resources. so i guess, what are you guys looking at doing talking to people like me down at the basic levels to see how we can improve the program? >> great questions. thank you. i want to thank you for your comments about men because there are so many organizations out there who are focused on men. one in six is another one. i'm not flippant in saying we don't necessarily need a gendered response but just in terms of training and developing positive climates, i'm not sure we need to be gender segregated. to answer your question, what are we doing to engage sarks and v.a.s or across the army, i
think there's always room for improvement. i was just at ft. ustiss last week with the director of the army sharp program office. we met with a bunch of the sarks and v.a.s there and met with subject matter experts from various universities as well as the leaders at ft. uses. i think there are opportunities for engagement. i can only speak from a research side. when we do research, especially when it comes to the elite tools, sarks and v.a.s are probably the group that we tap more frequently because we want to know what scenarios, challenges you're facing and part of that engagement has to deal with interviews, focus groups, really getting some in-depth detailed knowledge from our sarcs and vas that have
lived this process. one other thing i'm trying to do is develop greater collaborations between the dod and industry and that includes bringing sarcs and vas to wherever we're going. i was at a conference a few weeks ago and tdr. stockdale wa there. we had some sarcs and vas there. part of it is bridging the gap and building connections but i absolutely believe there is always room for improvement. >> please. >> my name is bernadette and i commented earlier. my daughter was a victim or is a victim currently but my question is two parts. she was attacked from behind so
if the spokesman would show us what happens when you're unexpectedly attacked from behind four times. the advocate in our case was u.s. senator mark warner through my consistent efforts with his office, they finally helping my daughter. i give him credit for what we're trying to resolve and my second question is, on the sharp program, there wasn't enough involvement in my daughter's case at the military college where she's at and so having heard her tell me about the inadequacies of that program at her campus and the lack of the
rotc program coordinator, they wanted the title nine investigation finished first and when that was done, my daughter went to the rotc office program coordinator and wanted to file a complaint and they refused to receive her complaint in the sharp program. what i'm saying is that being that she experienced this inadequacy on campus -- and this was just a two-year military college, is your program going to extend this concept, the sharp concept to maybe all of the service academies and there are six two-year military college academies that strictly have army programs for their early commissioning program into the army. >> let's give the panel an opportunity to answer the two questions. >> the short answer, ma'am,
unfortunately, is that i don't know. i am not knowledgeable in our rotc and how they engage them. although, i will find out and get your information and finds out. >> lauren, are you going to need for me to be a dummy again? >> first of all, i am very, very sorry for everything your daughter has gone through and everything your whole family is going through. i just want to make sure i understand you're asking me to show what are some options that a person would have if they were attacked from behind. is that it? >> yes. >> okay. i'll try and do this -- >> don't mean to be too technical but -- >> i'm not judging in any way what anybody has ever done before when they were attacked from behind, including your daughter. you know, this is not training that most people have coming up. we would all like to have
universal self-defense training in the schools but it doesn't exist and so most people wouldn't know these things. but here's a couple of things that you can do. is there a -- is there a cordless mike that i can use? thank you. >> you're going to miss the filming. that's the problem. >> she's going to bring one up hi. can you hear me? we tried to have a relatively small vocabulary of strikes so that people who don't train for a long time can remember them in a stressful situation but there are two that i can think of right off the bat that work very well if you're attacked from behind. one is a stomp to the foot. okay? so somebody is mind me and i'm just going to take my whole bottom of my foot, i will probably hold on to them for balance because i'm lifting up
my leg. i'll take the whole bottom of my foot and land it where the laces would be if they had laces and that's the instep. and i'm going to bend my knees a really lot so that i'm putting -- no matter how much power i have in my body, it doesn't matter. what matters is that i'm dropping my weight into their foot so it would look like this. no! okay? so this -- this obviously works in the front but it's one of the versatile techniques that works in the front and the back. and another technique that works very well in the front and the back is an elbow strike. when we talk about an elbow strike, we're not talking about the point of your elbow. not that. but instead, here where the ulna bone is or where the triceps are. so if someone was behind me -- who has done self-defense? >> i think we all have. >> don't attack me. if someone was behind me, i
could simply go like that or whatever i can reach. now, if she was grabbing me in a bear hug -- yes, in a bear hug -- and i didn't have access to my hands, company stomp on her foot or i could -- if the attacker is male and has testicles, i could grab them and pull. the way that would all come together -- do you mind attacking me? you could do some serious damage, pain but it's not as high pain as whether they have testicles. okay. so this is the mugger's hold in which case they usually take this hand as well. this is going to be a little hard with the mike but i would hold on to make sure that i've got air. i could kick the knee. knees don't like to go any way but one way.
kick the knee, stomp on the foot and then maybe i would strike to the genitals with the hammer fist that i taught you all. i can go to the ribs. hopefully that's loose enough that i can do something like this, something like that and get to safety. all the techniques that we teach are designed to create a possibility for you to get to safety. we're not about hurting people. we're about creating an opening for you to get to safety. so that might have just been one step on her foot or it might have been multiple techniques. it depends on the situation. but this is just to say, you do have options if you're attacked from behind, which is that and the ground are the things that people are most afraid of, being on the ground or being attacked from behind and there are lots of options. >> any other questions? yes, ma'am.
>> thank you. good afternoon, ladies. so my question, it's been nine years since i've been to paris island so maybe you can refresh my memory but i'm not sure if they actually do sexual awareness training during boot camp. >> they do. yes. >> okay. >> but it's completely segregated. >> right. >> how do you feel about that? >> you and i can talk offline. if you read some of the things i've published, it's very clear what my stance is on that. >> okay. i like what you published. we're good. >> some people do. >> and my second question is, in regards to the training, we focus a lot on the army training and how they do it. i'm not sure how the army does their training, i'm just sure what the marine corps does. basically, i'm unsure if what
obviously the basis is going to be about the same thing about what to do for sexual harassment training. however, i'm not 100% sure if we are all taught across the board on procedures and what to do, especially when we're in environments like afghanistan. so when i went to afghanistan, i was the only marine in the army unit. so it's a different environment. we are -- we are different traditions. so if something had happened overseas, okay, i'm going to tell my staff sergeant what happened and then they go talk to the army and then there is some kind of -- well, we don't do things this way. we do things this way sdplch. >> what is your question? >> do we know that it's going to be the same across the board regardless of what branch of service you're in? >> great question. >> yes, that's a great question. this is definitely an issue in evolution in progress and i think -- i think back to, for
example, the issue of suicides. for the longest time, each service did it differently and it wasn't until really the institution took suicide seriously enough that they then, you know, coordinated standard definition, standard approaches. it still accommodated for in the prevention efforts for, you know, service specific cultural differences. i think this is a similar issue. i mean, 2005 at ft. hood, we spent two hours as the new sexual assault prevention program was being rolled out. with senior leaders, 06 and above arguing about whether they were raped by a friend, if that was still a rape, if you were raped in a marriage and whether sexual assault was any different than sexual harassment. we've come a long way but i think that's absolutely a stepping stone on that progression and maybe we can hasten its coming by those of us working in this area by really agitating for the very reasons
you described. we're a joint combined force. we're one time. let's have a unified approach to these kinds of issues. >> all right. i'm afraid that we're out of time but i hope that you join me in thanking our guests for appearing on the panel today and their expertise. [ applause ] at noon eastern, a look at the new credit card chips. consumer advocates will talk about chip technology over on c-span. at 1:30 eastern here on c-span 3, the head of the pipeline & hazardous materials safety information discuss safety operations. and democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton is campaigning in ohio today. c-span will have live coverage at her stop in athens where
recently, our campaign 2016 bus made a visit to pennsylvania during its primary. stopping at grove city college, slippery rock university, washington and jefferson college and harrisburg community college. go to c-span.org. visitors were able to share their thoughts with us about the upcoming election. we also visited seventh ninth graders. a special thanks to comcast and armstrong cable for help in coordinating these community visits. you can view all of the winning documentaries. next, a look at the process of selecting a vice president this election cycle with political campaign experts. the discussion ran 50 minutes.
>> all right. welcome. welcome back. i'm john fortier. this is a second panel of our day on the release of a report of selecting a vice president, advice for presidential candidates, a report of the working group of vice presidential selection. i have announced the members of the working group in the beginning and introduced them. we had some on the first panel. we have some more here today but we're also joined by joel goldstein, one of the country's leading expert on the vice presidency. professor of law at st. louis university and the author of several books and many articles on the vice presidency but also author of a book that has just come out, the most recent off the presses, "the white house vice presidency: the path of significance from mondale to
biden." there are many virtues in this book about the vice presidency of itself, the history and selection process. i will note it might be the only book of the vice presidency that does not mention john garner's famous characterization of the vice presidency but -- which i will not repeat here but i guess you could say that the book is a bucket full of warm thoughts about the vice presidency. deep and warm thoughts. so what i'd like to do on this panel really is to talk more about the recommendations but also the vice presidency and deeper history. since we have joel here, maybe i could begin with joel. joel, just -- we have two big questions here. one is the role of the vice president has changed very significantly over time and your book is the modern, most important time for the vice presidency, beginning with walter mano. could you give us a quick overview of how the role of the vice presidency has changed within an administration.
>> sure. painting with a real broad brush, for most of our history, the vice presidency was really a legislative officer and that was really through the vice presidency of alvin barclay, president truman's vice president. beginning in 1953, the vice presidency really moved into the executive branch. the vice president spent more time in the executive branch doing political things for the president than he did presiding over the senate. and i think that was really -- and the focus of the office really during that period was on presidential succession. it was having somebody who was plausibly prepared to be a presidential successor and generally vice presidents were doing things in the executive branch but pretty peripheral to the center of the executive branch. it was really that the vice
presidency moved into the white house physically but also becomes part of the center of the presidency. and i think through the last 40 years, the six administrations since then, the vice president in each case has been a senior presidential adviser and trouble shooter who's taken on in different roles and different administrations but has taken on significant roles in each of the six administrations. >> coming back to you about the history of the vice president selection process, i want to jump into some of our working group members. maria, you have long experience with conventions. in fact, you ran the republican convention in 2008. the rollout of the vp but the conventions have all sorts of -- they are always lurking there in the background when you make the choice. they are ultimately body that is going to approve the choice, presumably, or make the choice
of the vice president and joel can talk about the history, how that was actually much more the case in the long ago history but talk a little bit about the consideration of the convention when nominees are picking their vice presidential choices, thinking about the convention, how the convention typically rolls out. i know we have a perhaps unusual year. i can get to that, too. what's the role of the convention and the vp selection process? >> well, it's a very interesting question. obviously the conventions play a significant role, although i'm not sure that anyone realizes the significance. i think ben and i have had a little experience. once the convention nominates a vice president and president, probably the most important thing we do is that thursday night, sometimes thursday morning, the nominee who has just been nominated has to sign all of the paperwork to get on every ballot. people don't know what goes into the making of a president but that is most significant and i think ben and i on many
occasions have had a little sweat from our brow trying to figure out how to get somebody from new york to l.a. and make sure that they are -- sacramento and filing the correct paperwork. there's a lot of technical stuff that goes into it. i think the unique thing with regards to the vice presidential nominee is where we are today on the republican side and i know you want to talk about in general but right now we have moved the convention arguably six to seven weeks up. so it has moved up. in addition to the fact that the republicans at least, it's likely that we may not have an actual nominee. and the traditionally what happens is after the primaries, sometimes before all of the primaries are over, you have a presumptive nominee. and that person plays a significant role or has staff that will play obviously a significant role with everything from, for example, the layout, the design of the convention. they want their stamp on that.
they have a say in speakers, the program, the order of the convention, what the actual stage is going to look like because that's a part of their persona. what's interesting, at least on the republican side now, is that there may not be a person from a presidential campaign that will actually have a stamp. there may be two or three potential nominees. but even things as simple as hotel space, there's a lot of stuff that goes into putting the whole thing together. this is going to be extremely interesting as time goes on, especially for the convention manager which i'm happy to say is not me. >> one small thing we talked about earlier, give the audience a sense that when is the time frame for the typical speech of -- >> yeah. >> -- after having been nominated or confirmed by the convention and what might we have to think about if we don't have the typical convention? >> absolutely. probably as they are fighting potential nominees are fighting
for everything from space in the convention halls to hotels and transportation, the interesting thing for the republican side -- and i believe on the democratic side, also, is traditionally the vice president is nominated on wednesday night and the president then is nominated on thursday. so it will be extremely interesting if we don't have a candidate by wednesday how the process will change. at least as long as i can remember. and ben's memory may be better but at least as long as i can remember, that's the order that we have always used. so this could change the whole outcome. >> ben, you have had experience with this, too. again, reflections on the role of the convention and then this year how it might be different. >> our recommendations may be stress tested in the way we never could have envisioned. the convention is obviously
something where you want a great feeling of unification and camaraderie to emerge. and part of the way -- and good television ratings, i might add. and part of the way that the conventions have dealt with the television ratings part is the recognition that role calls are an audience killer. so a couple of things happen. first of all, the presidential role call has been -- become a rolling role call since 2000. we did a third of the states on monday, a ird ththird on tuesda third on wednesday, joyous celebration when the candidate goes over the top on wednesday, roll right into the vice presidential pick at that point. there's been a rule since '88 or '92 that says that only one candidate put in nomination, the convention can pass them by ak
c ak cli mags. and on wednesday night it throws off the timing that maria talked about and the whole process of selecting the candidate is usually done in gnome so should it turn out to be a contested convention and you're a campaign, do you want to name your vice presidential candidate well in advance to be able to coalesce your support or do you want to save that naming of the person for the convention to be able to amass under stressed conditions. so the convention could play a real role this time. >> manny, i know one of the things you stressed during our deliberations was ways of thinking about picking a vp as the private sector might or as people who are thinking about filling important jobs in other
realms would be. do you want to say something about the role some of that could play for candidates or whether -- what ikind of critera we might consider in thinking about the vp? >> well, thanks very much, john. let me start off by saying i really have appreciated the opportunity to be a part of this. for me, it was totally novel. i've had the opportunity to watch bob's career from a distance and the arc of his public service in legal career and so to have a chance to be part of this, that was really special. and i really appreciate the bipartisan policy of doing this. because i think it really truly is an extraordinary service. i have never -- i was probably the only person on the panel who has never been part on the inside of vice presidential selection process. as john has mentioned, outside our corporate boards or charitable boards, i have been part of the process of executive
recruitment and development and i think the first thing that really struck me about this from listening to the wonderful stories, by the way, i'm sorry we're barred from repeating any of them was how complex this really was and how much tougher this really was that the political elements, the social media elements, the confidentiality elements, all of these things brought a level of complexity to this that far exceeds any other selection process that i'm aware of. i guess the analogy for me was somebody says that a jet engine is something that has 10,000 moving pieces and every one of them has to work every time. i think this is a process that has 10,000 moving pieces and if something goes wrong, it can have an awful lot of very unfortunate impacts. in that regard, i guess, two
things have struck me. first of all, i think that there may be a role for some input from people who do have the experience and other things particularly when things are in a hurry as they are right now because they do have experience in framing things and asking questions and even personality charts on how people are likely to fit together and work with others. so i think all of these things are useful. they have check lists and when people are in a hurry, whether it's in an operating room or a cockpit, i think having a check list is occasionally useful. so one of the things that i would think about on it is as you're going through it assigning somebody on your
internal team to go talk with the executive recruiters, the headhunters. you're going to have to put up with their view that they could pick a better president than the electorate does and that's the first thing you'll hear from them. i was with my granddaughter on wednesday and she said failing to plan is planning to fail. >> let me turn to joel. let me ask you to sketch out the longer arc of history and we talked about the convention just
now. it hasn't always been democratic and there hasn't been primaries. we've moved into a new era where the candidate is the primary person. but you sketch out for us, how is has the vice president been picked and how has the change related to the importance of the role of the vice president in office? >> it's played a major role in selecting the candidate and the party leaders would get together and try to placate the faction of the party that had lost the presidential nomination, they would try and engage in ideological balancing, whatever. so oftentimes they didn't agree on issues, they didn't know each other. the vice presidential candidate
wasn't beholden to the presidential candidate because he wasn't the person that elected hip. that changed in 1940 when fdr did a condition of running for a third term that the delegates would accept wallace. ultimately, the delegates agreed to wallace as a price of getting fdr but wallace wasn't able to speak at the convention because of the animosity towards him. 1940 really on through 1972, the process was pretty much at the convention, once the nomination was resolved, people would celebrate, they would be tired and hungover and then somebody would say we better pick a vice president, we have to announce
this and in 1976, it really changed. in part driven by the mcgovern frazier rules and the fact that the presidential nominees were now being chosen by primaries and caucuses the resolution of the presidential nominations. so at least on the dekd side that year, jimmy carter clenched the nomination five weeks in advance and had this time to engage in the sort of deliberate process that is sketched out in this report. president ford's nomination went to the convention but he had also started in '76 doing vetting while he was still competing with governor reagan. and so that was the process that really began in '76 of doing this vetting that took place once the nomination was secured.
and it really was a change for the convention stopped being sort of the place where you would wonder who was going to be the vice presidential nominee and there would be focus and contests about who that might be until the decision was announced. instead, the choice was announced before the convention, the rollout took place and the convention then became the leader of the ticket and a chance to attack the other side. >> there are all sorts of great things in this book. i recommend it to you. we are recommending a process that takes significant amount of time and to do it seriously, i guess i want to focus on jimmy carter. he did something very different, a more extensive process and maybe so extensive, and that is having these big public announcements of interviews with
the potential and the first decision that virtually everybody in this period over than gerald ford, it was the first presidential decision and he was cognizant of that and so he invited three of the candidates down to georgia and meet with them privately and then have a press conference. the other four he met with at the democratic convention but then again would have a press conference. it was all very transparent. this was in the immediate post-watergate period. that was what was driving it. in '84, mondale tried to imitate the carter process. there was a feeling that it was embarrassing for people who weren't selected and so since then it's all been done much
more privately and quietly vetting sometimes lists of people who are being considered oh are typically become known or at least many of the people so there's some public media vetting and so forth. but the tendency has -- the prak sis has been away from this sort of the public aspect of the carter and then the monday dale process. >> i want to turn a little bit to the vetting and turn to the core vetting process for a short list of people really takes eight weeks if you do it right. can you just give us a little sense of what that involves, the number of people, the stages of it, what you go through on a campaign to put people through that vetting process? >> it is a five-step process,
basically. i think the recommendations reflect that all of us who have been through it believe it should be a very small, discrete group of people, probably not people with regular campaign duties. i never saw the personal reports for the candidates. the structure of the process is step number one, you need to see what the universe says. you need to come up with a very broad list of people to consider who might be compatible candidates. the second step is to do public and need to be sure that the statements from the different candidates are compatible with who your candidate is and then the results of that can be
presented for the narrowing of the manageable number which i would say historically has been five but some campaigns will go a little more or a little less. then comes the part that will be particularly challenging for the republican candidates to do this time, which is the personal vet. a truly intrusive document designed to get it any possible weaknesses that you can in your vice president just to prepare for the inevitably of what might come that the folks on the first panel discussed. and after there's a thorough review, that personal information, financial, personal, just kind of everything you can think of, then the candidate himself or herself has to make the decision on who that person would be and there is somewhere in there a
one-on-one conversation with someone representing the campaign and the potential vice presidential candidates that includes the -- well, is there anything else we should know conversation? and then you've got to decide. >> and maybe one last -- and so there's an army of lawyers, right, that are looking at the details and those are not necessarily the people -- they are not really the campaign people. they are brought in and we have some recommendations that it can't just be anyone. there are different aspects of people's backgrounds that you're going to need specialists in. >> yes. so there are specialists certainly in tax because you have to look at the person's financial records. there may be medical issues so you'll have people trained in analyzing medical problems. if if the person is a lawyer,
you need to vet all the cases that that candidate has been involved in. if their business is some other business with a record and a trail, you need specialists to be able to back and review that. as a senator and congressman, there are a series of votes in congress that may not be discernible to your average person until an op-o person gets ahold of it, like matt rhodes and so that's when you need people who understand the legislative process as well. >> explain one more thought, need i mention on the other panel, in some ways it's an easier thing to bring someone in who has run for president, either that cycle or another cycle before, they've put themselves out there.
and this is a process -- i mean, the president or the presidential candidate is not getting the same scrutiny as the vice presidential candidate, fair enough? >> fair enough. stuff can happen in four years, number one. number two, you're running with a different candidate so the compatibility issues become very important on policy positions and, you know, maybe the country clubs they belong to. so there is a whole range of both personal and professional things that just come under a different -- a different glare and spotlight. >> maria, one part of the question i didn't ask you or get to on the conventions was just if in a normal situation you're looking ahead, how much of a consideration is it for the candidates to think can i get an unorthodox candidate through the convention? if i pick somebody not a typical republican, a typical democrat, are the votes going to be there for me? and you're in the position to assess that for candidates.
how often does that happen, that they are thinking about looking ahead to that convention and making sure that their choice is going to be acceptable broadly to the party? >> you know, with regards to the convention, if you've got a presumptive nominee, there's been a lot of thought process going in. and if that's the nominee, it's a rather simple process to get through the convention with whoever the nominee picks. and i at least in my memory don't recall really ever being a question. we talked about sarah palin and let me echo what charlie had said. nobody knew that that was coming. that was one of the best-kept secrets. clearly for several days because the one question everyone is asking, that was maybe a little bit -- she was a governor but not known. certainly not really had taken any outright stance and i will just say that there is a lot of surprise and people are generally excited and the speech that she gave on the floor on
that wednesday night was incredible. i happen to be in one of the boxes as the campaign -- the convention manager. you walk around waiting for something to go wrong. and you're very nervous the whole time because you want it to be over, which is the sad part about it. and i sat -- i stood in a box and listened to her and you can hear a pin drop. there was not any noise and there was an example, she was a little -- while she was an elected official, certainly had no notoriety whatsoever. certainly what charlie alluded to, spiralled out of control, an interview that made tina fey famous, but there's -- they'll except i think whoever the nominee puts forth or in my past history. >> and joel, you wanted to say something more about the party
role and the deep darker past, a strong party role and the nominee was almost secondary in picking the nominee. but how that's evolved and how it still exists in selection today? >> well, the -- i mean, it used to be the party leaders really drove the selection. typically the presidential nominee, i mean, in the 19th century -- early part of the 20th century wasn't at the convention. >> that was before i was born, by the way. >> so it really was the party bosses that then existed who would get together. sometimes it was a question of somebody making a deal. we need indiana's votes, we'll give you indiana's votes if you put thomas marshal on the ticket down the line. it would be that sort of arrangement. once -- after 1940, after the presidential candidate really started taking the major