tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 9, 2015 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
if you do it on the front end, you can maintain for long-term. of the same thing will have to be done with social media and tweets. i would add one piece of the puzzle. it is a huge universe but the reality today with the cost of computer storage declining and the power of search engines increasing, we are in a place -- i used to make a joke, there was an old magazine called soldiers of fortune. it had a bumper sticker, kill them all, let god sort them out. fascinating idea for records management, save them all and let the algorithms figure it out. it is not hard to manage it
electronically and use tools to separate it out by the kind of line that the capstone proposes. i think there are opportunities for partnerships. the reason we know that a separatist leader bragged about shooting down of lane in ukraine that turned up to be the malaysian jetliner is because the internet archive's in san francisco saved that social media tweet and it was taken down off the facebook or the equivalent of facebook page him almost immediately but it has been saved and you can find it. i think that kind of approach to federal records management is the way out. it is not a cost matter. host: thank you. liz wants to say something.
liz: from an information management and governance perspective, a record is a record regardless of if it is a tweet, paper. we're glad the federal records act now shows you can capture anything electronically. we are not talking about just e-mail but electronic communications of any sort. this highlights the fact that, when you go to congress and you are an agency and they say there is not the funding for the technology to support you, it highlights what i was mentioning earlier. there has been a fundamental gap in the way that our government approaches information governance practices.
if it is possible to bake in this technology upfront, why is it not happening? the answer is, those at the top level are not paying attention. they are not incentivized to pay attention according to regulations. you have the national archives which is trying their darndest to bring to light that these issues need to be paid attention to. it is still not happening. i was listening to one federal practitioner from an agency that will go unnamed talk about their efforts to meet the 2016 deadline in managing e-mail electronically. to still think that blows my mind. she had to go to their technology office and say, we need some sort of system that will capture this.
they had no money for her, even though they are trying to reach a deadline that is essentially put forth by the memorandum and the white house. she got really creative and found a piece of technology that their office had acquired and was not using. the technology office did not know existed until they went through some version of the rolodex of what do we own. she said, that will work. they made it work. i do not know if those
opportunities exist in every organization but you have good federal practitioners who are trying, in spite of challenges put forth, to bring their agency up to speed. we still have a lack of support or attention to -- may have a lot of their plate, to these issues -- may have a lot on their plate, to these issues. host: some journalists are e-mailing me as they could not make it here. they are watching it on c-span. our panel suggested this happened over and over before clinton's case. why the flag was never raised? is it ben ghazi? is it that she might run for president? what can we do to keep it in focus so that we have these foia requests fulfilled? what do you look into your crystal ball to give it life? jason: i hope that the issue does not go away. the mandate of 2016 is not going away, regardless of who our next president is. the important point is that this does give a tension -- give attention to what good government issues involving the history of this country. i think it is a moment where there are a lot of people in this room watching. we do not usually have a conversation about now regulations and capstone policies -- narrow regulations and capstone policies that gets the attention of the public at large and the press. i think there is a moment that this controversy has served well.
we need to have that conversation. we need to talk about saving e-mail in an electronic form so you can have a more accessible government. i will do everything i can in the forums that i participate in , and i read -- and i -- how to talk to the government about federal records act accountability and standards. we need the press to be pursuing the story of how the government is doing with respect to the archivist directive. there are a lot of directives issued. this is very important. it is important to journalists because getting the record-keeping issue right really assists getting government accountability right in terms of accessible records to foia requests. we live in a digital world. the power of the algorithms that tom is talking about are a great thing. we have tremendous opportunities to improve government over the next few years, not just with respect to e-mail but with
respect to all forms of records that are in digital form. i think we should seize this moment to move the conversation forward. i would also say that i would hope that the archivist of the united states, whether through testimony in front of congress or on his own initiative would lead that effort. there are many ways and good people in this town that want to assist the archivist in making sure that the 2016 and 2019 mandates are for filled. -- are fulfilled. tom: the e-mail issue is sort of like the return of the locusts. about every seven or eight years, it will pop up again. eight years ago, chairman -- chairman henry waxman was holding hearings about use of e-mail, hasn't it been saved, working out negotiations with lawyers to recover e-mails from rnc servers although the vast majority turned out to be destroyed. 88 top officials of the bush white house have been using that as their main e-mail system. that was eight years ago. before that, the transition in the bush administration where you had whistleblower saying they have gotten rid of the archiving system clinton put in. you had us winning the lawsuit in 1993. you back to 1987 and you have the tower board report a stone
e-mail from backup tapes. the locusts come back and e-mail is on the front page again. ms. clinton is now the poster child for the necessity to save the stuff. let's hope that gooses more change across this government. patrice: i agree with jason and tom. i would also note, i spent a lot of time in the last few months explaining nara regulations, explaining the basics of the government's record-keeping policy to journalists. i would hope that this does not die and that it does not die because of the press.
i would also hope that the same amount of time that is put into training journalists on foia and the importance of it that at least an equivalent amount of time or some percentage of that amount of time would go into training journalists in what the statutes are, what the regulations are. we do not have many beat journalists anymore were looking at the agencies. that is a huge problem because nobody is paying attention outside of the government, to whether things are being implemented properly in the government. i think it is incumbent upon all of us of how are you going to keep this an issue, not a him scandal but an important issue in governance and accountability and history. it will disappear. it will fall below the radar at some point.
unless there is a steady drumbeat -- unless there is constant attention to the issue and what is happening. whether we do get to where we are supposed to be in 2016 and 2019. we still have a long way to go. >> i am lauren. i was wondering, if so many agencies are not keeping their records properly, what are the national security implications of that, beyond just keeping them for historical records? host: we have four minutes left. quick. patrice: we are a non--- tom: the problem with record-keeping systems means that real-time releases of documents just does not happen. it is a key piece of the delays we see across the freedom of information system. we have argued that there is really only one way out. the point that our former chief financial officer made about financial limitations goes in spades for the freedom of information system. any new request you put in slows down your previous freedom of information request. it is a zero-sum system.
the only way out is for agencies to proactively post everything they are releasing and everything they think might get released. for example, all of ms. clinton's calendars, you better believe there are dozens of requests right now for everybody she met with, when, for how long. it is of national interest if she is running for president or just policy interests. that stuff should just be before a request comes in, they should be looking to release that, post it online. we can see examples like the challenger shuttle disaster. nasa was getting hundreds of requests. they said, we will post it online when we are done with our investigation. it is efficient, it is good for all of us. that should be the default setting. it is not today.
there will be one billion e-mails coming out of the obama white house alone in january 2017. the exponential curve is clear. we are living in an age of communications. we need to have better preservation mechanisms, better search mechanisms, better information governance throughout the federal government in terms of who is paying attention to these issues. this is a start. i hope that we can meet again soon. i'm sure all of us on the panel would be happy to have conversations going forward. i want everyone here in this room and watching to challenge
government agencies to ask the question what are they doing to meet the 2016 and 2019 deadlines? host: thank you very much. we have come to the end of a very interesting session. let's hope we can do this again in the future. with that, thank you very much, and please become a member of the national press club if you are not already a member. thank you, and thank you very much for your time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer:. tonight, congressional profiles continue with norma torres. she talks about a range of
issues including her career as a police dispatcher and how money and politics make it difficult for normal people to run for office. after that, a panel of american indians discuss the stereotyping of their culture in sports and society. we heard remarks from kevin gover. here is a look. kevin: there is a well-intentioned teacher somewhere who was teaching her students about thanksgiving because that is required content in almost every state in the union.
now, this is innocent play isn't it? these are kids and they are pretending. if they were pretending to be any other race, that would the deemed as inappropriate, but not when it comes to indian. the thing is the innocent play becomes this, sorority girls dressing up as indians, frat boys dressing up as indians later, hipsters dressing up as indians. these guys. i don't know what that is all about? but what is this thing about dressing up as indians? and then it becomes commercialized. victoria's secret every year, and of course this. so, what starts out as innocent play eventually becomes ignorant and racist.
announcer: just part of an event held recently on the stereotyping of american indian culture in sports and society. you can watch the entire event tonight at 9:00 p.m. on c-span. tomorrow on washington journal mark murray all discusses the unarmed shooting of a black man by a white police officer. after that officer whitmire's looks at his book, 2016 and beyond. plus your phone balls, face-- your phone calls facebook comments, and tweets. announcer: here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday on afterwards, the president of the americans for
tax reform, grover norquist says americans are tired of the irs and our tax system. sunday, author susan butler on joseph stalin and franklin roosevelt and their unexpected heart and are shipped during the war. sunday, lectures in history. professor jennifer murray on how civil war veterans reunions have changed from the reconstruction era to present. sunday afternoon at 1:00 american history tv is live commemorating the anniversary of the confederate surrender and the end of the civil war. announcer: earlier today education secretary arne duncan joined wade henderson to reauthorize the elementary and secondary education act which was signed into law by lyndon
johnson to give federal income grants to low income students. this was held at the martin luther king junior memorial library. it's 50 minutes. post: thank you. good morning. thank you for coming here on this dreary and cold day. just a couple of days ago it was 75 degrees. welcome to the martin luther king jr. memorial library, a most befitting place to discuss and commemorate the 50th anniversary of the elementary and secondary education act
which provided equal access to education regardless of income or ability. i am the direct or of education for the d.c. public library thinking you on behalf of the executive director. for years, public libraries have been the great equalizer providing free access to education for all. supporting education is some of the most important work that we do. from birth libraries provide access to songs, storytelling and of course, reading. as students use libraries for research homework to study and to prevent the summer slide when they are on break from school. in recent years, technology has been an important attraction for people as they can use computers
and wi-fi for free. students create prototypes with a 3-d printer for school projects. we would like to thank wade henderson, president and ceo of the conference on civil human rights and the leadership on trend -- leadership education fund for joining us this morning. and i would like to personally thank secretary duncan, a person i have known for 15 years -- can you believe that -- who has always had a passion and unending commitment to quality education for all. and now i would like to welcome latoya cromwell to introduce the secretary.
latoya: good morning distinguished guests fellow students, and everyone in attendance today. it is my honor to introduce the secretary of education, arne duncan. secretary duncan is our ninth secretary of education and he has served in this capacity since his confirmation by the u.s. senate in january of 2009. secretary duncan, by all accounts has been up to the task. although there is still much work to be done, i believe we are on our way to reclaiming our true education potential. in addition to finding money for
teaching and transforming struggling schools into accountable performing schools i bet you did not know that secretary duncan has an amazing midcourt game, as evidenced by this years nba all-star game. please join me in welcoming secretary of education arne duncan. [applause] secretary duncan: thank you so much, latoya. please give her another round of applause. she was fantastic. she said she was nervous. i told her i am nervous before every speech. it is also her birthday tomorrow, so wish her happy birthday.
let's please give all of the students here around of applause. it is important for you to know -- all of us here work for you. we are helping you be successful we are doing our job. if we are not helping you be successful we are not doing our job. so whatever we can do to help you it is important. for all of us entrusted with education and human rights, this mural tells us what we have to look up to we have challenges and opportunity. this young girl is star brown. she lives on the north side of minneapolis in minnesota. it's a tough neighborhood. in the four years since she was born, her dad suffered an injury at work. her mom became sick with a brain
tumor. despite those challenges, she never stopped working for opportunities. despite those challenges they never, never quit working to make sure star has every opportunity to have a great future. they signed star up to be part of the north side achievement zone. north side is a promise neighborhood, a partnership between schools nonprofits, and
community groups modeled after canada's extraordinary work in the harlem children's zone in new york. the north side team help star get a scholarship to attend a high-quality early learning center, but on her first day of school, star hardly said a word. in some places, her silence might have been overlooked. but starr teachers discovered what may have seemed like first day jitters was actually a severe speech delay. star struggle to pronounce her own name. her teacher helped star get
started with speech therapy and became engaged in her classroom. with practice and hard work, star learned to sound out words name colors and shapes just like her peers. today, star loves learning more than ever. star story edits heart is not just about overcoming adversity. what it is really about, i think, is opportunity made real. it's about a child's gifts and curiosity and excitement for learning being given a real chance to flourish. it's easy to say that every child deserves opportunity regardless of racedisabilityzip codeor family income. it's easy to say that we expect excellence from every child. but it takes workhard workto make that opportunity real.
if you truly believe that all children deserve that kind of opportunity, then our collective work becomes extraordinarily clear. we know that when families educators and community leaders work together, they can unlock the "great vaults of opportunity of this nation"to echo the words of dr. king from his march on washington. our work is to make sure that opportunity is not just a possibility, but a promise. nowhere is that promise clearer than in the visionary law that congress passed 50 years ago today: the elementary and secondary education act. esea marked an extraordinary step for education, and for civil rights. the fight for educational opportunity and the fight for civil rights always have been and always will be inextricably linked. esea has built a foundation under our nation's schools, helping to raise the bar for every child, and to ensure that the resources are there for those most in need. it's helped create an expectation that no matter where you live in this country, when students aren't making progress, local leaders will come together to make changeespecially if they are students with disabilities students who are still learning english, students from a particular racial group, students who live in poverty, or students coming from particular school. progress and the work ahead and the progress has been made in those 50 years is remarkable. today, african-american and latino 9-year olds succeed in math at about the same level that their 13-year old peers did
in the 1970s. today, dropout rates are down significantly for black and latino students. high school graduation rates have soared in recent years for all studentsand gaps are closing even fast for african-american, latino and native american students. with grad rates up and dropout rates down, just since 2008, college enrollment by black and in minneapolis, the north flight zone has all but eliminated gaps for african-american boys. as a nation, we need to double down on that progress and do everything we can to accelerate the pace of change. everyone here knows we cannot rest, because we still have so far to go. why do we have so much work ahead of us? because today, quarter of our high schools, with the highest percentage of african-american and latino schools do not offer algebra to and a third do not offer chemistry. about 30% of school districts do not offer preschool programs like the one that star attends. just today we have far too
many's duties of color primarily boys, being suspended and expelled from school. and finally, you can search five entire states and find only for girls who took and ap computer science class. i work will not be done until we ensure that opportunity is not just a possibility, but a promise. as every teacher or principal will tell you, no child left behind is long overdue for repairs. it is broken and wildly out of date. we needed new law that does a lot more for innovation and creativity by educators and community and a lot less stifling that creativity. a new law must a true to the position that opportunity is not option, it is a right for every child in this country. we can't afford to leave any of our talent on the sidelines. opportunity is a right that inspires teachers and rentable
to literally dedicate their lives to empowering our children. opportunity is right that encourages parents to expect that their children will graduate from college and succeed in life, even if, maybe especially if, those parents never had the chance themselves. i work as leaders is not done until we have lived up to that promise. to do that, we need a new strong bill that ensures the right of all children to have the opportunity to succeed. we needed new law, quality education within our nation's best interest, not in any single party's interest. a new law must ensure that our precious resources, the students for whom they -- goes to the students for whom they are intended everyone must not shift funds to the neediest -- from the neediest schools to wealthier neighborhoods. that makes absolutely no sense. we need to make sure parents
educators and local leaders have the information they need to understand how all schools and all students are doing every year. educators need that information and families have a right to it as well. as part of that, we need to make sure the assessments students are taking measure learning in a meaningful way and offer a dashboard of students progress. anything else simply wastes valuable learning time. a new bill needs to do more to support our hard-working teachers, principal, and ensure that highly skilled educators are teaching where they are needed most. great teachers and school leaders are critically important to providing true opportunities. our goal as leaders in education and civil rights must be a bill that lives up to the idea that opportunity is the right of every child. let's take a moment to talk about what we can do together to make that ideal of reality. any new law must support the expansion of early learning opportunities like the one star
has been so fortunate to have an minneapolis. we cannot allow thousands of five euros to start kindergarten 16 months behind. it's not fair to them, their families or their teachers. republican and democratic governors and mayors and communities across the country have shown their support for early learning because they know what's possible when children begin school with a strong start. a new education law must ensure action in any school in which students are consistently struggling and continue support and bold action in our lowest performing schools. according to a new report, more than a million students attend high schools that graduate just two thirds of their students are less. most of those students are students of color and come from
low income families. that simply unacceptable in the most prosperous nation on earth when education must be the great equalizer. we know we can and must do better. we must build on the efforts that helped create opportunities for students like moises arzu at booker t. washington high school in miami. when moises started 9th grade, his school was a tough a place. only about half the students graduated, and unfortunately moises was sometimes in trouble. but hard-working teachers, fantastic city year corps members, and school counselors came together to transform the school through an effort called diplomas now. and with federal support for their intensive, innovative, hands on approach, they created real opportunities for moises and his peers to succeed. teachers used real-time data to support students' progress, and encouraged moises and his friends at every single step of the way. their collective efforts in a short amount of time are paying off: today, about 80% of
students graduate from booker t. washington, and more than half of them are headed to college. same building, same neighborhood, same families, same challenges. but a very different set of expectations and support, and very different results. as for moises? he's slated to attend fisk university this fall. if you want to congratulate him on his success, he flew in for this speech today. moises, will you please stand up? give him a round of applause. [applause] i gotta say, i can't believe you were ever in troublethere must be a misprint in my speech here! but quickly i just want to say your goal is not just to go to fisk, but the goal is to graduate. and for all of youwhether it takes you 3 years, or 4 years, or five years. it took me 5 years to graduate from college.
get that degree, get that diploma, it will open up a whole new world of opportunity for you. to help more students walk that path through college and to college, a new law must invest in innovative strategies like the ones at his high school that expand opportunity and to improve outcomes for all students. and when local educators discover innovations that work we must scale up their success. in other fields, medicine, energy and defense, the need for innovation is well understood. when the vaccine to a disease is discovered, the goal is never to hoard it to just a few. the goal is to get it out to the public, get it to everyone, as fast as possible. but sadly, in education, we spend less than 1 percent of our resources each year on research and developmentdespite an outpouring of creativity from local educators. over the last few years, we have received more than 4,000 proposals for innovative local projects, and unfortunately we have only had the resources to
be able to fund fewer than 150 out of 4,000. there is no upside to that. we must put great resources behind local projects that are changing students' lives. where we have invested in innovation, it has often been a game-changer. in rural tennessee, one of our innovation grants has brought college-level courses to more than 25,000 students in 30 high schoolsmany of which are gaining access to ap classes and dual enrollment courses for the first time. in north carolina, i met a young student named eric trejowho will soon be a first generation high school graduate. eric's parents unfortunately didn't have the same opportunity to go to high school, but right now, he is getting a jump-start on college, thanks to an innovative, federally-supported partnership in his school that has helped eric and more than 1,700 of his peers complete college-level classes.
and eric told us, "i want to be able to say that i earned everything i have." and we should all work together to make sure that all students just like eric and all of you here today have the opportunity to earn their way and work their way to a better future. as we strive towards to expand opportunity for all children, i feel really fortunate and pleased that senators lamar alexander and patty murraythe chair and ranking members of the senate education committeereleased a bill earlier this week. we are lucky to have their combined leadership and passion. next week, they will begin discussions with lawmakers in their effort to build a new bipartisan education law. senator alexander and senator murray share a lifelong commitment to improving education. senator murray spent years as a preschool teacher and early learning advocate for the people of her home state of washington. this work is in her blood, it is why she entered politics. long before senator alexander was secretary of education governor and a university
presidenthe fought to end a policy of racial discrimination at vanderbilt when he was the editor of his college newspaper. my father is also from tennessee and also attended vanderbilt and he always had tremendous respect for senator alexander. both senators' commitment to this nation's children is real. and i hope that leaders in the house of representatives, where a much more partisan process has unfolded, see the value in their leadership and pursue a bipartisan path there as well. as a nation, we simply cannot afford to turn the clock back on students like eric, and star and moises. we cannot cut our way to greater opportunities for our children. congress has the chance to create a new law that would help make educational opportunity a promise, not a possibility, for every child in this country. a new law must build a foundation for 21st century
schools by investing in innovation, supporting our fantastic teachers and principals, and encouraging every student's progress so that our nation's greatest asset, our vast academic and social potential, can be fully realized. that's what star brown and every child just like her deserves. a law that says that all children in this country deserves a real chance. a law that says we don't have a single child, a single kid to spare. a law that says we owe our children, our teachers and our schools more support, and more opportunity, not less. a law that says opportunity is a promise, not somehow just a possibility. and we're going to continue to work every single day to see that promise through. until then, our work is not done. i know star can graduate from college in 2033. and millions more students like her, deserve all the support and all the opportunities this country has to offer. i look forward to working
secretary for his inspiring words on this 50th anniversary of congress voting on no child left behind. my name is rachel skerritt, i'm a principal here in washington dc and i work part-time providing input on initiatives and hard work on this. they really work to prove all of our nation's public schools 100,000 of them. i'm very honored to be joined by mr. wade henderson president and ceo of the leadership conference. thank you for joining us here today. and the real honor of the with all these beautiful students in front of us from local schools including dunbar and others. let's give them a hand for coming out. [applause] rachel: i'm very excited to begin the conversation on some of the progress to date and some of the challenges as we look
ahead for the next 50 years. i want to begin with you, mr. henderson as someone who has committed your life work to issues of equity and civil rights. what really resonated for you today in the things the secretary said, and as you're looking in front of you at all these young people why is it important for them to be here today as well? wade: good morning, it's really an honor to be here. first, let me thank secretary duncan for the invitation to join him and you in this conversation. it's really important to have a discussion like this, so thanks for doing it. thanks to the mlk memorial library for hosting this event under the great mural of dr. king in his life accomplishments. it's a powerful symbol of what this conversation is all about. i also want to salute our musical entertainment this morning, they were great. [applause]
i also want to thank the students from dunbar, cardozo from banneker, and the principle from eastern. these are all d.c. schools. for me, this is a surreal moment. i am from d.c. i went to public schools here. i went to mckinley tech high school. i graduated almost 50 years ago when the voting rights act was passed. this is a surreal moment for me because i am where you are today , but i was 50 years ahead of you. i saw a lot of the changes we are talking about come to pass. i thought that secretary duncan's speech really hit on one of the great teams of today's conversation. opportunity is a right, not just a promise.
it is a birthright of american citizenship, and we as american citizens deserve the full opportunity that education provides. secondly, this is the 150th anniversary of the end of the american civil war. the single most transformative event, second only perhaps to the revolutionary war. the truth is, it was the civil war that put us on the trajectory of becoming a more perfect union. we are still struggling to achieve that goal today. african-americans have long on that the twin pillars of change in this country were voting rights and education. so it's not an accident that 50 years ago, it was president johnson who led the way on the passage of the voting rights act of 1965 and the elementary and secondary education act of 1965.
those issues go hand-in-hand. when i look at what the citizens of ferguson, missouri have recently done at the ballot docs, electing new members of their city council to represent their interests, that's a sign of progressive change. and i know that 50 years has really brought change to the district of columbia. just a few years ahead of you, up until 1964, d.c. was a segregated southern town, by race and by custom, and i hated it. i chafed at not having the right of citizenship that we all are entitled to. so the changes that the voting rights act have brought to the country are important, but don't kid yourself that we have reached the goal that we try to achieve. the murder of walter scott in charleston, south carolina, this past weekend, by a police officer, shows you that change
is tough. it's not easy to accomplish. as far as we've come, we have a long way to go. so on the education front, why i am so passionate about these issues, is because i believe they provide the gateway for change. i went to mckinley, i did my undergraduate work at howard. i went to rutgers law school. i am now part of the change that i always wanted to see accomplished. and you can do it, too, but you have to have the support of the kind of federal law that secretary duncan talked about. so yes, i'm pleased about change, but i know this is not a perfect system. every kid in this country should have the opportunity for high-quality, pre-kindergarten education. if you don't have it, you don't have the equal foundation and you are not ready to learn. kids should -- kids should not
start school with thousands of words of deficit because they have not learned the vocabulary of success, and they never catch up. we want that for our kids. we want schools that have high academic standards, because those standards make a difference in the quality of education. but standards without resources and support impose a burden on kids that you shouldn't have to bear on your own. high-quality teachers should be distributed in every school in our country, and teachers with the most experience should be sent to schools with the most challenging student populations of poverty and difficulty. we've got to overcome the problems of poor discipline in schools, but more importantly the fact that we are suspending kids. the bill that secretary duncan talked about, and the bill that's now moving its way through the senate, with senator patty murray and senator alexander, it really is an important real, and it is a
promising start but there are changes that are needed, guys. i won't dwell on those here, but i would say that overall the promise that i see in the faces of the young students here from d.c. is really encouraging to me , but i know the success that we want for you, the success i've had and that others like us have had, will depend on whether you get the kind of education we want for you and for our own children. that's really what the struggle and debate is really all about so thank you so much. [applause] rachel: secretary, i want to turn to you. right here locally in d.c., you had the opportunity the past five or six years nationally visiting hundreds of schools and speaking to thousands of educators.
what are some of the points of pride you feels be to the most recent success that set us on that path of all students hopefully eventually reaching that opportunity to have that quality education? secretary duncan: i think the fact that high school graduation rates are at an all-time high is a huge deal. i'm not that old, but when i was in high school in chicago, some of my friends dropped out of high school, it wasn't great, but it friendly wasn't the end of the world. they could go to work at the stockyards are the steel mills and have a pretty good job and on a home in support of family. those jobs are gone and they are never coming back. today the drop out of high school, you are basically condemned to poverty and social
failure. you can try to make it on the streets for a little while, but we know how that usually ends up. there are very few jobs where you can just have a high school diploma. universities, trade or vocational, technical training. to see high school graduation rates up, to see every group do better african-american, latino, native american students , students who live below the poverty line, that is hugely encouraging. the challenges is, we still have so far to go. we cannot rest until the dropout rate is as close to zero as possible. and graduating truly ready for the rigors of college work. whether its inner city schools are rural communities, native american reservations, we need to have amazing students who are
overcoming amazing odds everything day. i talked to a young man yesterday, a native american whose dad passed away, his stepmom passed away. he's a little bit older than you guys, not much. he is raising his younger siblings, making sure they are in school every day. that's not what he signed up for, but he is doing extraordinarily well. we need to make -- meet our young people halfway. we have to provide that opportunity. it cannot just be for some, it's got to be for all. it's got to be for the kids who need it most. rachel: a perfect lead-in for opening the conversation to our students. i would invite either one of you to ask any questions you might have of this group, as i'm sure they may have some solutions for us as we look to the next two years.
>> had we make sure every single young person understands how important their education is? sometimes i feel some young people don't quite understand that decisions you make at 15 or 16 or 17 will shape you for the rest of your life. how do we help young people know that these decisions are life-changing, for good or for bad? and any advice you would have if you were in my shoes are mr. henderson shoes, what would you like us to be doing better to make sure all of you have a chance for a great education? wade: what is it that you think we need to do? what is it we can do to better help you achieve the goals that you have, of graduating from high school and either going to college, getting a trade, trying to pursue some way of developing your own lives. what is it that you think we can do to better help you?
she helps me stay on track to meet a lot of kids don't have motivation. they don't have somebody to push them. i think all high schools need to have a mentoring program because we need someone to help us stay on track. secretary duncan: let me tell you a quick story about myself. i was pretty lucky, i had to parents at home who were college education. from the time i was about 10 years old someone on the basketball team took me under his wing. i'm now 50. a man named john rogers has been my best rent and mentor. he has had by far the most impact on my love of any adult beside my parents and there's not a major decision in my life i have not made without can elting him. i think about how much he's changed -- without consulting him.
it is a hugely important idea and he has really helped shape who i am today. wade: any other ideas or questions? what do you think we can do to be helpful? >> i'm robert, a senior here at cardozo high school. i have an answer to your question, and a question of my own. my school in particular doesn't have a band. i remember my ninth grade year and being able to get into that, that was the first thing that actually got me into the school and got me actually wanting to go to school, because i was in the band and it was something i felt passionate about. but we don't have that now. i feel as if every school had some type of musical outlet for the students to go to, so they have something to actually do in the meantime, or something to make them want to actually be in school it would be helpful. my question is, i was recently
at the mayor state of the district a juris -- address. she said the cps was one of the fastest improving urban school districts in the nation. could you possibly give some insight on how the new or updated bill would possibly help this district and others like it become not only the fastest improving but just plain the best? [applause] wade: great observation, great question, and just as the young lady who post the question about mentors, very helpful. let me go to your first question about the arts. guys, the arts are an essential part of a quality public education. you have to have exposure to
arts, whether it's music, visual arts, some ability to tap into your artistic sensibilities. i was very fortunate because i was part of a program here in d.c. called upward bound. [applause] a couple of people may be old enough to remember upward bound. we were taken to museums to get exposure to the artistic side of life. it helps to develop your brain your capacity to learn, your ability to enjoy the quality of life. unfortunately, the arts are shortchanged in our public school systems today, and they are among the first programs to be sacrificed under the guise of fiscal austerity, when they in fact should be preserved as an essential element of learning. so i completely agree with your observation, and to me, when we
don't have sufficient money in the budget for express -- artistic expression, then we need to have private funds to augment that. but you see, too often that is ignored. so it goes into your second question. what is the elementary and secondary education act now being considered in congress likely to do for a city school system like washington? washington has a relatively small public school system. of course we have a charter system that is well recognized and well respected. but i will say to you that when you sacrifice a public school system you are sacrificing the long-term future of our community. and so it needs to be preserved. we have a chancellor who is doing very well. the issue is, will she have the resources necessary to implement a program long-term that can help improve the quality of schools? i think you have to have, for
example, assignment of teachers to make sure that schools is of the anacostia river have the same resources that are available to the west. that dividing line, the economic dividing line in the city is a prominent today as it was when i was in high school 50 years ago. so i'm saying to you that an equitable distribution of resources, and accountability system that holds our schools accountable for the success of its students, and i don't mean imposing burdens on teachers that are not rightly their own. teachers perform an important function. i think we need to stand up for what they do. but having said that, we have to make sure that your school system and your resources are not determined by your zip code, guys are you should be able to get the same quality resources
that are available to all schools. i think you have to particular rise and how the bill will help to respond to those fundamental questions. you cannot do that without some federal accountability system that ensures that states live up to their responsibilities. you can do that unless you have disaggregated data about the performance of students in school. you can't change what you can't measure. if you don't have data on student performance, you can't possibly see where that is going. and other small changes are necessary to create a more level playing field. but i think your question is very insightful, and thank you for posting it. again, you guys give me great encouragement in knowing that students are thinking about what is hard for their success. i will give you one last thing. the office of civil rights in the department of education issued a report examining statistical data about the wants of schools around the country. one of the most shocking data
points was that african-americans constitute about 60% of preschool enrollment. i asked myself how could a four-year-old be suspended from school at such a disproportionately high rate unless the problem of unconscious bias has come into that system and needs to be expunged. so guys, we have a lot of work to do. the bill you are talking about can only address a few of these issues. there are problems that are local in nature and that have to be resolved here. i think the school system is committed to making those changes, and i'm impressed by what i see as well. rachel: i think were going to live -- give our friend moises the last word and question. >> might check, might check.
[laughter] i had a question based on what you were saying about mentoring. more of a different aspect of it , from mr. derek more from johns hopkins university. basically my question is, why aren't more schools being implemented with programs like diplomas now as an early rising indicator for dropouts? secretary duncan: there are a couple of things that i think a really important in this bill, without getting into the details. if it doesn't provide an opportunity for every single child, then it misses the civil rights part of it.
the third thing i think has to happen is the idea of innovation. whether it's inner-city d.c. or in miami, you see amazing work that printers -- principals and teachers great mentors are doing to get radically different results. huge increases in graduation rates in just a couple of years. the challenges and issues haven't gone away. the problems haven't gone away. it's a different set of adult expectations of what you and your peers can do. what we don't do in education is scale what works. we get thousands of applicants from amazing groups doing fantastic thanks, and congress hasn't given us enough resources to do that. whether it's for you in miami or what were doing in rural tennessee or appalachia and ohio and other places, we're seeing kids who never had access to
college-level classes, not just taking them but passing them. we have to start to scale what works. none of this is easy, there is no secret formula here. we need to learn and be humble and get better faster than we do, but we have to start to scale what works. that's why i tried to get the medical analogy and others. when we figure out something to cure cancer, we try to disseminate that as fast as we can. if we can improve dropout rates we need to disseminate that as fast as we can. there's still far too many communities who don't have access, and if we know those things were, to not share with them is fundamentally unfair and unjust and is unacceptable. [applause] rachel: i want to close their peer i want to thank everyone
again for coming today. as a principle here, it feels reinvigorating coming back to school, and it's a great affirmation that d.c. is full of students education -- educators and community members who are passionate about creating these opportunities for students and i look forward to continue working with you all and with the support of the debar -- department and with all of you. thank you so much. [applause] >> tomorrow on washington journal, mar morial discusses
the shooting of an unarmed black man by white police officer. then the recent book, 2016 and beyond. how republicans can elect a president in the new america. it's all on washington journal live friday at 7:00 a.m. eastern, on c-span. place this sunday, senior editor for the weekly standard, andrew ferguson, on his writing career. the gop presidential candidates for 2016 and what voters are looking for in a candidate. >> they want somebody who looks like he has stood up for them. i'm amazed now at the degree to which primaries on both sides are motivated by resentment. those people really don't understand us.
here's a guy who does understand us and he's going to stick it to them. hillary clinton will give her own version of that kind of thing. i don't think that was actually true 30 years ago. resentment has always been part of politics obviously, but that did read to which it is almost exclusively the motivating after truly committed republicans and democrats. >> sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q and a. >> next, a discussion about the changing media landscape in the top news stories of the day. from washington journal, this is 50 minutes. >> tucker carlson is a familiar face for many of our viewers. he joins us this morning as part of an ongoing effort to go inside newsrooms of various publications around washington dc. he is editor-in-chief of the daily caller.
the crowded lenient -- media landscape, how does the daily caller stand out in that landscape? >> pretty boldly, i would say. we have been around for five years, and the purpose of the site from day one was not to carry water for any political party but to fill in the gaps left a pretty irresponsible press. we felt having watch carefully the 2008 elections, that there was a lot uncovered. a lot of stories that readers might like to read about. as long as we jumped on those stories, we would do pretty well. we turned out to be right. host: what were some of the stories you jumped on? guest: there are a ton of them. the first big story was a story about something called journal list, a private e-mail chain between reporters at mainstream publications and
we got access through a member of journal list to those e-mails. you had reporters from places like the washington post and the huffington post and a bunch of publications around washington all sort of identified as nonpartisan. in fact, plotting on behalf of barack obama on behalf of his campaign in 2008, how to improve the nature of the press coverage he received. basically committing journalistic fraud. we broke that story, took a lot of heat for it, lost some friends as a result. it was a story that i think put us on the map. host: he talk about mainstream publications in that story. who was the mainstream media and who is not? where's the line in your mind? guest: we are the mainstream media. i would say the people that work
here in contrast to employees of other news organizations are present a spectrum of american life. we have actual diversity here. not everyone went to princeton. we really try to get people from different parts of the country with different points of view and life experiences. it is quite literally a purer cross-section of public opinion in this office than you would find in say the washington post newsroom. there's this fetish about diversity meaning matching the color of the rainbow, the spectrum. you could wind up with a multihued newsroom. it is a cultivation of people who share most of the same assumptions. i'm not attacking them. i have friends who work there. it becomes hard to notice your own assumptions when everyone around you shares them. there is a well-known phenomenon.
we are subconsciously out of step with that so we are highly aware of the preconceptions we bring to coverage. it is better to be self aware. most of the bad blunders come when people are not cognizant of their biases. host: what are those preconceptions you bring to coverage? guest: we are aware of the fact that we are ideologically out of step. i hire people here on the new side -- i never asked the single person, who do you vote for. i am looking not for research -- i'm looking for people who
descend from the conventional view of things. who do not regard the same nine subject is the only things worth covering. listen to people who are looking at things differently from your average washington post or new york times reporter. we do not need more of that coverage, the kind of coverage that assumes it is race relations have not progressed since 1955. i want people with a fresh perspective. those people tend to be in the minority ideologically. they may not have voted for obama's reelection. they are aware of that and they haven't intellectual outsider status. i think it makes them sharper -- i think they had an intellectual
outsider status. i think it makes them sharper. anybody who is eager to join a movement and be one of the group whose dream is to sit in the audience at the jon stewart show , that is not the person i want to hire. host: we are talking about the media landscape in washington, d.c. we are talking with editor in chief tucker carlson. our phones are open. he will be with us for about the next 45 minutes or so. republicans can call in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. what is the business model? guest: that is very much like the recipe for coca-cola. it is a total secret.
we sell ads against the content just like any other newspaper would. like magazines would before they collapsed. the key is traffic. we are not a nonprofit, in contrast to most organizations in washington. we have a nonprofit organization which does deeper investigation. the daily caller it self is just a company. it is one of the rare private sector for-profit companies in the district of columbia. we have to turn a profit or we disappear. we do not have someone secretly funding us. we have six or seven investors and then my business partner and i. they put in their investments. that was years ago so we have to turn a profit. and we have for the past three years maybe.
we are proud of that. i have not bought a plane yet, that we are not losing money. host: who are your biggest competitors? guest: like all zen masters, in the end we're competing only against ourselves. our own understanding of excellence. that and everybody else. to be honest with you, i do not feel like we have competitors per se. online only news is still relatively new. it is not more than 20 years old. as a practical matter it is not more than eight or nine years old. there is a lot of space online. i read all my news all online. every morning after reading the usual suspects, the new york times, the washington post, the wall street journal, i run out
of places to read original stories. i do think there is a lot of bandwidth left for new entrants into the news business. i do not think of it like that who do we compete against. i'm not very competitive actually. i have an idea of what we ought to be. i want to be huge and successful but i do not think of it in terms of crushing someone else. host: the sense of the size of the staff. how many people work there, and what are your plans for growth? guest: about 50. they are very effervescent characters. i'm sure some of them will stagger through the shop at some point, unaware that there is a crew in here trying to find their desks.
they are entertaining. i love them. one of our resolutions when we started was to create an office we would actually want to go to. whenever i am in washington, i am here completely by choice. the reason is, we have great people in the office. we want to be big. i do not want to be the size of ge, probably not a risk of that but i do not want to be a massive company with an hr department. at this point, i am the hr department. pretty lenient to be honest. i think we are ramping up. in the next month, i can say for certain we are hiring about 10 people. that is a brisk pace of growth. ramping up more for the elections. host: we are featuring the daily caller this morning. we will be in their newsroom for about the next hour and a half
or so. we're talking with tucker carlson. we will go to jimmy, athens, georgia. line for independents. caller: good morning. i respect you mr. carlson. you're a journalist with integrity and i hope you have -- i hope you do not pull a bill o'reilly or brian williams anytime soon. my question is about ronald reagan. generally considered to be against a government but when you look at his record, it did not always turn out that way. there are no real programs that i think that he cut. when he left office, the budget deficit -- the national debt was three times higher than it was when he came into office which is about similar to obama's record. what you think about this on the myth of reagan trying to downsize the government?
guest: i think there's a lot of truth in what you said. i have seen all kinds of numbers on this question. numbers are famously fungible. i don't think there was a massive net reduction of government for sure under the reagan administration. i am not giving them a pass on this. it is pretty hard to cut anything. if you attempt even to rein in the growth of spending -- the slashing the budget and making elderly widows eat cat food, and just the dramatic, over the top language of any attempt to rein in spending are almost unbelievable. this may be the core problem of democracy.
once the majority figures out it can take from the minority legally, it is hard to keep things under control once they figure that out. i am not hopeful that government can ever be scaled back. maybe you could slow it down. maybe it is a matter of readjusting expectations. host: louis on the line for republicans calling in from colorado. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you tucker carlson for all you do. you get the true message out to us american people. we appreciate that. i want to see you do in a job on fox and friends. it looks like you have fun. god bless you for what you are doing. have a good day. guest: you have such nice callers on c-span. i'll give you my cell later if if you ask
that man to call me every morning. host: talk about your other job. your work with fox news. guest: i host fox and friends on the weekends. i do that every weekend. it is from 6:00 to 10:00. more like a telethon than a show. it is totally fun. really fun. a physical challenge. you have to get up at 3:00 and exercise and read everything. a lot of things feel less intimidating. it is not shocking to go on tv. to do a four our show, it is a mountain to climb every time.
if i get older, i am 45 now, i appreciate that. i like a task that i worry i will not be able to complete. every time i host i think, will i be able to do this. when it is 10:00 and your pull off a decent show, if you like you have done something. host: talk to this headline, daily caller not allowed to criticize fox. explain this. guest: fascism. we have, i would say, the most open newsroom. you can interview any of the lunatics who work here. we allow total latitude and freedom to our writers. i can prove this because probably every other day i get a call from a former friend or someone i knew or like saying, why are you attacking me. i let them write what they want.
we have only two rules, and i'm pretty clear about them. you cannot attack the family members of other people who work here and the second is you cannot attack fox. it is not because fox's conservative or we want to help the movement. i do not think that way. we cannot attack fox because i work at fox. you do not attack your employer. what my employees says, isn't that a conflict? it is a conflict. i'm an owner here and an employee there. it is what it is. i'm not apologizing for it. they are my employer. plus, i like fox but we attack a lot of people i like. host: have you ever asked the folks at fox if there is a article if you can recuse yourself from that?
guest: i have never had a conversation with fox about this at any level. i have not talked to them about it. they did not ask me not to attack them. preemptively, only first started , i went to work at fox almost at the same time. i said, this will present conflicts. the rule is solely for my benefit. you could say, that is unfair. it is. i'm the editor. my only defense is, i'm transparent about it and almost everything else. that is the rule. i do not know what to say. if i had inherited millions of dollars and did not have to work, i would not bother. i work. i have two jobs. anyone who does not like it the not have to work year. we had someone who work here for a number of years who i really
liked and he worked apiece attacking fox for not being tough enough on immigration. i said, sorry we cannot run this. he said, i'm going to have to quit. i said, please don't. he said, i have to, which i understand. what i disagree with is the idea that this is a symptom of something larger here. we are working on behalf of the conservative movement. that is ridiculous. we are not afraid to criticize anybody. we do not do it because i demand we do not do it because i take a paycheck from fox. that's the only reason. people may think i have got my head on backwards but i am not lying about it, unlike everybody else. i've worked at more than a dozen news publications and again and again i at stories held or spite or rewritten and you find out
later it was because they contain something about the publisher's friend. no one is direct with me about it. they stealthily change the piece or killed in. i resolved that i would be direct with people. host: mark is on our line for democrats, calling from roswell, new mexico. caller: another outlet that -- fox and friends is propaganda that is manipulating false reporting. you have done so much to install fear into your politics and into the people of the united states.
it is all in a self-serving interest or ourselves. i find you corrupt. i think you are dishonest and of low integrity. your telethon that is so fun has race relations, it sent us backwards. host: let's give tucker carlson a chance to respond to the criticism. mr. carlson: i was unbothered until the last line which i think is totally unfair that it is setting back race relations. i do think -- i like our show. i'm happy to defend any specific part of it. i don't know exactly there were any criticisms specific enough to respond to. his point about showing fear, i don't think we do that. the news business in general however, tends to with people up
into a frenzy -- lit -- whip people up into a frenzy. you want to know the real source of a lot of that is your local news. "what is in your refrigerator that could kill you and your children tonight at 11:00." in general, that is a fair comment. the opposite has happened. obama has taken on al sharpton as a close advisor working to scare out his voters and get them to the polls. i don't think he is held to account for it. i think the press is honest most
of the time. they are too squeamish on it and they want to make the obvious point that this guy has set race relations back and it is measurable. that is not our fault. it is his. host: for independence. steve, you are on with tucker carlson. caller: you took jabs against john stuart some days ago. i was wondering if there were any behind the scenes jabs, if you would go on and debate him face-to-face. host: tucker carlson. mr. carlson: i don't know he has a show anymore. i did not debate in the first time. he came on our show and made a bunch of noise as i didn't understand then and don't understand now. think he is a talented guy. he has been more successful than
me but i still don't understand what point he was trying to make. i thought was ridiculous. when you look at the tape, i don't think he said anything intelligible or worth hearing. "you are bad for america." ok. the one thing i have never done is sniff the drone of someone in power. i find it repulsive. he has. he would have politicians on his show and if he agreed with them john kerry for example, barack obama, he would ask them, why are you so wonderful? is it hard that people are so mean to you? i feel he had an obligation to ask tougher questions. i may have asked questions that were too nasty and that is probably a fair criticism. i certainly have never sucked up to anyone. i get you was more popular than i was and probably still is so
he was recorded as the winner but on the merits, what he had to say was dumb. host: line for republicans. marianne. caller: good morning. mr. carlson is the daily caller a newspaper or what? mr. carlson: i would put it in the "or what" category. in effect, it is a newspaper. we don't have any paper boys working for us. you have to go online to get it what it is structured like a newspaper. our entertainment section shockingly turns out to be one of our most popular sections. that was not something we had in mind when we started to stop i'm not interested in entertainment at all.
we had a couple of talented editors and writers working on the section. we had a tremendously talented editor, caitlin collins, who knocked it out of the park. just like any business when you have these preconceptions about what it will be like, how you are want to make money, and they all dissolved in the face of reality. some sections have been improved with technology. education has been huge. who would have thought? we have an energy report. it is on the drudge report every week. really really successful. like a newspaper, we have all kinds of different sections. we have a sports section. our sports reporter is sitting behind me. i revise my answer. i would say we are a newspaper but it won't get your fingers dirty. host: why do you have a chaplain
on staff and a bar in the office? mr. carlson: we don't have a chaplain on staff. we could probably use one. he is an adjunct chaplain. he is the pastor of a presbyterian church in nashville , tennessee. he is also our college roommate. we believe in loading up the roster with a lot of former college roommates because why wouldn't you if you have a drum business? we have a one who is a judge in maryland who comes to all of our parties. we have a pretty rigorous party schedule? . we do have a bar in the back. we have a daily caller bar. it was built by brian danza, one of our employees and a brilliant
carpenter. we do host parties there. it is, in general, a pretty rigorous work environment. we ask a lot of the people who work here so in return, we provide free beer and spent several hundred dollars a week on pop tarts. and you can sleep. if you want and some people do. we don't take well but i think it is an interesting job. -- pay well. host: let's head to minnesota where tim is waiting on the line for independents. caller: i think one of the things that keeps me from learning the most about the issues is the reporting. i saw your thing they're changing the media landscape. i thought, a novel idea. i am tired of what this
reporting is. msnbc, cnn fox. they resemble their big pep fest rallies. when they get together when it is voting time, that is what they look like. host: on pep fest reporting. mr. carlson: i worked at all three of those networks. i don't know. i would say this -- a distressing fact about human nature, people prefer to hear their own news repeated back to them maybe in more articulate clever fashions. there is not a huge appetite out there, i have noticed, for old-fashioned debate where you have two peers evenly matched
with a different point of view debating one another. i don't think there any shows on television that feature that regularly. the reason is, viewers don't want it. what do you do about that? i don't know the answer. for myself and the people i work with, the thing we try to cuba in mind all the time is to be honest. don't lie. -- the thing we try to keep in mind all the time is to be honest. to answer your question more crisply, i am probably too close to a lot of this stuff to be a very effective analyst about media. it is right in front of my face. it is hard for me to see it clearly sometimes. host: aaron is in houston, texas. mr. carlson: hello, i am in high school. in social media, the news comes to us.
we don't go to the news. you see this on facebook am a twitter. -- facebook, twitter. for the younger generation, you could say we want more interaction. we have been seeing lately the integration of news sources getting websites and furthering this interaction which means increased revenue. the youth generation is not as interactive in news. can you say, instead of being propaganda, it is being down down. how has media -- how will the media changed to the youth and how will the news be a half-century from now? host: tucker carlson. mr. carlson: what will the news look like a half-century from
now? i have no idea. i'm sure it will be hardwired into your brain. you won't have a choice about what is on that feed. i can only imagine. i think you make a smart point about news coming to you. appearing on whatever social media site you are going to and not having to seek it out. it is probably good and bad like everything. a mixed blessing. it increases the power of social media to such an extent -- facebook being the most obvious example -- to such an end that we should maybe posit and think through how they are handling that power. i mean, facebook is the largest disseminator of news in the u.s. probably the world. more people consume news from facebook in any other source. that was the question of who decides which newsmakers don't do facebook?
who is making the decision and what is the criteria to make it? our executive editor has made this a part-time advocation, thinking this through. a lot of the enter workings are opaque -- innerworkings are opaque. it is unclear how these decisions are made. there has always been this air of fog around newsrooms. how do you decide what is on page one? if you really wanted to find out, i know personally some of the people to make that decision at say, the new york times. call them up and say, why did you run this story in the left-hand column? they will tell you and you can agree or disagree but you can at least know the thinking behind it. with facebook, i think it is the largest purveyor of news in the u.s. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] it is not at all clear. is it done by an algorithm? what are the i.t. areas --
criteria's? the internet promised us 15 years ago a vast diversity of news sources. it would level the field, be a flatter world. it seems to have concentrated even more power in a smaller number of hands. you don't have to be some kind of wacko to think that is scary. it is a little scary. i wish people would wake up to that. host: line for republicans. karen has been waiting. caller: the guy was talking about fox being bad for race relations. al sharpton is the worst one on msnbc. that gentle makes you think being white is the worst ring in the world. the democrats are always talking about the role of women and how we don't a them and democrats
don't like women, which obviously i am one. hillary clinton campaigns -- how much are they paying their workers? or are those volunteers when they are not even paying them in minimum wage? can you tell me how much they are paying their women's workers? and also, what happened do our money whenever obama gave millions of dollars and they went under? what happened? my one last point -- i'm a 61-year-old waitress and i tend to myself. there is nothing wrong with a low-end job.
mr. carlson: i would start at the end and the say about the solyndra question. i am not sure how that story ended up. it was superseded in my life like 100 other stories of equal, polly importance. i -- equal importance. where i live and work is suspiciously rich all. i came here 30 years ago and lived in georgetown. it was pretty nice. but, no one seemed rich to me. up until 10 years ago, this was kind of a middle-class city am a city of government workers. not everybody on my street had a mercedes.
ramblers were not selling for $2 million. they are now. what happened? part of it is the growth of the different security industries in north virginia. part of it is a higher level of profit. there is a lot of corruption. that is one of the reasons our economy is booming here. i corruption, i don't mean the old-fashioned road contract graft. a more subtle, more insidious lucrative kind of corruption where i lobby you for government money and people are making tons off of that. it is distressing and almost no one ever mentions it. now i can't remember the first question other than to say oklahoma is a great place and no one has ever doubted the dignity of low-wage jobs. thank you for calling. host: she was talking about the pay for volunteers and women staffers. mr. carlson: oh, barf.
the war on women? it is so ludicrous. unmarried women are the backbone of the democratic electorate. talk to anyone who runs a democratic campaign. they will tell you that unmarried women -- there are now more unmarried women that married women in the u.s. -- the reasons are many and unclear. one very clear consequence is more unmarried female voters means more democratic voters. the question is how to get them to vote. it is been very effective. republicans hate women -- it is so stupid. it is transparently, politically , political. you democratic candidates say we know there is bias against women because a woman only makes $.73 on a man's dollar.
you can think that is a pretty imprecise and misleading way to measure. let's take that measure. let's apply it to the west wing of the white house now. do women make as much as men? no they don't. you can look it up. salaries are online. women in obama's white house make less than men. basic, that is because women take time off for maternity leave. that was the excuse republicans gave when you attacked them and you said that was invalid. it is so dumb you don't even want to engage in this. i believe come on hillary clinton's staff at the state department, the same was true. on average men made more than women. does that mean hillary clinton hates women? of course not. it is complex. once you head down the road, the last stop is always dumbness. you get stupid when you start to
use that language. host: you brought up your parents. i want to ask about another family member relating to this headline from the washington post. who had divorced week in washington? the calls and brothers. do you want to talk about the e-mail issue and why it was addressed in the worst week in the washington column? mr. carlson: i never read anything about myself ever but someone in my office said the washington post did four stories on it. there is a guy, a total more on. he has written about it. a couple of weeks ago, the spokeswoman for bill de blasio got into it with one of my
editors. he said, your e-mails are annoying. she copied me and said, i cannot believe he called me annoying. i said, you make a fair point calling into question one of our stories. we will check it and see if we need to correct it. we were wrong and we did corrected. honestly, you are kind of annoying. sorry, your e-mails are annoying. maybe it is because he will live in new york and people -- because you live in new york and people have a different way of relating to one another. for some reason, i copied my brother. he wrote back a pretty nasty response. he accidentally hit reply all and sent it to her. she recognizing publicity opportunity sent it to all of these websites that printed it and all of a sudden, i was somehow a misogynist because my brother wrote some e-mail to this chick accidentally.
no one was asked why this was a significant story. it was obviously a mistake. i wish he hadn't done it. he wishes he had not done it. it really affected his job. yet all caps of problems but the bottom-line is, they wanted me to denounce my brother. what am i supposed to do disown him or call him a bad person? no, i will not criticize a member of my family in public. i would die first. under no circumstance in my going to criticize my family and public. for some reason, it became this big thing because i guess they don't like my politics. i really don't know. it was an accident and he apologized for it. i don't really see why it was a big news story but maybe i am on another planet all stop -- another planet. host: robert is in maryland on
the line for democrats. caller: good morning. basically what i wanted to say was i notice that within the first few minutes of mr. carlson's comments on your show, he talked about how certain people were not beyond reproach -- oprah was not beyond criticism and drop obama should not be beyond criticism. what i was taken within the first three comments, there was a thinly veiled underlying racial context. basically, 1 2, 3. i totally agree as an american the first amendment is strong.
however, mr. carlson, i remember him from back in the early 2000's. i know he's a very conservative person and again, respect to him. at the same time, what i do take issue with mr. carlson is the fact that a lot of times republicans have a tendency to use this false sense -- promise that grace -- premise that race relations are worse because of the president. that is not really the case. if you look a little deeper because of this man's election and reelection, what it has done is take the undercurrent of racism to the forefront. that is why it appears that race relations are worse. mr. carlson: it is so stupid. it is hard to know.
i don't know what to say. that was the last thing on my mind. talk about devaluing the term. i'm old enough to remember when being a racist meant something. it is the worst thing you can be an american life. it has been so bleached by overuse that it is meaningless. accusing a fellow legislator of having a racist son -- even babies can be racist now? people make the mistake and throwing around -- there is racism, real racism on both sides. it is more difficult for asia and applicants to get into public university. they have to score higher on the
sat and azt to get admitted than any other group. is that racism? of course. they are being penalized as of the color of their skin. there are many examples of it. many victims of it. throwing it around like that does not help anyone. i wish they were better. if i thought barack obama was bringing people closer together rather than digging the issues up and picking the scab off for political gain, if i felt his election would expiate america's greatest sins, i would vote for him but he has done just the opposite. what a missed opportunity. what an irresponsible thing to do.
ethnic politics is dangerous stuff. the one thing you notice is ethnic politics doesn't go away. if we disagree on issues, that is resolvable. issues come and go. they reach a crescendo and go away. ethnicity cannot be resolved. will always be divided. any politician on either side who seeks to galvanize people with reference to their race on to be ashamed of himself and really careful. don't drop it. host: i want to get to a few more colors who have been waiting to chat with you. margaret is from florida on the line for independencets.
>> good morning, tucker. you had a couple of colors come in and -- collars -- callers were i felt my iq getting lower. the number of people who congratulate themselves on a daily basis for not listening or watching fox news. i think it is very unfortunate even on this morning's show, the line of questioning. i am disappointed in c-span between bringing up the article about your brother and you and then talking about fox news as if you had to justify or explain it. you're such a smart guy, you don't need me to defend you. the last color put me over the top. -- caller put me over the top. i had two children, one in
college. we are catholic, conservative. i taught much open to think for themselves but to use critical thinking. debate is gone. a real-time example in my youngest daughter's class at the beginning of this year, her human geography class where the teacher managed to fit in that mother teresa was a freak. she managed to get that statement in. my phone call to you is i appreciate you, i am think of for intelligent people but i am fearful for the youth because the area of arguing, of having real debate and real opinions is gone. i'm thankful for you and i will hang up. thank you. host: i will give you the last minute or two we have.
mr. carlson: i would hope along with the color that children are both confronted with views that are different from their own in a sincere way and also allowed to keep their views. they are not ostracized for having different views. there is a kind of conformity on the country. people who disagree are cast out of their jobs. my experience is, i have four children. a lot of young people all seem to think the same way. that is stifling.
it is the enemy of clear thinking, original thinking. the enemy of art, everything interesting and life-affirming. bring on intellectual adversity. thank you for having me this morning. host: tucker carlson. >> coming up tonight, joe biden on u.s. policy in iraq. then, rand paul giving a speech on foreign policy. later representative norma torres of california. joe spoke thursday about u.s. policy in iraq. efforts to combat the islamic state, and improvement in iraq's military capability. the vice president delivered those remarks at the national defense university in washington