blindness and amputation suffered by diabetics of extremely low income, and there's a foundation that developed a program with a former migrant worker at the head of this that has actually achieved those ends. that needs to be scaled up and out. could we afford to partner with family foundations to do that nationwide? maybe if we decided to. maybe it would have to be part of a broader health care program that the government funds, but to kill the energy and the no no vaition in american -- innovation in american society by saying the government will do it would be an enormous fatality to our culture, and i share your impatience with the rate of change particularly for the poor

if the rest of us live so long. i think this is a very important moment where we say we get it, and we're going to make a change because we think our culture is so important. .. i didn't say even that the

process of writing this hook, their foundation had said to me, if any of this stuff continues, we're going to take the foundation not sure. or conversely, we are going to step down. i'm not going to spend my time fighting with lawyers and accountants and the government over how to run this foundation. so, we're just going to close. so you know, those things are absolutely true. i think frankly in the deep issues of disaster that have occurred to the economy since the end crd and great mining activity, there is that much less ferment around these issues of curtailing philanthropy. but that doesn't mean the second everything gets better than not going to wall rebuilt site. my point is those of us who care about america and understand

that american philanthropy in its freedom is the core of our culture. we've got a breather to change the focus and get us operating the way we ought to be operating. and we have to use this time. >> and a government changes to promote -- to help? >> well, some things could be easily undertaken and they've been taught to bow. we could have additional tax relief for philanthropic gifts. they talked about higher tax deductions for philanthropy to disadvantaged communities. all of those would be very helpful and it would show that the government honored the work of philanthropy and wanted to encourage it. and i would say particularly among young people, as you know, all of you, the president has developed the social innovation

fund, somewhat controversial, and he's trying to fund the best of the highly good programs that have worked. so he's given money to fund the harlem children model and a bunch of cities throughout the country. good. that's a good and innovative thing for government to do probably. it's a little bit scary, but there isn't that much money in it. another features like their family partnership will give you that see how many programs we can start with government money. i'm just crazy enough to think that if were going to do that, at the same time, i'd want the rest of us to be funding local programs as carnegie did. and let the best program when. if it turns out it's better for the government to do the scaling up, okay, fine.

let's do a 10 year study to see what happens. if it's better for some of us to go into communities and say, you know, here's what you can do, here's how you can raise a bunch of money. here's how will matcher funds. here's how we can work with you to make the community you want and work with than the citizen to citizen. you know what? that might respect people's dignity and really work. you won't discover that unless we have -- you know, it's a competitive marketplace. at the government do certain things and then let's see if we can b-day. >> yes. >> just to make good things happen. >> let's go back to mark turner. the [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> mark, do you just want to take one minute to say the green money proposal? >> the green money is enough or by some community beginning in california and around the country to get the government to impose a requirement on foundations of a certain size, that a certain portion must be invested in poor communities by a percentage of their employees have to reflect the communities in which they live and operate. they take different approaches. and i was quite successful in california in what some people will regard as a shakedown of some of the major foundation like patrick hulett and others that kind of collapsed and had to deal. >> to avoid the legislation? >> to avoid the legislation --

>> to get to these organizations? >> whether it was the donor intent is the big question that the state attorney general and california didn't obliged to answer. and this is my question. i think the biggest problem is in the states. you know, we have some bigger states and among them is nearly bankrupt and it's going to get worse before it gets better. the federal government currently texas private on to amass%. i can well imagine saying you are just a creature of federal law. you're also organized in a state. and you take up resources. you have tax benefits. you can accumulate and come off your investments. and you're not really providing anything to the public will because you're saying your money might go somewhere else. so we want to impose on you a tax the way the federal

government does because you're a creature of state law. you should pay something on the franchise tax interstate, not the once a year. you were going to impose a 1% tax and tell that to the public eye seiners how many billions of dollars of debt money of the citizens. we're going to raise your taxes. but a tax of hundred basis points or 1% or 1.5% on the foundations of a certain size. it would be very difficult politically. and so, i believe that's going to happen. authority have been in california -- [inaudible] it will be 1%, 2%, 3%, 1.5% and will be incremental. maybe like a frog in the pot. [laughter] do you see that as likely? and what effect will that path if it does occur on private

foundations? >> i'm an optimist, mark, so i am thinking it probably won't work. but that is the optimist in me more than the sort of middle-of-the-road, how do i really think it will be. i think there are communities and extremists that will look at that as a real possibility, particularly for foundations, community foundations that are funding something that doesn't directly benefit. >> not in that state. >> so i don't think it's an impossibility. but i think what we need to do is we need to educate a larger percentage of the population, not just the professionals, but everybody to understand what philanthropy does read large and we need to help everybody understand that it's philanthropy leave this country

as companies have what they could getting more comfortable deal somewhere else, including just off shore, that local communities will be at a big disadvantage. they will lose jobs. they will lose small businesses that serve the nonprofit sector and stay in business based on my commerce. they will lose the occupancy of real estate in their downtown. that is, there will be a net commercial loss to communities that appear to be imposing unfair restrictions on the workings of foundations. but all of that rest on people understanding that a foundation that does something good for people who have a certain disease or people who are seeking education in american art or in asia and we don't all

do that here in lubbock. that's the way of saying that the foundations elsewhere that do attend to things that affect us here in lubbock are going to find their communities unfriendly. and the whole system starts to come down. >> and shrink. >> and shrink. and that kind of shrinkage and alienation not only harms the foundations factor as it is, but imagine young entrepreneurs who are saying i've gotten to a certain point. i don't want to just keep doing this. i'm going to let the business work, hire people to do it and i'm going to become a philanthropist. part of that is because it seems fulfilling. it seems as though they'll be appreciated. suddenly if they're not appreciated and their harassed, they may decide not to do the

philanthropic effort. and i'm teaching young people who are interested in philanthropy, some of them, very wealthy beyond of families who want to see what it looks like from this academic standpoint. they've been part of their family foundations for a long time. if they start to see that this is the bad guys trade, why would they want to do that? they won't have the same entrance. and what we'll see is over time a shrinking of the whole site there. and this is all part of my concern, that we take where we are and strengthen it and give it focus on that while giving the maximum running room, which is called freedom and making sure that we make good on some promises. and i think we're close to the

founders promises. >> i'll go to chuck since then. >> i'm thinking about it and there's a couple issues that i think to come up, that to me are a little bit troubling in the philanthropy world and the government world. in the philanthropy world, make it so my friends about this, we have this great focus on funding the symptoms are not going up to the problems. there's a 1 billion-dollar corporation that focuses on kids from the birth to eight, you probably know the foundation. and yet, they feel good about dealing with all these problems that have been created, but they don't cut off the upstream, which is a problem. and that is on the marriage stuff, where they have all these families that breakup and make off of his problems, but they don't focus on solving the problem. if we ever cut off the stuff upstream and how to become the focus on that. i meant was that the government doing some crazy things like the

government here in new york state who was the last holdout they decided in the middle of a budget crisis to increase the state cost bypassing no-fault divorce and hurting children. we're pushing kids into poverty. with got 50% of the families were kids under six are with single mothers. we only have less than 8% with married couples. i mean, we're pushing people -- we have the government pushing people into poverty. how do we do this? and we can get involved in public policy because the government while that is have public policy because they say that's not the world of philanthropy. i think it is. >> thank you. >> because two huge issues that have to be part of the problem you're trying to address. >> right, chuck, i couldn't

agree more that dealing just with the symptoms and not with the problem generation is crazy. and people work at this all the time. would you intervene? you know, the problems are so massive. vicious like with disease. you have to pick a point and decide you're going to start working on the genetic end of it or on the microbial end of it for the disease transfer and a bit. or you pick a position and you start to work. first of all, we need public education. we are insufficiently engaged in this discourse on these issues. what generates human bill being, absence of well-being, whether it's at the poverty level or any other level? i hate to get off on this, but the founders knew that the most important element in continuing

a democracy with virtue. virtue and the people. the most popular book read by the founders, according to peter j., who was a no joke historian, american historian, was multi-sku. and he focused on the importance of virtue and the people in order to maintain a democracy. so greed and avarice and the kind of selfishness and ignorance that people think they can maintain in a democracy does not work. we have information that's not being conveyed to people and they are finding it easier because of public policy and because we're not helping people appreciate their responsibilities are spearheaded. people get into situations that doom themselves and their

children and then that creates larger doom and society. so we have to refocus our society and we have to be willing to speak about generosity and self-discipline, industrious mass, thrift. i mean, these were the actual issues that the founders talked about. nobody tells them not because it seems repressing. who would want to talk to anyone about thrift? well, you should go out and buy as much stuff as possible. [laughter] that's like some crazy philanthropy. they take flyers on crazy subjects. so we have a real public education. we have changes in personal behavior we have to be willing to speak up about. and we have to approach government with an intense focus on the long bridge plan, which

is not the same thing as the church of what's happening now. >> just on this point, i think the issue that she raised a family structure is some is much more amenable to the work of philanthropy than it is government policy. because there just isn't a consensus within government that this is a legitimate issue. and you know, i was involved with this for years with the previous administration and also the current administration. there is no willingness to say anything about this. but there would be and could be and is within parts of the philanthropic world. and my idea with the rather then try to think of the government department of, you know, family strengthening, it would be

finding good efforts that are working, that can be funded by foundations and private jets that show that this is a way to promote thriving and reduce child poverty. and then maybe it will be scaled up by government. but i don't think -- i don't think -- it hasn't reached that level of acceptance to be made into government policy. >> right, right. >> peter would. >> i'm president of the national association of scholars and interested in your house partly as president of the college. there's a component to your book, which is a pitch for the continuing of importance of generosity and the trust that comes from pretty much with outside, the things undercutting the motives to being generous in

this particular philanthropic way. i was wondering if you had something to say about the threat within the philanthropic community. and by that i'm referring back to what goes on in higher education a lot. we've had numerous in consists of donors who have found their funds misspent or spent in a fashion that they did not intend. there's famous instances of foundation that have some said it themselves because they're afraid of being captured by the professional fund givers who want to nudge the organizations towards purposes of the founders intent. and there is this broad problem of both individual and foundations that want to give, finding the spirit of philanthropy somehow gets corrupted or gets undercut or gets channeled away from the purposes people intended.

that would seem to me to be one of the things which those of us who both depend on philanthropy, as i do, that although there is those who care about philanthropy as the basic dynamic of american society would want to worry about. what do we do to make the spirit of freedom really try and not of philanthropy become a kind of vortex that centers around purpose of the professional fund givers? >> right, thank you very much, peter. i think you make a number of very good points. it is easy for people who have a focus on running an organization to want the money to come in like this instead of perhaps like this and fulfill something that a donor has in mind. and it certainly has happened that that kind of transformation happens over time and over different administrations. i think for the most part

academic institutions try very hard to fulfill donor intent. sometimes the donors can't possibly intend what's needed 50 years later because, you know, it didn't exist. and so, within the best framework they can, a president will decide we have a scholarship at connecticut college that was designated for a methodist e-mail from southwestern kentucky. >> you couldn't find one? [laughter] >> how hard -- tony b. -- because you have to be needy and good enough to get man. and my poor admissions officers say to me, you know, we just can't spend anymore money looking looking for her. this year were not going to spend it. we actually acquired quite a

substantial endowment there that wasn't being used when i was turning away people who not family would've loved. but they weren't from right there or they were christians. they were something else. so you get my drift. now, there's times when you go back to a family and we all know this. but namely if they're good intent and most academic institutions i think mostly. there are notorious cases where donors like the basses went back to yell and said this isn't the working the way we wanted. but for the most part i think when you think of the billions of dollars that get transferred to higher education, anything that's relative of our profiling of achievement. on the other hand, donor intent is very complicated good maintaining that overtime is very complicated. and i think part of what i wish

higher education would do would be to teach philanthropy to undergraduate. it's a great interdisciplinary field. you do history, you do philosophy, you do finance and therefore not not mix. you do economics. and just as we had let in american studies and we have early roman studies, why not philanthropic studies? part of what we need to do is offer courses and at least minors in the field so that people become familiar with donors intent and how philanthropy has changed our country. and now we have become who we are because of the power of philanthropy here -- people who never would have had a chance yet to be major contributors because somebody invested in them. and many of those people are our

faculty, students, graduate students and many of the people at the national association of scholars. so we have to keep that going. i'm part of the work above to see the association do is to begin to press for philanthropic studies and premier all kinds of higher education. >> you know, there's a big ongoing debate about american exceptionalism among the historians and the political philosophers. but especially after reading your book, i think that to the degree that domestically we can be called exceptional last, it's rooted in our system of philanthropy. that is that if you -- there are few places where you go to a philanthropist to try something new, you usually go to -- you go

to some official. and i do -- would you agree with that but you could argue we're not -- you could argue the question of american exceptionalism generally, but only on this specific issue of philanthropy to the degree that it feels different to your, i think a lot of it is rooted in the distinctive philanthropic tradition that is just separate from the way other countries have organized themselves. >> that's right. and that's part of what we have to be sure that is brought to the next and following generations. when we say an american exceptionalism, we don't have demeaned that we are best in everything because that's just not true. but we are profoundly different -- >> at different. >> different in the way citizens engage with each other.

>> which has drawbacks in assets but it's different. >> and that emerges from the three items i mentioned right in the beginning. that is our optimism, our idealism and our entrepreneurism. and there'll deeply connect to it. they are very powerfully what makes our commercial sector so successful. we tried all kinds of things that no one thought of before and they end up transforming a field, right clicks and then, creating a market. and on the nonprofit side we have that same energy that creates all kinds of both abilities and innovations is a connection to the future that is very much powered by philanthropy. and that makes us exceptional.

that's why people all over the world want their children to be raised here. they feel as though they'll have a different kind of opportunity and that's true. and if you look at nations across the world that have invested in boys than girls and see which ones of them have actually contributed to the well-being of the largest proportion of their citizens, ones who have invested in both. the ones who just invested in their male children are not doing as well. and the way females got to go to school, not because the government started schools for girls. philanthropist said the males got to go to school, not because the government started schools for girls. philanthropist said the males got to go to school, not because the government started schools for girls. philanthropist said. and we'll start universities and colleges for young ladies. and suddenly was for both young ladies and young men.

and then more recently, imagine the crazy idea that graduates of elite institutions would be funded to go back and teach in low-income schools. what a crazy idea. only americans. nowhere else without a phone. it have to have the idea. an undergraduate has an idea like that, like wendy hotchkiss. and then she got investors. that's truly an only in american idea. and if you just decided to take one day a week and noticed the only in america things, the people you realize i may tell you where that came from and how they got to be, they say only in america. that's what we have to be sure it's free to run hard and to run

better because there are lots of improvements that need to be made of the philanthropic world. >> thank you, claire gaudiani. thank each of you for coming up this evening and being part of the conversation and will see you next time. [applause] >> claire gaudiani is an adjunct professor at new york university. she is the author of the greater good and generosity rules. for more information visit claire gaudiani.com. >> the former obama

administration car czar discusses his role in government's decision to provide financially to the american novel industry. steven rattner presents his thoughts and restructuring plans, recalls the internal debate that takes place and discusses the current state of the industry. he appeared on c-span's "washington journal" and took phone calls. this program is 40 minute. >> steven rattner is the author of the book, "overhaul: an insider's account of the obama administration's emergency rescue of the auto industry." insider's account of the obama administration's emergency rescue of the auto industry." thank you for joining us this morning. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> host: this is the first re invvedccount of the obama administration. pu were involved in at a crisis. crue consider you to be the car czar. you were on the ground during a crucial time about five or six months were involved in that. what gave you the impotent to take on this challenge? why did you get involved? >> guest: i've always believed in public service. i thought a component of one's life should include giving backe

when president obama was elected were facing a huge economic and financial crisis, i was ifroached by tim geithner and larry summers and wanted to kno. if not now, when? i'm a guy who should help in the some fashion. >> host: did you realize that the time how big the auto -- we can call it a crisis really could be it what you would get into?lf >> guest: no, i have somecolorao idea.--gu i knew gm and chrysler probably would have to go through bankruptcy. were certainly an extremist. i had no idea how complicated it was both politically and legallh to affect this.. i had no idea how proud it was, by the time and if we are a little task force responsible not only for those two companies that finance companies, suppliers, everyone who the industry touches. i didn't fully appreciate that. i am us back to it a few times before he officially took the job because it was really, daunting. rattner

>> host: you started his career as an economic and moved on to work in the financial industry in places like morganen family and eventually with managing principal of the quadrangle group, a groupst youc started. and then became counselor to the secretary of the treasury. and were talking about his newo, book, "overhaul" the details that time.you w let's look at a passage. he writes in the end of a rescue would prove to be not just a the y to iconic automakers. but exemplify smany of the challenges that confront america in the 21st century. from her sterling manufacturing base were declining middle class and illustrate how difficult it is in the hothouse of washington. so deeply divided along party semi is to take a desperately needed with actions. how were you able to make as quickly as you were in the autot situation? >> guest: really for two reasons. and that's a great question. in no particular order, we had t.a.r.p. alvationigned, much beloved t.a.r.p. is our salvation. and frankly that's how the

banking rescues. and what people are dumping onit t.a.r.p. don't understand that t without t.a.r.p. we would've surely had a massive financial -- beyond anything we even think was a crisis. we are able to allocate $82 billion to the auto sector was very short period of time as you point out without t.a.r.p. he would've had to go to congress. i would've gone on and on and on for months and months and months. in the meantime i convinced one car company would've gone bankrupt. the second reason was because we have the president support. the president told us from the beginning i want you to do the right thing, panama to restructuring. what if companies bibles. i don't want the band-aid approach. and i will back you up. every senator, representative who called real to say, sorry about your plan for facility or this or that, but we're here to do a very straight up job on these companies. and we have the back of the president the whole way. >> host: you right to give some context. across united gave carmakers and their suppliers accounted for millions of jobs.

775,000 pensioners and 2 millio onhealth care practice pants. a gym class or damaged lands of lives. this is one of the pitch point the automakers from making to the administration. >> guest: what people have touns understand, those people is that the government should have shoud gotten involved. wasre was no private market this time. there was no other capital available. gm and chrysler at the end ofatd the weight i've run out of money. literally the cash flow was empty. did you than $17 million to get over the first month of 2009, but it was going to ofhappen again. if we had not appointed, these come as would've shut their doors. those workers are just listed dood've been outid of work by would've gotten much worse have because the players would've all shut down. and then, ford would've shut down because they wouldn't be able to get parts for their cars. and a lot of the japanese even s transplant who operate in the south and manufacture in the south would've shut down. of course all the ancillary been businesses, so it meant an

economic catastrophe beyond anything i think we can even think of back in history. ad host: as you were approached by members of thethe, obama administration about potential of working for them, there were a couple items ye ou can become involved with, not ,ust autos, but other problems economic problems facing thechur country. you talk about how senator chuck schumer you consider a friend gave you one take when you talk about having a dinner. he said auditors is a no-win. the situation is probably unsalvageable. run against unions and get eviscerated by your party. work on housing. it has to get resolved and the politics are easier. you knew this wasn't going to be gu easy pairing into it. >> guest: know, when my name fls first leaked in the early in the early part of january, the first thing that happened was that members of my own party, the legislators from michigan forth came down hard on said, me and said what does he know, he doesn't know anything about manufacturing.ng, he t's a finance guy.or he's the right guy for the job. i almost turned around and went

back to new york at that time. it's wanting to take on your a adversaries. another thing to take on people you thought were on your team. >> host: fred is calling on republican plan. good morning, fred. >> caller: good morning. >> host: duron with steven rattner. >> caller: okay, first blood like to thank c-span. this is my first time calling. i've gotten three number of times. but this is really kind of special to me because the approach to fixing the car industry i don't believe has a been addressed yet appt all.et. i know i've worked in the auto industry for over 30 years and. back back in 1975 is when i first started working up toward. isuality has always been an issue. this is their biggest problem. although they addressed it somewhat, i don't know what mr. rattner's book is about or what it says you're however, i

know for a fact because i was there, the quality -- the quality of the management decision -- anytime anyone in the inspection department would call attention to nysome into an miniature, they had the decision to either let it go or fix it. >> host: let's get a response. >> guest: respectfully, fred,atu a lot of what she said would'ven been true a few years ago. the at the detroit companies have made great strides in improving their quality. i mention in my book in one ofty the best ways to see this is in the number of complaints it goes ofthe national highway safety -- highway traffic and safetyin administration, it's oh were a few years ago gm was getting something like six times the number of complaints toyota was getting and now even before you take him of any recalls orig that things could have been true, they have gotten breakdown at toyota's level.

i believe they've made enormous --ides in improving quality. others are still a work in progress., b i don't think quality is their biggest problem quite honestly. >> host: how do you think gm, chrysler and ford got to that point? host:o the crisis. how do they get the point where the obama administration at a sudden, where they were coming to your guys and say we need a pillow? >> guest: it was a mix ofguest:e factors. a fairness, the strikingis, hassling races, the long contractof excessive benefits in uaw contract something so played a role in this. but what i say to people who asked that question is remember chrysler general motors went gee bankrupt. ford and go bankrupt.nba forgot through. they lost a lot of money but they got through.e it is in uaw contract in the same japanese prices. what was the difference? it difference with management. >> host: you write write about that in your book and make the observation that these huge companies a few key managers can make a bigay difference. >> guest: it's been

extraordinary throughout my career to go into a huge coming huge company. general electric when jack welch was there and see how one or twt people can both change the culture of the company and infuse it with their own set of values. r host: let's go to rabbit, independent color in georgia. hi, robert. ca caller: good morning. mr. rattner, i didn't get to read your book. but i do know that thing called obsole design on sorensen stand.sc i know as practiced in this country for years and it's really what probably got thisbay country to work because it got people to buy new things. they would break and have to go buy them again.people wo and i wasn't exactly for that. i think that was part of it. and i remember whenever bush put in the builder he gave funds for people to go out and buy suvs. now, i don't know what you thiny about that, but i know it wasn't a very smart idea.

>> i don't remember the incentives to buy suvs, but certainly a degree with you, it not a very smart idea. onthink right now we've gone the other way to way of incentives to buy electric cars, which hopefully will turn out to be a good idea. but the jur ey is still out on that. i think it a perfect world, this was part of our philosophy in this rescue, you really want thh government out of the business as much as possible.is the government will get out as quickly as possible. this will be a private-sector for.tition may the best car when it's general motors said incident a few months ago.n >> host: there was an allegation of a pay to playy incident that has been written about in the news. the "washington post" has a story from friday. fec acts autos are reached agreement. that is on hold as they reach a deal. the "washington post" reports that federal allegations that former obama administration auto

czar, steven rattner took in a can to play has been put on hold to coordinate it with state authorities according to sources familiar with the matter. can you comment onat that?tei >> guest: unfortunately, libby come i can't. i understand why you need to us. whe therfect world i would comment. i need my lawyers have said i cannot comment on it. >> host: is that we left the administration or do you think your work is the car czar two concluded? >> guest: what larry summers and tim geithner were from about with this to be the opposite ofk vietnam. we would get an out quickly and leave them in the hand.ral motos l 6n a general motors is owned by the federal government, the federal government does not run gm. has no representatives on theg board.. decisions are making on their own. and the work of the government thehe car industry is coming to a close and pretty much come to a close. >> host: how healthy is the industry at this point?

>> guest: parcells are still very, very depressed. the 11th when a plane in this tuntry, down from a peak of 70 million, also well below 50 million which is the replacement rate, the number you have to sell the chair to get the fleet from aging and to accommodate new drivers. bse so it's not a particularly high level of car sales. but because the detroit three companies all significantly restructure, 200 hour care, one of a the round, they're makingrl money. comeral motors had its first two quarters of profitable net i income from the first time several years. ford has been making money for several years now. what you have is a low-level of car sales. it's interesting to me interesting to misunderstood the economy for a long time to see how much you can see in the car sales what's going on in the economy. parcells went out for a while koa plateaued as the economy seem so plateaued, but an acceptable level with the companies can make money. >> host: is go to bob who wasmoc calling from duluth, minnesota, democrats find. hi, bob.nks >> caller: thanks for c-span.

>> host: thanks for calling. big >> caller: i think one of thear biggest troubles of the car industry and many of the industries have had is the facto that you don't have money in the hands of the common consumer. and i think that was the wall street meltdown caused a lot of that. and i think if they could start putting some of the laws that of they repealed that can wall street, the avian and abetting d liability for ones that would make it auditing firm legally responsible for signing off on the books. somebody would go to jail in other words if they cooked the books. i i think that the biggest problem is wall street and executive compensation -- >> host: how much was it talked about in your meeting as specifically at the autoive war

industry? how reflective was your team of tart than what was happening in the broader scheme?as >> guest: we obviously had awitp very specific mission and we spent 99% of our time on thatn mission. of course we are working side-by-side with the people on the financial crisis. would go to moodiness they wereh leaving. we would hear things in the lunchroom. we have a sense as to how that team is struggling with it. as difficult as our assignment was, the assignment that the banking teae had was much tougher. it's a much more complicated problem.y, good there are no easy and good solutions and i honestly don't think we've even found them yet. >> host: chad, republican and nevada, good morning. hi, chad. ohio.ler: >> host: you're on the air. with steven rattner. >> caller: what? postcode you're on the air, welcome. >> caller: i have a question. >> host: please send it. >> caller: sunday?

>> host: what is your question? let's o go to roger on thedall independent line. >> caller: jack, the recent inspector general's report on thebailout says -- tells us that the decision was made notec to close any women or minority owned dealerships. can you walk us through that process and how you reached thau decision? i doest: first of all, i do remember that reports than not, nor do i remember that decision wasre made. in fact, i wouldn't swear to this, but my recollection as we did close minority on tells me t dealerships. when i say we, let me make the important point. none of us s at treasury on then out task force made any decisions about which deals to close. every single expert in this industry told us when we came on the job that they were too many dealers in this country and they have to be reduced.ompa we said to the company is comins to figure which dealer should be

close. we don't know whether deal in chevy chase or bethesda or think it should be close. you figure it out. recently want to see the overall numbers and make sure they should be closed. we got notwithstanding the fact i got dozens, maybe hundreds of calls from capitol hill or othes important elected officials didng us to tilt in favor of one deal or another. it was the company's decisions. >> host: pittsburgh,host: pennsylvania. tom, democratic line. have a f caller: i have a messagesage for corporate america. i was thinking basically they should realize the truth and pay homage to the people that served in this country by reducing the national deficit for the amount of dead people in the water. >> host: any comments?guest: >> guest: i think it's abeyond e cope ofbit beyond the s our visit today. >> host: what should congress' role be in a situation like

this? you mention your team was able to move likely. to congress called with appeals to say certain plants were certain dealership. be? should congress' role >> guest: i think we need a broader question at released out of your battery and fair andaci. fair. we need to think hard about whad congressis rose and everything. obviously we want to the legislative branch, but i think 90% of your viewers i suspecthi would agree that it's not is no working the way it is. if you take autos, the only things that we are from congress about on autos for the specifica interdealer issues. and ultimately congress passed legislation on how dealer on ho shoulld be affect you. with all the problems in this country about the unfinished business of the congress, they - trivia got a congress to vote in nontrivial time in the summer and fall of 2091 were still in huge crisis. thinking about passing mis legislation on dealers i think ro's misplaced priorities.er so i think congress could and should have a broad role innsted

setting parameters off these in paros of rescue affairs. congress seems that you prefer to get involved in very narrow, small parochial matters. >> host: let's go to the caller in washington d.c. doria joins us. >> caller: good warning. i have a comment. my question is on the bailout that was done, the car bailout was one of the best. i think the money should have went to the people. and i just think it's ridiculous that we keep having all these ceos, mortgage securities. these i think the bailout would pay off in the long run because the united states needs manufacturing. >> host: maria says the auto bailout is the best of the ones that.nse >> guest: i would say incolleagd fairness to my colleagues who were doing a financial rescue, it was a much tougheroi you assignment. you have this massive intertwined financial system with trillions and trillions of dollars of obligations in assets

and liabilities. and untangling and away that no mechanism for winding down to institutions, which is of critical importance. when lehman went on a sort of melted down almost at the financial system with it. same with aig. and the only way to save them n was to d inject huge amounts ofe capital.sed i would agree not an ideal way to do this. that's why we try to pass financial regulatory form. not the bill passed is okay, not perfect. it specifically is unclear exactly how the next crisis will be dealt with. so i don't disagree with your collar.isag i think the financial bailoutldn was very unfortunate. but the alternative was worse. >> host: you're writing your your book, "overhaul: an insider's account of the obama administration's emergency rescue of the auto industry" if the country wants government toe do a better job of solving its problems, needs to find a way to a taunted government officials operate more like they would be able to in the private sector. what do you mean by that? >> guest: what i mean by that

is again we were a bit of an exception. but for the most part, people coming here dealing with congress. you come in, have a good idea. 95% of your good ideas require legislation. congre and the it means to go up to congress iy dless, anss becomes excruciating, endless.y. as i said often very petty.vateo i think i know as i've now beent in the private sector for ass while that between that process as well as the personal aspects of coming to washington on the financial disclosures, conflict of interest, the question of one's morals and scruples and my agendas at every turn, most of my friends in washington wouldn't come down here i'm not. they just say this is too toxic, too unpleasant. even those who want to serve theirth country. hostost: let's go to scottsdale, arizona. allen, republican. >> caller: hi, thank you forouly c-span. would you please explain to me how it is the first time in history of this country that the bondholders were in place first in this scenario and they were

sidestepped and just completely. thrown aside for the unions? i mean, i don't have any skin in game, but when you thwart the rural love for this country, for those bondholders, i liked an explanation.guest: i wil >> guest: i do get asked this explanon a lot and i'll be happy to give you an explanation. first of all, it's not the first time in history of this country come to let me sort of do it in reverse order. the way we handle it and you cyn really probably talking more about chrysler and general motors. but the way we handle the ure coitors was litigated all the way through the courtay system, the bankruptcy court, court of appeals on way to united states supreme court.the and not one judge gave the plaintiffs one ounce of the encouragement, no decision inevt their favor, no votes in their d favor, no nothing. every single court affirmed the fact what we did was completely in accordance of existing bankruptcy law.

we broke no laws, made no love, establish no precedents. we simply use the laws as they o existed. the second point to remember is every stakeholder in both companies have more than theydan would've gotten in a liquidation. the chrysler brings x $ $.9 million of loans are entitled to.h. would you than $2 billion in cash. as chrysler liquidated they would've gotten cash and so theo actually didn. better than they would have. did the uaw do well? yes. did they take a big haircut? bs. b give them what they would've been entitled to bankruptcy b because we needed them to makets cars.more by the way, there's other people got more than they would've beee bankruptcy more the bangkok. i'll specifically refer to warrantyy holders. if you want a car come your wor you should or couldhold have beu wiped out in bankruptcy. you would have no warranty and your car. we made a determination is warranty should protect 100 cents on the dollar.on the

so which stakeholder was treated in accordance to both what we thought was fair in also in accordance to what we needed to do to have a viable companyuthor going forward. >> host: our guest, steven rattner is the author of "overhaul: an insider's account of the obama administration's emergency rescue of the auto industry" and in it he details his experiences as the so-called car czar, someone working within the administration and treasury department on the auto bailout.e it's one of the first account, the first account were hearing from inside the obama administration. just about two years into the administration. jim wri ttes on twitter, please explain the model. i do you reasonably expect to sell those new cars? he's looking for more specifics about what these three big auto companies need to do onheed out. >> guest: what they need to do. is simply execute -- what we dil this have for general motors their breakeven point from meeting 16 or 17 million cars to be sold in the u.s. to 10 or 11 million cars to be sold in the u.s., and red i so we did what we called

amputation. we did radical surgery on this patient to make them healthy i. 1.8n today as i said earlier at 11.9 per figure gm is making good money. car sales need to be 50 millions in order to simply replace the ones on the streets now and take account of the drivers coming in. at 15 million car sales, gm will make a fortune because of their much lower cost these now. what they need to do is continue just what they're doing and. improve it further in terms of leaner, meaner more cutting-edge and they will be fined. >> host: new hampshire, john is an independent color. good morning.penden >> caller: good morning. i was at another the guest, mr. rattner is intending to buy ewneral motors stock in the ipon on the phone. >> guest: i may well buy it. decision yete that because any purchase of stock is a function of price. if the question is, is general motors they found from a viableu exciting company with a greandte

future? what they therefore invest? the answer is yes.. i have to make sure the priceatn makes sense, too.k. because maybe too many people feel the way i do in the prices too high.tes i've no hesitation about coming general motors stock. it's going to be a great company. >> host: donruss from oklahoma. please cite the articles section of the constitution that authorizes the federalto - government to bail out or assumed operational control businesses and corporations. >> guest: the tart bill when it was passed empower the secretary of the treasury to tlocate those dollars in the way that he saw fit in this economic and financial crisis.wy and again, every step we tookizd every step of the way was very closely scrutinized by treasury lawyers and white house lawyers to b heit short it was in accord with that.it it has been determined by the bush administration the tart money could be used legally for the auto companies as part of the systemic failure in the american economy. >> host: gene are democrats de's

fine, welcome. >> caller: good morning. i'm a refugee from the decree id house in dearborn. like a few other people was called in here. i just want to make a comment and have you, back on this. in my time working in the domestic auto industry, i found that our business model had changed, that we were no longeri functioning as a manufacturing company, that our real businessy was finding it. because we were taking the money we were making from vehicles. and i'm not talking about finding it.bout i'm talking about the actual money that came in from the dealers and investing it in short-term money markets. and that's how we actually made our money. so to my thinking, that explains why the auto industry was screaming for a bill of several months before the bank started to collapse because they are lor world food chain as thee cars started to come down. >> guest: so, there's some slidity to what you're saying

th that the car companies, because of their market, their preexisting market power were ach to achieve very, very favorable deals.th the they actually pay the cars right after they came off the assembly they actually pay the cars right after they came off the assembly line before they even reach the dealer lot and then they wait to play the supplier so they have a favorable cash flow position. there may well up in a time when i was a source of great off itee for them. it still gives them imagine operating. byt today the moneymaking today is the old-fashioned way, byuf manufacturing andac selling car at prices where they can achievc decent profits. : host: let's go to michigan.ht tony on the republican fine. let's see if we have tony. i don't think we do. let's go to bill, independent color and florida. hi, bill.in >> caller: yeah, my name is phi. bill. >> host: sorry, phil. >> caller: are wonderful, we mrr love you. e. question for mr. rattner is r

very basic but an important one. in the current voting cycle tht realistic for voters to believe that if we haven't done what we did for the banks and for the auto industry, coulit's very possible we might even a depression today? >> guest: sale, i don't know i n i can say this more forcefully, with more conviction, with f more passion can than i will say it now. there is absolutely no questio question -- absolutely no question that if we had not thae passed part and if the bush and obama administrations have not n used t.a.r.p. and some of the related programs as effectively as they did on behalf of the financial sector and auto sector, this w country would eat in a depression. i have absolutely no doubt in ma mind about that.collapsed. the financial system would've collapsed. detroit among related businesses would've collapsed.

i don't know what else to call that put a depression. we should be very, very -- consider ourselves very, very fortunate and like you to two t.a.r.p. was passed and the two. administration used it so effectively. >> host: and yet you write i' "overhaul," the auto rescue effortre takes five. john mccain said in november november 2009, i don't think we ever shouldn't build a chrysler and gm. - should've letth them go into bankruptcy, merchant become viable corporations again. >> guest: this is precisely rticularlyerstanding or fallacy that i find so frustrating and there me so angry. if we have done what she said, they would've come out again. there was no private financing away there normally is. >> host: because of the dire w economic? sit >> guest:uati financial economis were shut.d that would've closed their doors, not pay their people, turned out the lights. the players would run bankruptad and the rest of the industry would've gone on with them.

>> host: let's go to kerry,callr democrats won in illinois. welcome, very. called so high, i'm a first-time caller. they really feel that they did do the right thing by building now, but it was a bailout without accountability.ge but those large corporations saying they would give you guys specific guidelines of how youdt were dispersed that money and you guys would be able to revieo those documents in southerno spain were going to do the same thing but in the lower scale. because when it went before congress, we knew they were commonn in large jumbo jet and m there was a clear reflection that they were out of touch for people that were actually buying uestion th one of the reactions to that was that congress demanded a series of reductions.

corporate jets were gone. kenneth feinberg put in place rules to oversee compensation. no golden parachutes. all these sorts of rules to control their excesses'. we tried to be very careful. i had a team of the exceptional people who looked at the numbers to make sure the money we were putting in was the right amount, was going to the right purpose. however, the president made a decision that we would not have government-owned companies. even though we have a larger position in gm, we have put this in the hands of private boards, private individuals. host: karen in oklahoma. republican line. caller: i just want to say,

thank you c-span. these car companies jack up their prices and they did it to themselves. we own 61% of gm, how come the taxpayers do not have some sort of representation on that? guest: the president, larry summers, tim geithner, made the decision that we do not want government-controlled companies in this country. we did not want to be 61% shareholders. it was the best way that we found to get the taxpayers their money back. we do not know how to run a company like this. we put in management that knows how to run these companies, and

that is the right approach. host: what happens if one of the big three comes back and says we need more money? guest: it would be very tough. what you did was a moment in time, a systemic failure. to be fair to them, some of the factors were out of their control. host: sterling, missouri. caller: good morning. the answer that you just gave, if one of them goes bust again, you said that we would have been in a depression if we allow that to happen. it seems, over time, that they are going to move back to that same position before you all had to jump in. guest: a year and a half ago we

would have been in a depression to because we would have lost the entire car company at a moment where we could not afford to lose something of that magnitude. right now, the economy is weak, we are out of the financial crisis perspective here, but right now if we lost chrysler, we could do so without going into a depression. all three companies are run by gentlemen who were not car executives. two of them are completely new to the industry. we brought in fresh blood to change the way that these companies operate, and i believe they are doing it. host: ralph in california. independent line. caller: when chrysler cambecamen

llc, what happened to the old debt? was it carried over to the new company? maybe they were trying to avoid paying the old debt of chrysler. guest: if i understand your question, when we were involved, there was a massive amount of debt. it had been through a leveraged buyout, was over leveraged, and we ended up restructuring that debt. some of it was written off. the most senior debt got $2 billion. essentially, the left most of that behind and started out new. we wanted to have a clean balance sheet for the company to start. host: has the president,

administration, been too hard on the auto sector? guest: i think the president is trying to find a balance between the fact that this country is incredibly angry at the financial sector. on the other hand, the president understand that we need a viable financial sector to function. i think he has been walking a careful, appropriate line. he is the president of all people, not just wall street. i think he is doing a good job making clear that some of the practices on wall street have to stop. host: barre in california. caller: i really appreciate his work on this problem. people who do volunteer work of this type -- essentially, it was volunteer work -- and there are

people that really appreciate what they did, the impact it has had on the economy. host: absolutely, and adding on, how unique was it for people in the wall street world to come and work in washington? guest: i am incredibly proud of our team. we were 14 people who did not know each other, mostly from wall street, come down here, working unbelievable hours for little to no compensation. it was all done out of patriotism and service. these are people who had expertise that are relevant to the problems of the moment. we could not solve what was happening in afghanistan, but we were able to help. it was an extraordinary effort. it is not unusual for wall

street people to come into government service. this type of task force, however, is unusual because of the time. i do feel the mood of the people that i know have changed. the excitement of public service, of being here, has been diminished a lot by some of the ugly aspects. host: steven rattner's new book is called >> go to price would've eugene robinson appeared at the texas book festival in austin to talk about his latest book, "disintegration." in the book he argues the african-american population in the u.s. is made of four distinct communities. that have experienced very degrees of success. the program is 45 minutes.

>> next weekend on booktv's and death -- in depth. >> hi. who do you think would be the best choice for our next republican candidate for president? [laughter] >> with a real chance to win? and even though i think john mccain is a good american would make the best candidate.

>> i -- i really -- you know, i had this thing on my show called the duck of the day that i know my producers are willing on c-span and they will get me with the duck of the day. i do the best person is right now. but tosh, here's my answer. i'm not worried about that yet. i know everyone wants the next reagan to lock in the room, the next, you know, figure who will lead us, you know, out of the darkness. i'm not worried about it. i truly believe -- how many cities -- 15 cities now in just a little over a week and a half. i am thrilled about what i am seeing from the ground. it's going to happen the way it's supposed to happen. i have great faith. i had this cross on, everybody knows i where. [applause] i have great faith. that, you know, we're not an accident, this country. this whole thing didn't happen because of some series of

coincidences that we had these brilliant men who came together and at a constitutional convention and did this magic. it's not magic. we have a destiny to fulfill. and i believe come again, if the citizens are engaged, and it means more than going to speeches. i mean, i'm glad you all came, believe me. it would have been really embarrassing if it wasn't ramen and randy and a few other people. but i'm excited you're here. but what do you do when you leave here is what matters. what i'm saying to you is it's happening. people are organizing in ways they haven't. let me just say, mr. president, i am high-fiving you on the committee organizing thing because we are doing it now. [applause] >> to watch this program in its entirety, go to booktv.org. simply type the title of the author's name at the top left of the screen and click search.

>> pulitzer prize winner eugene robinson appeared at the texas book festival in austin to talk about his latest book, "disintegration." in the book he argues that the african-american population in the u.s. is made of four distinct communities that have experienced very degrees of success. the program is 45 minutes. the >> i'd like to look into thelber texas book there. i'm alberta phillips. au i will be -- thank you.l b you [applause] >> i will be your moderatort ts today. you might say that this is likei a first date for me, because it is the first time i've moderated for the texas book festival, any boy, did i luck out on my birthday. [laughter] [applause]at >> i get to introduce a great

journalist, a great writer, eugene robinson. fgive so forgive me, forgive me if i'm gushy and giddy. [laughter] >> before i get to the intro, it have are taken care of housekeeping duties. know you know where to go after the conversation with eugeneene robinson is over.nson is o so with no further ado, i'd like to enter does mr. eugene robinson.ene [applause] >> it's okay to clap. he was born and raised inaised orangeburg, south carolina.hereo that's where my mom is from.unio and earned his ba at theirst university of michigan where hed was the first black student to of be named co-editor t in chief os the michigan daily.at san he began his journalism careerne at the "san franciscoost chronicle," and join the "washington post" in 1980.as see where he has served in variousdg capacities, including london bureau chief, foreign editor,urt

and currently associate editoru, and columnist. h he was a nieman fellow atfellow harvard, and served on then council of foreign relations. in 2009, robinson was awarded pe the pulitzer prize formm, th distinguished commentary, the highest prize in journalism. [applause] >> the citation read for his eloquent column on the to doeso o a presidential campaign, thad focus on the election of thefirs first african-american president, showcasing gracefulno writing and grass of the largerp historic picture. robinson lives in arlington, virginia, with his wife and twoh sons your "disintegration" -- "disintegration: the splintering of black america" is his third book. so with that, let's show him blk some texas love. [applause] im some texas love. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you, austin, and thank you, texas. all i can say is, ah, shucks. >> i read this book and there were a lot of surprises in this book for me. we decided to talk about this like a discussion and let him do most of the talking, and one of the things i won -- wondered about the title. pie disintegration. "don't ask, don't" tell us how h the title. >> i didn't. my wife came up with it. i give her full props on that. i like the title, and my editor and publisher liked it, everybody liked it because does have that ambiguity about it. integration, and it suggests

something that has ups and downs, you know, in the context of what is happening to black america over the last 50 years, and it just seemed right, and we couldn't come up with a better one. so, we went with that. but it was precisely for that ambiguity, because we -- that's what we were trying to express. >> i think it works in so many ways, eugene. on page 4 of your book -- this it what really blew my mind. totally blew me away. you talk about -- you introduce the concept that black america is no longer one black america no longer one community. that was a surprise to me. i'm still dealing with that concept. as i read the book, it became very, very clear to me, and you talk about four different groups

that are -- have now emerged in the african-american community. can you talk about those groups? >> sure. actually, alberta, maybe i will read that one paragraph and then i'll talk about the four groups. there was a time when there were greed-upon black leaders, and when there was a clear black agenda, when we could talk confidently about the state of black america, but not anymore. not after decades of desegregation, affirmative action, and urban decay, not after globalization, decimated the working class and trickle down economics sorted the nation into aways and lose -- into winners and losers. not after most people ceased to notice, much less care, when a black man and a white woman walked down the street hand in hand. these are among the forces and trends that have had the unintended consequence of tearing black america to pieces,

and so that's kind of the departure point for the book. i had been turning this idea over in my head for a while, and in 2007 two things happened. i worked for the washington post, and we had a group of black publishing executives, mostly from the african-american press, visiting washington. they dropped by the post. i was supposed to do a kind of five-minute drive-by greeting, basically, in our conference room. hi, how are you, great to have you hear, you know. and i went down, and i started talking, and i started tossing out this notion. i tossed out the notion of, well, is there a black america anymore? are there -- or in fact are we

several groups? to my surprise -- because i broached the subject gingerly -- there was such a reaction, there was such -- the enthusiasm for talking about this subject, that this five-minute drive-by turn in an hour-long discussion, where i talked and they talked and somebody said, what about the immigrants and what about this and what about that? and so i said, well, hmm. maybe i'm on to something here. and then the other thing that happened was the pew research center came out with a poll, survey of black americans, that contained just a stunning figure. one stunning figure. it was that 37% of the

african-americans they surveyed believed that black americans could no longer be thought of as a single race. i said, what in the world does that mean? 37%. that's almost four out of ten. what do you mean by single race? didn't really ask followup questions, so i had no idea that meant and still not quite sure what that means. but those kind of -- those two things, the encounter and the pew finding, made me want to know more. so that what launched the book, and the exploration of this question, i started pouring over census data, marketing studies, talking to people, doing whatever i could, and then something intervened, thissings thing called the presidential campaign, this guy called barack obama, a name that seemed to be

off the guantanamo list, junior senator from illinois who thought he was going to be president, and then it started looking like, well, maybe he was going to be president, and he was certainly going to try. and so it seemed clear as the campaign went on -- seemed to illuminate and illustrate a lot of the -- and at times aned a -- answered a lot of questions i was asking and issues i was addressing. so i said, we can't do this until after we see how this comes out. so that was the timing. you know, you have to pose at the end of the day -- impose a structure on your thinking, i think, and it seemed to me that you could outline four groups that constitute black america today, and it seemed to me that

the distinctions among these four groups seemed to be clearer and more vivid as time went on rather than more -- more than soft or diffuse. the first is a majority, 55%, maybe, 54%, of african-americans who it seems to me have entered the middle class. now, there's been a big asterisk there. what is the middle class these days? especially during the recession. you can certainly argue that the middle class is precarious, white, black, or otherwise, in this country right now. but to the extent there is a middle class, i'd say a fairly slim majority but a majority of african-americans have reached it. and i'm not just looking at

income but also educational attainment and amibition, and other kinds kinds kinds of inde. i call that group the mainstream. there is, however, a large minority of african-americans, somewhere between 25 and 30%, that did not climb that ladder into the middle class, that remains in this kind of stew of poverty and dysfunction in the inner cities and the rural south, and in places around the country, and for whom the possibilities of climbing that ladder seem to me slimmer than at any time in the last 50 years, maybe that at any time in the last 100 years, simply because the rungs on the ladder

are no longer there. they're missing. and someone of limited education, maybe with high school or whatever, used to be able to go down to the plant, get a job at the plant, and union wage and -- with job security, wages good enough to take care of your family, to buy a house, buy a little house, send your kids to college, so they'd have a better life than you did, and when it was time to retire, you had a pension. now, that sounds like a grimms fairy tale at this point. that's not the way increasingly this country works. and those jobs at the plant are not there because the plant is in china, or the plant is in brazil. it's not anywhere near where these folks live. so, i call that group the abandoned. because i do believe they have

been abandoned, not only in the material sense but we don't even talk about them anymore. we did during katrina. we said that was going to open a discussion about poverty, and that discussion lasted about three weeks and we all went about our business. the other two groups are interesting because they're new. there is a very small elite -- oh, any elite is small by definition, and this one is, too. this is a group of african-americans who have attained wealth, power or influence on a scale -- not just relative to other african-americans but relative to the whole country or the whole world, and obviously -- who belongs to this small group? obviously president obama.

obviously oprah winfrey. obviously tiger woods, richard parsons, the former c.e.o. and chairman of time-warner, who -- here's an example of something that could never have happened before in our history. financial crisis hits. the banks melt down. citigroup is among the financial institutions that takes a big himself needs needs -- hit. needs to be gotten back on track, and an african-american president can turn around and look to a seasoned african-american chief executive, richard parsons, who used to run the biggest media and entertainment company in the world, time-warner, and ask him to come out of retirement and encourage him to step in as chairman of citigroup for a time, to help get it back on

track. that could never happen happened. so i refer to this small group as the transcendent group, and there's the group i call the emergent. and there are actually two major components of this group. one is made up of immigrants, black immigrants from the caribbean and africa, and their sons and daughters. a few years ago -- this african-american immigrant group is particularly interesting because it, too, is new. there's always been a pretty good stream of immigration from the caribbean, but certainly before 1965, when the was a change in the immigration law, and then there have been subsequent changes -- in the past it was almost impossible to immigrate from africa. it was very difficult to do. it became easier and some

programs were instituted that african immigrants from nigeria, ethiopia, every country, have taken advantage of. so we have seen an unpress departmented wave of immigration. the numbers are still not huge yet, but the impact is starting to be huge. a few years ago, harvard professor skip gates of the beer summit fame, you remember the famed beer summit. he and lonny, another name you might recognize, did an informal study at harvard. they looked at the list of incoming black freshmen, and just picked off the african surnames and found that was more than half of the incoming black freshmanmen at h