and then he has to go to congress in seeking a member of the security council resolution. that is why i said he owes it, and this administration owes it to the congress to explain exactly what ..

>> the person headed up the initiative is the former president of chile, michelle bachelet. this was hosted at hunter college in new york. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good evening. good evening and welcome for this exciting and historic event. i'm jennifer raab and i have the great privilege of being the president of this extraordinary institution, hunter college. it's an honor to have the former president of chile, michelle bachelet here, and strengthening the rights of women around the globe. madam, i have to tell you a quick story when he had bill clinton a few months ago.

i was able to introduce him. he said thank you, madam president, i still like the sound of that. it is particularly fitting to have the undersecretary general speak here at roosevelt house where eleanor made her first foray for her legendary career for women's right. you may have read the piece on the kennedy administration. when she was asked to lead on the status, saying men have to be reminded. this house tells a story of strong women and thriving side by side. fdr's mother imagined a beautiful home for newlyweds. so in 1908, she built this house and loved it so much, she kept half of it for herself. talk about your new deal. now technically, one side belonged to the newlyweds and the other half to sara, as you can guess from the single

entrance and convenient connections, sarah was not fussy about this. as eleanor said, you are never sure when she could appear, day or night. and you thought you had mother-in-law issues. but the unconventional arrangement was also an opportunity. sarah's handling of domestic matters gave eleanor unusual freedom. and she often found herself walking a few blocks up town to spend time with the hunter college. we suspect that interacted with the women of hunter inspired her. afterall, in early 20th century, higher education for women was still a progressive idea and all female hunter college was filled with uniquely ambitious and independent women. a long relationship developed between the roosevelt and the community and lasted even after they left the white house. after the sarah died in 1945, the family arranged for hunter

to purchase the house for $50,000. still one of new york's great real estate deals. franklin himself donated the first $1,000. eleanor attended the dedication. for many years, the house was a similar student activity center. but when i became president in 2001, i was dismayed to discover it was long closed and in desperate need of repaired. we were determine to have it restored and so thrilled to have the dream become a reality. the house is amazingly rich in american history. this is where fdr came to recover from polio, because it had an elevator. this is where he returned from the hotel a as the country's newly elected president. the next day, broadcasting over nbc from the parlor room, he introducedded nation to the economic recovery. this is where eleanor led the

democratic party meetings on women's issues and set out to change the role of women in politics. women, she said -- [no audio] >> the home of the new public

policy institute which supports faculty research. we're proud that michelle bachelet and so many are here to celebrate the women. secretary ban ki-moon spoke when we opened the house. your testament is further evidence of your strength between roosevelts. that's a period of certainly about global relations. long before his political rise, fdr foresaw the need to preserve world peace. in 1923, in this house, fdr crafted a man for a society of nations to help prevent future wars. shortly after pearl harbor, he joined the term united nations and showed it to winston

churchill by barging in on him. fdr worked hard to convince the allies, congress, and the american people that this new organization was essential to maintaining peace in the future. though franklin died before the u.n. charter was ratified, the organization continues to bear the stamp of his vision. it was eleanor who helped her net vision into reality. becoming a lifelong champion of the u.n. and serving as a delegate to the general assembly. on the bronx campus of hunter college, eleanor helped draft the universal declaration of human rights. michelle bachelet embodies the values of franklin and eleanor roosevelt. we know they would be deeply gratified to have an accomplished and influential renaissance woman speak in their home about one the most vital issues. ms. bachelet decided early on

nothing without prevent her success, even torture under the regime could not keep her from earning medical degree and becoming a pediatrician. they expanded her studies and became a renounced expert in military strategy. she served her nation as minister of health then defense before making history in 2006 when she was elected the first women president of chile and we believe the first women president in latin america to get there on their own, not through marriage or otherwise. president bachelet became one the most popular presidents in chilean history and role model. one the young women this inspired, michelle is with us. she's a senior at hunter college, studying political science and history. she's also earning a certificate in human rights here.

last semester, she interned at the u.n., and hoping to follow as a leader in international politics and gender equality. it's a pleasure to introduce her. i would like to introduce phil -- phyllis kossoff as well as. her grandson graduated from hunter college this past january. she is truly one the most devoted alumni and friends. it is her generosity that made today possible. please thank phyllis for the gift of this lecture and everything that you do for hunter. [applause] [applause]

>> it is a great honor to invite michelle bachelet to the podium. how proud she will be joined by one of hunter's own, professor of political science robert jenkins. jenkins is a lead author on the report to the u.n. security council that was instrumental in the creation of u.n. woman. thank you for your important work. following their discussion, professor jenkins will lead a question and answer session. please join me in welcoming a true international hero, u.n. undersecretary, michelle bachelet. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, president raab for such a warm welcome and such warm remarks. it is a real honor to have been invited by hunter college to deliver the phyllis kossoff

lecture for 2011. it is a particular pleasure to address you here in the home of one of the 20th century's great campaigners for human rights and one the leaders in shaping the universal declaration of human rights. let me especially focus today on eleanor roosevelt. because her work permitted to build a foundation of international human rights law grounded in the equality of all individuals, regardless of race, creed, or sex. and i will address particularly one issue in the question that you will ask me about anything that you want. "women, war, and peace" that's the subject of my address this evening. because it was also a fact in the topic on which eleanor roosevelt held

characteristically strong convictions during the first u.n. general assembly in 1946, mrs. roosevelt insisted passionately that women should seek and be granted the opportunity to and i will quote, share in the work of peace and reconstruction as they did in war and resistance. end of quote. her plea, as you may have guessed, was not immediately taken up. in fact, it would take nearly half a century for the security council to translate mrs. roosevelt's insight into international law. because in 2000, the security council unanimously passed resolution 1325. and this landmark decision recognized, first, that women's experience of war were different from men's, and second, that a nation's women were an untapped resource for building peace. resolution 1325 called on all actors, national and international, to fully involve

women in preventing, resolving, and recovering from conflict; and to ensure that all peace building efforts are consistent with principals of gender equality. resolution 1325 thus articulated in the security field precisely the two objectives that u.n. women, still just two months old, pursues: to empower women and to promote gender equality. this is also reflected in our official name, which is very long to remember, but i will remind you: it's called united women. but it's real name is united nations entity for gender equality and the empowerment of women. it's real long, isn't it? so it's reflective in u.n. women. and as the u.n. women's first leader, i am committed to accelerating our collective efforts to promote women's

empowerment during transitions from war to peace. u.n. women will seek to influence the decision-making at the highest levels of u.n. policymaking -- through an organization who sole mandate is to facilitate women's realization of the human rights. and u.n. women will work in the field, and work with governments to make public institution more accessible, responsible, and accountable to women. we will work -- we will support women's economic engagement through initiatives that address formal and informal barriers to expand market access. we will advise on how to make national laws consistent with international obligations relating to women's rights. and every day we see how important it is. i support that all of you heard as we have today that six women were shot dead peacefully

demonstrating for democracy. and in every part of the world we need to address or defend women's rights and no were more than in conflict and crisis. ladies and gentlemen, now i would like to share with you how u.n. women will play this roles, wering together with all of our peacebuilding partners, national, international, public and private, women and men. my instinct is to look forward, but before doing so, we must see where we stand. we must ask ourselves more than a decade -- last year we celebrated 10 years of the 1325 resolution. so i can say more than a decade after 1325's passage. how has it called for women's engagement in the work of peace been answered? let me say the international community's response has been, at best, mixed.

on the one hand, those parts of the resolution that address women as victims of conflict, particularly victims of systematic and widespread sexual violence having in recent years been considerably elaborated. a series of additional resolutions beginning in the mid 2008, resolution 1820, 1888, and 1960, broke new ground by: first affirming that there can be no impunity for those who command, condone, or commit such crimes. and second, by pledging international community to prevent and respond to sexual violence perpetrated during and after conflict. the u.n. has begun the long journey from an exclusive focus on humanitarian reaction -- responding to women's needs as victims, to a protective response. this means recognizing the need for u.s.ized security measures

to prevent mass atrocity crimes against women. progress on the agenda accelerated following the appointment last year of a special representative of secretary general on sexual violence in conflict, ms. margot wallstrom. with whom i work closely on this element. an example of our joint work is our engagement with peace keepers in how to protect women from high levels of sexual violence. this predeployment training is a sign to produce tactical readiness in conflict. it is intended to help produce intelligence and generate reliable warnings of security threats against women, and encourage peace keepers to use

the full range of actions available to them in defense of communities threatened with sexual violence. it is a powerful example of the paradigm shift to thinking about the protection of civilians that is required when we recognize sexual violence as the tactic of warfare. an indicator of greater alacritity in protecting women in the recent conviction of nine government soldiers, including the commanding lieutenant colonel of mass rapes committed on new year's day this year in the fizi area of eastern congo. these are important achievements. u.n. women will build on them, but they tell only part of the story. if we reflect on the victim-centered portions of resolution 1325, but on those

provisions that emphasize women's role as agents and leaders of conflict resolution and long-term peacebuilding, a very difficult picture emerges. frankly, when it comes to promoting women's engage in peace and security, the international community has performed poorly. too many doors have remained closed, lately, the main institutional actors have admitted these failings. but we still lack initiatives that would make a major change in the size of impact of women's presence in peace and recovery processes. the hard fact is that the work of peace as eleanor roosevelt put it, is it overwhelmingly carried out by men. u.n. women researched 24 peace processes since the mid 1990s and found that women averaged fewer than 8% of the members of negotiating delegations, representing parties to a conflict. a similar pattern holds if we

look at what kinds of experts are supplied to peace talks. very rarely have mediation support teams included specialist on how to shape peace agreements so that they preserve women's rights and ensure women's participation in the decision-making bodies that oversee the transition to a new political order. let us not forget, as well, that to this day, no woman has been appointed as chief mediator of u.n.-managed peace process. let me say that it is hard to believe that the lack of women in the highest levels of mediation does not account, at least in part, for nearly invisibility of gender issues in peace agreements. a study of 585 peace agreements concluded between 1990 and 2010 found that just 16% contain any reference to women at all.

just 3% of these peace accords contain a reference to sexual or gender-based violence. being those 585 conflicts, they did have a lot of sexual violence on it. in just six ceasefire agreements, ever, has sexual violence been identified as a ceasefire violation. in two important cases, in nepal and in the nuba mountains region of sudan, the result was improved monitoring protocols, staffing arrangements, and ultimately security for women. and yet -- i mean those were successful stories, but, yes, this innovate vision has not become standard practice. this is an institutional failure of the highest order. to this short comings in the area of peacemaking and peace keeping could be added a litany of broken promises concerning women's engagement in

peacebuilding. let me gist -- me give you just two examples. in postconflict economic recovery we find that employment creation programs disproportionately allocate women opportunities to men. women have constituted as little as 8% of such workers. i'm telling you despite u.n. guidelines, encouraging gender parity in employment programs, which can provide women as independent income, at least temporary, and thus a chance at social, political, and economic entrepreneurship. yet little on-the-ground effort has been gone to benefit women. the international community approach to political representation in post-conflict situations has been similarly underwell offing.

this is clear despite evident that in the war aftermath, adaptable to national circumstances are by far the fastest means of bringing women's parliament representation to the committee mass of 30% that target set by the beijing platform for action in 18995. our research into post-conflict parliamentary representation has found that in a quota-based systems, 34% of the elected representatives were women. whereas in countries without elector real quotas, women were just 12% of parliament. we have to think of how women have progressed in terms of equality. the political aspect is the slower one. when we think that in the world only 19% of the parliamentaries are women. i think that in the u.s. it's

16%, if i'm not wrong. and so we have a long way to go. if you think on one hand too, the government of the states, only 19 were women. we really are in bad shape. i'm not saying that's the global average. in conflict countries, i mentioned the average. of the 27 countries in the world that have achieved 30 or more than 30% of parliament -- female parliamentarian, only five of them, i believe it's the northern countries, probably, did not need the quota. in other words, only a quota would meet more women for the representation. inspite of increased awareness, the pace of international action. much more can be said about missed opportunities for women and engagement in the work of peace.

rather than looking forward, let us focus on the way ahead. and what i see on the whole are many opportunities for women, empowerment, waiting to be seized. underlying these opportunity is the new international consensus, the secretary general has build around issues of women, war, and peace. the secretary general has appointed an unprecedented number of women to senior peace and security positions, both of headquarters and in the field with a number of women serving a special representative of secretary general or seeing conflict peace operations continues to grow. nowhere has the secretary general's commitment been better reflected than the 2010 report on women's participation and peacebuilding, which i think president raab referred to earlier. the report contains a comprehensive action plan for gender-responsive peacebuilding to which the entire u.n. system has pledged it's support.

the a plan consistents of clear commitments made on behalf of the united nations. i will not go into all of the details, but let me include some of them. assigning responsibility for ensuring women's access to peace talks, post-conflict planning processes and donor round tables. a requirement that at least 15% of post-conflict situations be devoted to investments in women's empowerment and gender equality. you may think that is modest. do you think? considering that current allegations for women's empowerment is about 5% of post-conflict and spending. mechanisms for providing appropriate gender expertise to peace talks and post-conflicts statebuilding initiatives whether for electoral support, constitutional drafting, or

civil service reform, and institutional changes to advantage women's empowerment through economic recovery and rule of law interventions. this action plan was submitted to the security council last autumn, just before i took up my post at u.n. women. this permitted me from my earliest day in new york to focus and figure out how to advance implementation, how to make things happen for women caught up in war and its aftermath. at the center of u.n. women's work in this area will be our newly formed partnership with the peacebuilding support office. the pbso shepherded this action plan through the process of securing u.n.-wide agreement. i would like to recognize the leadership demonstrated in the process by assistance secretary general for peacebuilding support, judy cheng-hopkins. the implementing for which the

peace office served as the secretary at, has lately expanded the number of post-conflict countries on which it focuses, adding liberia and guinea. there are important lessons we can draw from a number of countries. in so many countries women are instrumental in supporting peace processes, they are asked to wait to address women's urgent concerns. those include justice and reparation for women crimes against women, and also special measures to make sure women can take part in government. when women are told this has special concerns to be addressed, once stability is achieved. but delays has consequences for peace.

guinea provides an interesting example. in late 2009, a political crisis unfolded in guinea that constituted a clear threat to the peace. the international community reacted with unusual speed of reports of serious human rights abuses. more than 100 women had reportedly been raped by armed personnel that left 100 people dead at a stadium in conakry. the graphic videos taken on the cell phone, freely circulated on the internet, lent credence to the charges. an international commission of inquiry was quickly constituted by the dispatched by the secretary general. the commission had a mandate of investigated claims of targeted sexual violence, and this sent a message that all concerned that women's rights would be central to the international community's engagement with guinea from the outset. this created opportunities in political discussions that would

shape the subsequent transition process. women in guinea still face, of course, serious challenges. but the international community's reaction in the case of guinea stands out as an example of how early engagement on gender issues can bring payoffs down the line -- particularly for women's political assess -- assertiveness, improving the economic fortunes, enhancing the physical security, and upgrading their legal status. we must internalize this lesson of early engagement. as the case of guinea and so many others show it is never too late to involve women, it's never too soon to hear the voices and we cannot afford to delay their inclusion. here is a dear friend. i was talking to a women from south africa. i asked her how were things in

south africa when mandela tooks office. she explained and i asked if i could mention this conversation. that i will use her words because there were women, black, and workers so they had a triple combination. so they went to speak to mandela to ask for the rights. now it's our moment. and he said it is understood that they should speak to younger people. they stand out and say, you know, we fought like you. we were in jane like you. many of them will die like you. we are not going back to the kitchen. so he then was so convinced he supported it. and they could have women could be from the beginning of the building of the new democracy on a more just country, they had their voices were heard.

and they could have been developing an important i would say they have been -- they have performance in a great way. i would like to mention that because today about equality, some other excuses are used. they shouldn't be dealing with the issue because there is an economic crisis. and i want to reaffirm the terms that it's never too early to involve women and never too late to hear the voices and we really continue afford delays on women's equality and empowerment. and i refer to those who say we have to wait to another great american champion for human rights, the reverend martin luther king who stated and i quote, it is always the right time to do the right thing. and, yes, it is always the right time to fight for women's

rights. ladies and gentlemen, if u.n. women is to make a positive contribution to women's effort at the conflict-resolution, or long-term peacebuilding in countries, we need to do much more. there are urgent priorities to amplify women's peace leadership. first, we need to be on the ground. we must be pre-positioned to respond rapidly to calls -- first of all we have to strengthen women on the ground. because there's a lot of women organizations and capacities there. but we also sometimes in some countries, women are not so well organized. they need support. so we also need to respond rapidly to calls for women, organizing itself. it's among my highest priorities to strength the field base and engine of their work. the women will not maintain the presence in every country. though i have to say gender and

equality exist in one form or another everywhere. i just heard two days ago, the white house sent a report, the same report i mentioned eleanor roosevelt was in charge of so many years ago. it was something, i mean opportunities of u.s. women living in the u.s. and there still are disparities there. of course, there are still problems that we need to address. i mention that we don't be everywhere, because we want to be where we are more needed. and because there are other agencies that continue working with women. we will continue working with women in development, unicef will work with women and girls, and of course women and women's health. w.h.o. will continue working on

health, and women and girls living with hiv/aids, and so on. we will be where we are most needed and where we will really make a difference. but in the coming months, i will prioritize the building up of our fear level engagement that most require our support, including those countries affected by conflict. in some places, women's association have been severity damaged. in others they have lost basic function of capacity with a corresponding revolution of women's voices. the primary purpose of u.n. women's field presence in this setting will be to support their effort to build the political voice and the capacity of women's organization. second, a complete action that u.n. women will support to ensure womens enhance engagement in crisis and conflict situation is establishment of an expert capacity to support women's

institutional participation. in response to the security council request, the u.n. is already developing a rapidly deployable team of judicial experts to support national effort to -- well, to strengthen their judicial system, but also to come with impunity with sexual violence. and that is an example of what i mention earlier regarding the u.n.'s recently improved capacity to address women's protection. but this must be establishmented by a similar initiative focused on supporting women's engagement in public agenda-setting and decision-making. the international response facility i am proposing will consistent of on-call experts ready to work with local women to facilitate their involvement in any and all official process es. u.n. departments and agencies are working to realize the commitments on women's participation that are in the secretary generals action plan on gender responsive peacebuilding. rapidly deployable,

interdisciplinary teams can help to bridge the divide between grassroots women and official processes. they can assist women's association to organization themselves in ways that will leverage their voices and sustain substantive participation. the international respond facility would act as a force multiplier for local women's movements that have seen the ranks decimated by conflict and instability. let me be clear, what we are talking about here is not only for the support of women's engagement in mediation and conflict resolution but also for direct involvement on an ongoing basis of women for gender equality specialist in all transition institutions. this will create duringable consultation structures that can be sustained over time, and the development of legal and technical capacity.

we are working in partnership with the department of political affairs and u.n. entities to make this happen. finally, women's peace and human rights movements need our support strengthening particularly for building our organizational capacity, especially while the conflict of crisis continues to rage. sometimes crisis and conflict thrust women into new, unconventional roles as leaders of peace, liberation, and democracy movements as we see so vividly in the arab states region right now. but despite phenomenal and even heroic engagement by women during the peace processes, this can dissipate quickly as members of women's group return to pick up neglected domestic roles. this is what happened during the process of political liberalization, probably it didn't happen completely, but a little bit in my own country. because women triggered and led

the democratization struggle. you can also see everywhere the women of the disappear one in march and demonstrating. everybody could be against them. police were against them. they took it in to peace. they did a lot of things, they say everybody, everybody for nobody will forget people who have disappeared. but at the moment of decision, however, women leaders and women's concerns were a little bit sidelined. and it took a long time for some of us to climb up through male-dominated party hierarchies. so international security institutions must increase massively our engagement with women at the grassroots. and for this, we must find a means of financing and supporting women's organizational development in fragile states long before conflicts end. donors often have difficulty supporting women's groups because the transaction costs are very high.

women's groups often need considerable support, simply in organizational establishment -- the costs of setting up accounting and reporting systems for instance. in a conflict context, i think one the issues that i saw in my own experience, that because donors -- or in my case, for example, a suppressed or minister, we were using fiscal money. we needed to be account many. they had to be accountable for that. we had so many papers they have to fill with so many strange words for them. for rest of the organization, it was a complicated issue. even though i know we need to be accountable, we need to find more simplified way for people from grassroots can really get the money they need. otherwise, they are always under the table if i may say. so our trying to find how we deal with simple, accountability

on the same hand. in the conflict context, well, i mentioned that in a grassroots organization, it was so difficult for them to fill the formal ads. in a conflict contest, they are compounded by security threats and the massive challenges of coping in crisis conflicts. yet, how can we expect women to be ready to seize opportunities for engaging in peace takes, constitutional reforms, democratic transitions if they are not organized. how can women realistically represent other women without going through the task of constituency building, debating women's interest groups, and finding effective means of representation. and this cannot be accomplished over night. u.n. women have supported women in this different situation there in afghanistan and haiti.

this find more brands to women's group providing violence against women, the essential future of the model that is focused on financing and basic operating cost for women's association, including developing capacity for accounting, documentation, and constituency outreach. the u.n. women will review this model for potential for scaling up where there is a need. finding a strength of women's association is a sound investment in peace. for this reason, i have included funding to women's organizations as a key indicator in the process of women, peace, and security agenda. this is one of almost 30 indicators that we will track as means of building accountability for meeting international commitments to women's protection and participation in conflict. they have given the task of indicating on the process of

resolution 1325. i had mentioned some key initiatives that we are taking to ensure women are leading and transforming conflict resolution and recovery. an example of how this initiatives can generate a changed approach to women's rights can be seen in the case of transitional justice. victims and survivors of serious human rights abuses committed during or after conflict theoretically possess the right to obtain redress or reparation. in practice, efforts to provide reparations have been uneven and underfunded. they have also tended to marginalize women. this particularly reflects the pre-existing legal biases, including prop ownership and a inheritance law that criminate against women. today i have a meeting with two women that represent different organization working on leaders. because many of this country,

the conflict many of the men died, there are lots of widows, and i'm talking young widows with lots of kids and no possibility of having access to inheritance to the property of the house, and so on. so they have been working. in the case of nepal, because nepal was a very important part of the people who were struggling there were women, 40% in the army. at the moment when the peace talks they did have, women concern and needs taken into consideration. i think if i'm not wrong, 32% of female parliamentaryies. of course at the beginning they were all dispersed. i met today the women that organized them. they started organizing themselves, collecting data, and bringing them to their authorities. now they have -- they are receiving a lot of benefits that passing some laws, they are

changed laws, so the situation can be improved. they haven't finished yet, but they are still doing a lot. that means -- that's why we mean how if the difference between women can be supported so they can organize themselves, they can collect data, and they can have a voice that will be heard. part of the problem is even when women are getting access to peace talks, gender equality is excluded from the process of deserving and operating justice institution. is it any wonder that they lack the legal provisions and government arrangement need to a more gender responsive approach to repairing the damages suffered by women in conflict. the initiative that i have discussed this evening would provide technical support for lasting institutional reforms for women's rights and maintaining women's participation.

and when i emphasize the word reparation. it's not because women's lives can be repaired through legal processes alone. in fact, i am hesitant to express women's role as victims at all. but reparations are also about empowerment. and we have experience in our country. we've had lots of laws to rep rate victims of human rights abuse. and i mention the reparation also means compensation, but empowerment. whether reparation is symbolic, and sometimes symbolic reparation is needed. we did both in our country. or material reparation. they went into the opportunities or between the people. both are needed, that i have to say. corporations can enable women to make active claims on the stakes. reparation can also involve

something that's very important. because we always speak about lessons learned. there's the old thing that we don't know the history we are condemned to repeat it and do it again. reparations is something that's important, and public acknowledge of abuses suffered by a country's women. if well designed, reparation programs can break the silence that increases too many survives of sexual violence. and let me quote an extraordinary survivor, committed by several years in eastern congo. a woman who currently runs a shelter for rape survivors. at a hearing conducted by the office of the high commissioner for human rights last year, she told an audience of her fellow citizens and i will quote her. what reparation do i want? i do want money. the only reparation i want is that you all see rape not as my

problem, but your problem. isn't it a great -- great quote. because it's really the essential issue of reparation and acknowledgment. in other words, a gender-responsive approach to reparations can demonstrate that women's security and their equal enjoyment of rights is central to an inclusive approach to national rebuilding. but like other examples that i have mentioned tonight, attention to women's rights cannot be an afterthought if these positive results are to be achieved. ladies and gentlemen, before i close, i cannot help asking me how eleanor roosevelt might have regarded the creation of u.n. women. my guess is that she would not have welcomed it -- at least not now. not in 2011. not this late.

mrs. roosevelt would likely have been shocked that six and a half decades after humankind declared universally the equality of all people, it would still be thought necessary to create a specialized agency to serve as tribune for half of them. the commission of the status of the women, which tomorrows concludes it's 55th annual session, was the sort of norm-shaping body that mrs. roosevelt championed. and even that august body, i am sure she would be have hoped to see redundant before now. as mrs. roosevelt knew obtaining formal equality was not the same as enjoying substantive equality. just as having one's right officially recognized is not the same as being able to exercise them, much less to effect social change. in 1934, eleanor roosevelt said,

and i quote, fourteen years since women's suffrage have now gone by. and everywhere people are asking, what have the women done with the vote? i often wonder why they don't ask the men the same question. and i have to tell you that when i made my first cabinet and it was -- you cannot imagine the kind of things that they said. why parity? you had to be talented people. i asked why they never ask that. i mean i didn't know, but i said the same thing. why do you ask the same when they are all men, or 75 or 90% men. eleanor roosevelt continues saying, i realize that it is a high compliment to women that they were expected to bring about marked clang in political

condition. it was a bow of domestic and strong women. instead, it is women themselves working together with men who in the end will bring about change in their own political condition. there's the french saying when women get involved in politics, they change. i hope it is true. new women now have a steadfast, committed partner. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> hello, everyone. i'd rob jenkins, i teach political science here at hunter college. and we were thrilled to have

madam bachelet some together. i know there were thousands of questions bubbling, but i get the first chance, fortunately, to ask ms. bachelet a few things from her talk. then we'll open it up to questions. we have c-span with us this evening. so that's a plus as well. so ms. bachelet, i wanted to start by asking you in light of the talk that you gave just now, and as someone who was caught up in the civil war of sorts in your own country, whether you could speak to how your personal experience affects how you address some of the issues of war and women and peace that you discussed. and you are unique in our experience of being someone who was a victim of conflict to some degree, a victim of human rights, and also someone who has helped to rebuild a new postauthoritarian chile.

how have your own personal experiences, and there are many, affected your approach to these issues. >> as you mentioned in my remarks, our essential thing was to -- when we were traveling for democracy was we had i would say one enemy that was a dictatorship, we needed to regain the democracy. i would say at that time, gender was not a discussion. but i had to say that women's organization were very strong fighters for democracy. and there was this huge movement of women for democracy where you could see people from many different perspectives even people in the past had been adversely, politically adversely sitting together and trying to find out ways to produce even strategies so that we can get

into each decision. and as i mention afterwards, this issues, not the principals ones. it was not that clear. never will say, you know what, we have to deal first with the essential structural changes in a transition time. but, of course, and we did start with an agenda affairs. but, of course, it was -- it was probably the less relevant minister of the time with the smallest budget. and things in the world still persist. they are called national gender machineries in the world are very weak and low budgets. we're going to travel so that can change. also because we are learned now and it's different than what thought in the past, women issue cannot be the issue of gender. first they are to be cross cutting sector issue. but -- and we also deal with the

age of human rights. and we tarted to organize or the of a high-level commission that could hear the voices of the people who had been a human rights victim. and there you could receive women and men, they were all treated and they were all attended and we developed special laws of reparation laws so widows, so children, victims or daughter or sons of the children of the political presenters or disappeared one could receive some reparation. because we understand two things. first it was important the truth. to break the silence. it was a very difficult moment. they were still the commander in chief. because to get into -- i mean we had a boat. and we boat in a constitutional

reform. and they know one that meant that they couldn't stay for eight more years. so there were elections there. but there were negotiations in between. so one the negotiations was that the state stayed as commander in chief for year. so that was a lot of tensions every day that you can imagine. but on the other hand, we advantage on trying the truth to be known. and the truth was not easy to be known. when there were so many people who were missing and nobody knew their whereabouts. but we deal to try to find a very fragile balance between -- to have -- to walk and advance in terms of giving the reparation and the knowledge and that knowledge of what has happened in our country. but on the other hand, try to avoid a political interest.

and on the other hand, we tried to respond to a very important problem that was the terrible -- i mean even chile was known by one the four economic performance that we had almost 47% of the population behind the line of poverty. so we had to deal with many different things to manage to develop the politics in a very democratic way, in parliament, they were sitting. people who have fought for democracy, and people who were in the military regime, and they have to sit together and to learn to work together because they were elected by the people. second we have the social problem that urgent social problem. they need to deal with poverty, and with strengthening of the public capacities of educational capacities, the health system capacities and so on. because they were in a very weak condition. and we also needed to take many

people out of poverty. but also as i mentioned to deal with human rights issues. so i think our transition was a very good model for chile. i don't believe that one size fits all. where we could at end and then we were form the constitution and so on. it could in the end i would say today we have a solid, mature democracy that could be able to elect women president, something unthinkable. some years ago. and i was no tragedy. i could be minister of defense with my story. there was no tragedy in the country. it was great. so i believe we did it in a way that we could really could get into a peaceful transition, but that could take -- take charge of all of the problems that the society has and try to do something that in our case was very important it is to try to

reencounter two parts of the society who at the past look at themselves, i mean especially one part, the one was government and dictatorship, they saw the other as enemy. because it's natural to have political adversity in the country. you have one party and another. you can look at each other. you cannot cannot -- you do not. adversities. but you never can see yourself as enemies. that weakens democracy. i believe that diversity is something that enriches the democracy. and democracy is much more than elected people. it's the capacity of being able to discuss with each other and get into agreement, or because sometimes there are conflict of interest so important or to deal in a good way, how to profess the disagreements. i think in chile, we learned the

disagreements. not always. sometimes in politics there are some very difficult moments. some people sometimes forget what our history. : >> if we think of transitions from war to peace and

transitions from authoritarian to democratic rule, we have to think today of north africa and the middle east. concretely, what can u.n. women do to ensure that women who are part of those transitions and were part of the street protests are not filtered out once the discussions move into committee rooms and hard bargaining. now, the answer might be u.n. women on their own can't do anything. we work in partnership, but i think it's helpful for people to have a sense of really what sort of engagement is possible. >> well, you know, usually, as you mentioned, u.n. works with national organizations and national government, not only women issues, but all issues. usually, with government, it's man-driven, but there in the countries, there are a lot of women, a lot of organizations

that have been doing a lot of things in the universities, in the civil society, and what we can do is to strengthen the capacities to help them, if they need, for example, in having, producing a lot of information for example, compare constitutions in many different areas of the world. specifically those constitutions for transition of kind. we can help in providing them, if they don't have it, with the tools that permit them that voice to have all the necessary tools to convince the ones who are in charge of those reforms that this is a specific opportunity. nobody can lose, so women in any part of the world can really

trust that democracy. those countries should take into consideration how this new constitution really includes women's rights, gender equality, and members of parliament, so we will be -- we are, already, shall we say, trying to produce all the necessary data, information, and support for women's organizations, and i think they need also to identify champions of women's organizations that can help them on this behalf. >> all right, now, one thing i wanted to raise was i was involved last year on women's participation peace program which you spoke about in your lecture, and one of the things that came up frequently as we were engaged in consultations with member state and others in producing this report was the issue why is it -- we heard from

from developing country states, african member states particularly, why is it when it comes to war in conflict, it's at its most as a rule necial, national authorities has the least bargaining power, why is that the moment that the strongest women's rights pressure is broight to bear on them in order to reform civil services in order to make them more gender responsive? all the things in the report. we said why is it only when countries are weak we have this externally imposed feminist agenda on us? i'm not saying, of course, that i agree with that critique, but it is one that comes frequently, and i wonder whether in your position as head of u.n. women, one way down the line you'll be able to counter that charge is if your organization takes a strong stand on a number of countries that aren't weak post-conflict, recovery, post-transition countries, countries like the united

states, saudi arabia, so i guess the question is whether or not it's possible for u.n. women to deal with the hard cases so to armor yourself when it comes time to dealing with post-transition cases and make yourself able to say we do not discriminate on the basis of the power of the member state concerned. we advocate for women's rights whenever and wherever possible. >> absolutely. we have global mondays. this was a general discussion in general assembly before u.n. women was approved. i spoked to the u.n. women and thought this could be the most interesting thing for many people, but we do have other tasks, and i have prioritized empowering women, empowering women everywhere, and it's specifically political because there we are in a, i would say, slower progress and

economically, and that's everywhere, and also a very important issue that is ending is violence against women. ending violence against women is everywhere, and it is in this country. in this country it's cost $5.4 billion a year in terms of health, care, mental health care, productivity loss based on out of work and so on, and we -- and in canada, we know how much it costs the states. the report from the cbc and u.k. and in other countries they don't measure how it costs, but it is a worldwide issue, and we just the day before yesterday, we had a meeting with the mission of finland about the u.n. trust fund ending violence against women, and we had people from jamaica and others showing what interventions do work on

ending violence on women and empowering women, and everybody agrees there that this is a universal issue. we will be advocating everywhere, not only in the more vulnerable countries, but and because if you think on developed worlds, we have a lot of problems. in the developed world maybe women can have more opportunities, but still, this would poll from the white house show that in this country the opportunities, the salaries was different. if we talk about location, what you call americans -- i don't know what you call it, you're -- [laughter] for me it was strange when i came to the united states, and i was not -- i had to put myself on the -- i was not vocation. i was like an american. i never understood why they divided things like that, and so i would say asian, caucasian? caucasian-american.

african-american? latin american? i mean, it was completely different. the societies were incredible. you also have issues to work with, but if you think on developed worlds, and for example, my grant workers and domestic workers, they usually don't have good labor conditions, so there are lots of issues that developed worlds have to deal with. we will be watching on that, helping as making it a focus, or if it's not needed or in many cases, not needed, giving technical support, but, of course, the main efforts have to be in the most vulnerable countries where women are powerless and where the lack of funds makes government sometimes not being able to advance much faster, and women's organizations not being able to organize more stronger, so it's

not an issue of discrimination against some countries. on the contrary -- of course we will be going and working hard, but one important issue for the u.n. is governments will agree on that, but most of the government have found that all the conventions, they deem this for all. the framework is there, and if they need help from us, we provide it, and i hope we have much more funds because then we will be able to help much more the women of the world. >> all right. i want to open it up for questions, and i think we have a microphone person here. please make sure that you identify yourself and for organization before asking your question, and i'll ask our first questioner here in the third row to put forth your question. this is a hunter college student, so please go ahead,

stand up if you wouldn't mind. >> hi, thank you so much for coming and thank you so much for that wonderful speech. my question actually is something you alluded to earlier, and it's about funding. how would u.n. women fund its wps initiative and other initiatives in the coming years? do you have an estimated annual budget? how do you feel funding forces have responded so far? so looking ahead, what's next? >> i'm not sure everybody could hear the question, but the question is where's the money to do all of the good things that were put forth in the lecture, and what sort of response as u.n. faced in its early rounds of seeking the sources both from the u.n. general assembly budget committees and voluntary donors. >> well, one of the things when you have lived essentially in a country, in a minister or president, a specific a country

like mine, usually the money comes from the fiscal space, and you can work with the private sector to get some money, but, for me, i read when u.n. women was approved in the resolution that it says it was an approved budget of $500 million, and i read also that the -- i believed it was not enough, and we needed at least $1 billion, so i said -- i didn't imagine at that time i would be the executive director of u.n. women, but i said, okay, good. $500 million for the women, but when i came here, i learn how it is. first women have the $500 million. we have like one-third of it. second, from the budget from the u.n. of this one-third, from the u.s. budget is only 1.4% of all

the budget for u.n. women. all the rest 98.6% is from voluntary contributions, from donors and nondonors. i was in the republic, and i didn't know the reality for all the u.s. system. in some places 1.8, in some fewer, and everything is voluntary contributions. if you ask me can you do your work without money, and we put it together with high expectations, how that you say document? hopes are high. [laughter] well, yeah, high expectations. u.n. women, on me being appointed, so we need to fund raise, and in order to fundraise, we need to be able to have very strong data to show

the reality and the need. we need to work with donors, and we work with donors in terms to pledge money, but not only pledge it, but give the money in the right time also. it's the third condition. four, i would say private sector and nontraditional because donors due to the current economical crisis or financial crisis, donors have varied by shape, but they still are expecting their commitments, and spain has been a very clear example, a very clear example of people really -- i mean, the best two donors are the toughest donors, and then comes a lot of other countries, the two ones are very high donors, so we hope all this excitement with u.n. women, all this commitment with

reflect in funds, but we understand that we cannot expect only from traditional government, so we will be making complaining with private sector, with women's organizations. women's organizations have told us they will support us, so i don't know that we're going to get all the money that we want, probably not. we want so much, but at least with the money we have we need to work in a good way, improve our effectiveness and efficiency, but we also have to think and incentivize the rest of the u.n. system to spend more in women because there would never be the money for the u.n. women, and that's why i mentioned we won't replace the rest, and we will be holding accountable all the systems, so

u.n. bp has to do more projects for women. you can imagine that in africa the cultural force -- i mean, in the world the average is 60%. in africa and some countries it's almost 85%, but they all only have 2% of the land, and when you see how much money from different privates go to women, it's like 2% too, so we can improve that, direct more to women, and i am really looking forward to -- i would say push for this huge project for women because there -- i mean, women who know how to produce fantastically, but they don't have water supply or if they do have, they make the product that they can sell, and when you

don't have the storage capacity, you have to go quickly to the market, and you cannot negotiate good prices, and also we can give technical assistance so they can add value to a product, so not only produce tomato, but can it, sam, whatever -- salt, whatever, and i think this will help so much, and, of course, many other things needed, and you can look in the concrete situation, so all these thinkings from people from far, the institution for development of agriculture, special fund. with the people of the world program and how could we think big? you know, because we're doing great things, but still focusing o small group of people, a small group of women, and i'm sure the many governments, many women organizations would be so happy

that we can work together exactly like that. >> i wanted to pick up before the next question which is you said you were welcomed heartly by member states and others, but you're not sure all the money is going to come through. there's other areas you set forth with the discrepancy what member states do at the u.n. and what they do in their general foreign policy comes up, and as a former president, i guess you know foreign policy is not necessarily the same thing at u.n.'s policy, but why it makes a difference in the women's engagement in peace is that we often point the finger of blame at the u.n. system for not providing gender experts to mediation processes or insisting that women are engaged in negotiating delegations, but it's not just the u.n. system. of course, there's many member states engaged in their own free lance diplomacy like the united united states and other regional powers. is there a way in your position now and the respect you're held in by other world leaders to go

directly to member states and those engaged in contact groups and friend groups, engage in mediation to put them on the spot so to speak to say you speak a good game in new york at the security counsel, what about pushing behind the scenes in the mediation you engaged in for more women at the table, more negotiators, mediators, is that something to be done or your hands are tied in your new role? >> no, no, no, we can do all of that and we have done a lot of that and thinking about the commitments and important political commitment has to be reflected also in the funds, but talking about mediator, we have to be fair that i say we have enough women mediators, but still when i came into office, they told me we didn't have, so in this program that we're going to develop, a dlee-year -- three year program we are strengthening women skills and capacity, but to be fair, that's

not enough. when you have parties, they need to accept the mediators. you cannot impose the mediators, and you can't impose because the mediator has to be somebody who represents something for the people who are there in the negotiations. you have to be something that is respected, and you are seen as a leader, so you cannot put any man or any women. it's not an issue of women. it's an issue -- you have to have somebody there that means something to the people that in some sense has something to negotiate at least politically, so that's probably one of the main problems with women mediators that we can't have great women, extraordinary women, strong ones, but you don't -- you cannot -- i mean, it could be a marvelous woman in europe, but you cannot put her in the peace talks in the arab world for instance because maybe it does not mean anything to them, so you cannot impose. that's the challenge, and i

think the challenge -- and we have great women everywhere -- is to try to identify the women who are leaders. i think mediation, you can always learn the skills, the essential issues to identify women leaders and to work to the develop more leadership in women because i think that's essential. it's an issue of leadership. >> i think we have some questions here in the second row, many questions. starting here, and then working our way back. please identify yourself. >> thank you very much for your talk and for your presentations regarding women in war and peace. i am from brazil, a professor of an throe poll ji, and i'm also the coordinator of the national observatory that's monitoring a

nebraska -- [inaudible] i know you know about it, and i'm here with the delegation here because of my position of national coordinator, and my question goes in the way of asking you about what are the plans to increase if there are any plans, the u.n. front to combat violence against women? i know that it's been a big effort that way, but i think there's another area of violence against women that i don't see in any other fund or any of the discussions which is how violence affects women. we talked about proposition 235 and talk about what's done in brazil and in the conflict room, and it's no, you don't know what it's like to live in a big city, in a poor neighborhoods in the

northeast of brazil. these are conflict zones and we have to look and see how women are effected because of urban violence in the big cities, so i'd like to leave those questions for you, and i know that you're doing everything you can to increase that fund, so, thank you. >> well, i think i have to say that i mean, that is a country like brazil of women precedence, many more women have opportunities in the world, and i'm sure they will play that role in trying to open more opportunities for women, not only in brazil, but for the rest of the world because i was at a chair that i was never sitting at the g8 or g20, but she will be representing the voices of the women because women are also absent of the big discussion.

in the financial crisis, did you ever see something about how the crisis was impacting the women? the only organization that this road, and i will say champion about it was ioa lope who with the crisis in the resolutions says that conflict with women and men, the crisis also did it, but there's never been gi g20 that men said nothing about that. in clime change for the -- climate change for the first time in mexico it was the first time there was a line saying it impact differently. we'll have it this year and next year, august 20, i hope we can have proposals in that direction, so i hope she will represent that and be a champion there. on the other hand, you ask about

about -- we have a u.n. trust fund and therefore ending violence against women and secretary's unit against violent against women and incooperating more men and boys. violence against women is not a women issue. it's the whole society. we need counterparts to speak to the others and have good ways of solving problems, not through violence, but with the children when they are little. that's what they receive in an abusing moment. we are working a lot and fundraising, and secretary yale has a goal that's like $100 million a year, so that's part of the job. you mentioned something in my meeting will the caribbean

group, the mexican says thunderstorm watch -- this much, and security in some countries is not synonyms in countries after crisis, but even countries after crisis like guatemala, today's problem is organized crime, but trafficking and so on. i cant tell you much about this because the u.n., united nations is going to organize, we are organizing ourselves in a different way to tack m this problem because we understand that this is not only violation of human rights, but there's no democracy that can survive in a good way. i mean, you cannot make effective, you're right, if you cannot be out of your home after five o'clock in the afternoon. now, it happens in many places where the murder in all these

places, i mean, there's terror in the streets and so on, so i'll tell you we are going to deal with that because we understand that security is much more, and not only for women, but for men, but specifically for women. we are aware of that, and in the united nations we are making decisions very shortly. i think we'll be able to respond in a much better way. >> all right, woman here in the third row if you could grab the mic. >> i'm a u.n. committee member, and i would like to pose a question to you connected with ratification of convention by not yet ratified states and conventions including the united states, the plan to encourage ratification by the united states and other countries not yet ratified, and how you with planning to connect the work of the high commissioner for human rights with respect to

implementation of this global women's human rights and mitigating the world standards for all countries with the discrimination against humans. thank you. >> well, we have worked with the high commissioner in establishing mechanisms not only on that, but all areas, specifically trying to identify who's going to do what and when because very involved in the human rights situation, u.n. women has other issues al. we are also discussing what mechanism will be developing in terms of being able to provide information and all the data you need. on the other hand, we receive all the information you have in terms of being able to sort of the money, tooling, and reporting so we can make a role

in ensuring that it is being implemented. we'll know that people, that many time member states find a lot of resolutions, conventions, and so on as many countries with lots of laws, but there is the implementation gap. we will be working with any or all countries that are fine and find out how we can help them in terms of filling this gap so they can implement. there's so many countries that find everything, whatever you can imagine, and then nothing's happening, so it's not only the fining issue, but it's important. of course, it's important. in the case of the u.s. and its -- i understand, it's an issue that's in the congress,

huh? of course we will be always focusing with anybody in terms of how important it is to ratify conventions than are looking is to ensure gender equality and women's rights, so i hope so this will be a reality soon because there was a lot of interest in the u.s., in the constitution for u.n. women, and u.n. and u.s. women's organizations was very strong part of the campaign for a new entity with new roles, so i have to tell you we can do our part, but you know what? you can do -- you have to do your job. i mean, parliament will likely be reelected, so it's the

constituencies you have to convince them. i have to tell everybody i will be working very hard on women's rights because i believe it's human rights, but that's not enough argument, and i will be working strongly on producing data, hopefully, maybe one day country by country, because we don't have that right now. why is it so important politically? is it human rights? yes, but there's so many people making decision not based on human rights, and then you have to deal with a strong economical case, social and political case where it is essential, and, of course, in the same with the view of human rights, but we always stay on the human rights idea, unfortunately, that doesn't work many times, so i'm going to work very strong arguments. if -- i'll do my part, but i need others fighting to do their part, not only because of

funding, but because people who are in the position or in parliament, they need to know what the citizens -- constituents think about that. they need to feel that that is important for them because that's one thing they take into consideration before passing a law or voting against it and so on, so we will do our part, but we need you. >> everyone has their marching orders. i'm told we have time for one last question, and the lady in the second to last row. >> thank you very much. i'm grace anne, and i'm here with the hunter college model u.n.. my question being a student of political science and also a female, being able to ask a woman and a diplomat, i'd like to know from your personal experience if you feel the voice

of a woman is as loud as listened to as a man's in international policymaking or still old stigmas are preventing the women from having strong as a voice on the floor. >> i have to correct you. i'm not a diplomat. [laughter] maybe i would have said a lot of things if i had been a diplomat. [laughter] i'm learning. i'm learning to be a dip employee mat. [laughter] it depends. if you are the president, i can tell you, they hear your voice. [laughter] especially if you're in a country like mine where the international policy is the responsibility of the precedent, not of the congress. in this country, it's different, so -- but i would tell you it's not easy. when we started the first cabinet when i was minister, every time we spoke, our male

colleagues were noninterested, like it was not interesting what we were talking about. [laughter] until they got to know us very well and to see we were very good, and then they respected us, and they started taking us into consideration, and see, so sometimes in countries where there are a lot of prejudices or disparities, sometimes women's voices are not heard, in international affairs, any any affairs, but, you know, the only -- if i may say suggestion, is to know exactly what you want, to know exactly what is needed, to be very well prepared, and to never give up because when i became minister, i always say that i had in myself all the possible sins, political sins. i was a woman, first female

minister, i was divorced. i wasn't catholic. [laughter] what else? i was a socialist. [laughter] can you imagine something worse? [laughter] i told that to the commander in chief in my first meeting. i know. you have a lot of doubts because i'm this, and this and this and this, but believe me, we're going to work perfectly. it was like that because i had determination, i was very well prepared, i had experience of minister, and i learned in my home and to make decisions because my father was a general, and my mother was a very strong woman. i will tell you to give you another example i was in the last year of my government with an economic crisis. let me say before, we had a

wonderful moment of very high corporal prize and everybody was pushing, particularly my colleagues, but the funded position that i should start everything, and because my minister of finance and i thought it was reasonable, he told me, you know what? he had this power, during, i think it was between first war and second war, it was very useful in a lot of things, so we produced a lot, but secondly, it was too expensive, so, of course, what happens and with the technology, they invented something to replace it. it was a main asset, and we lost everything, so we thought, you know what, culprit is important, but it's not extending everything in the budget. let's keep some of this money.

in special funds like the nor ones and so if we're going to educational reform and so on, we'll have the money, and we'll be able to -- what's the word? english? no, i mean, to -- disconnect, that's not a good word, the strength of the economy to the strength of the social benefits, so even the economy's bad, we have the funds to continue to give the benefits. what happened is that when i made that decision, you can imagine, everybody was against me, by approval rates went down, down, down, down, and i was torn. i said, nope, and the few went up, and everybody says use the money to compensate the prices. i said, no, we need to have this money in case.

i didn't know that that was going to happen, otherwise i would have with the price of the economy, but, it happened that the crisis came, and when i crisis came, it affected chili because they had the develop of their economy and all the forestry, u.s. was the first to buy us, so we had a terrible problem in the forestry and so on, so we knew what we had to do. this is the problem, these are the areas affected, and these is how unemployment is rising. we went to countries, specific regions, developed regional programs in terms of developing employment, trying to boost economies, and even the people so they can have most of the demand, and so we did a lot of

things. you know what? it was important that i knew what i had to do, and i also had the money to do it. many countries didn't have the resources. why i'm telling you this is not because i'm crazy and forgot your question -- [laughter] it's because the important thing is to know the problem and the solutions of the problem and to maintain your position. i would have been much more popular if i would have been populist. i did spend a lot, it's not that i was -- i didn't cut any benefit. because i had the money, i improved all the benefits of the country, but we have made tough decisions when it was necessary, not that bad -- not within cutting anything. that's tough, but then we could do a stimulus plan, and our

stimulus plan was not with the banks because fortunately for us in the 80s we had the terrible financial crisis, and in that time, we introduced all the regulatory we needed in terms of reducing risk, so we didn't have a huge financial impact in the last crisis, only the ones with money in other banks, so i tell you, even though it's not easy, don't give up. be prepared, know exactly what needs to be done, and you will be republicked and recognized. it might take time, but it doesn't matter, it will be worth it. [applause] [applause] >> we wish you the best. we are all here. we will heed your call. we will help and we really wish

you the best, and thank you thank you. >> thank you. [applause] [applause] >> i ended with 85% of approval. [laughter] when i have to decide not to use all the money, i was like in 40%. [laughter] i don't think you can go in with trying to have good approval. you have to make the good choices and the good decisions. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> up next on c-span2, a discussion on coverage of the u.s. court of appeals and new media. then, economist drien wesbury on the u.s. economy.

later, an update on an employment discrimination suit involving wal-mart. >> next, a discussion on blogs and other media technologies on providing information about the federal courts of appeal. we'll hear from a number of judges and national law journal, supreme court cor spot and this

20 minute conference from earlier this month was organized by the renne qis center and the american bar association. >> we're ready to start with our second panel, and this panel will be moderated by the professor, and academic contributor to the aba mediator alerts project. it's called anonymous no longer and federal appeals in the new media. thank you. >> it's hard to imagine a page better than this. it's the great job to be the moderator this morning. the judges before you illustrate why the american judiciary is the envy of the world, and others say the same about journalism. a quick word to impress upon you

the caliber of the judicial wisdom you see before you, one of the judges was brave enough to reject my letter of clergy application. [laughter] had i occasion to apply to the other two, i'm sure they would have rightly done the same. [laughter] i'll introduce the panelists in order. it is impossible to summarize her biography in any fashion doing it justice. at various stages of the professional career, judge barr cet before the bench was a none, an elementary and high school teacher, and a private lawyer and private practice after graduation from the university of florida. she was appointed a florida sir cut court judge in 1979 and an associate justice at the florida supreme court in 1984. she was three firsts in that republic. first female supreme court

justice, first arab american in florida, and the first hispanic court justice in dplors. i'll let you figure out how that's possible. upon her nomination, the court had to make a number of changes. the bathrooms were labeled justices and women. of course, that had to change. after serving as chief justice on the supreme court, president clinton appointed her to the 11th circuit serving from 1994 to the present. she knows about media in the courts having been the subject of political attack ads, and the politician attacks her in each instance lost the campaign. judge earned his ph.d. from yale law school after earning a p had from harvard years earlier. he was a scholar of the highest cage beer from the member --

caliber and the author of numbers of books in the arts and sciences. president clinton no , ma'am gnatted him to the second circuit in march of 1999 and won con confirmation from the senate a couple months later. this is world record time for a senate confirmation. since assuming the judicial duties, he earned fame for his opinions and particular efforts on immigrants caught up in the legal system. it bears mentioning that the judge is the chair of the subcommittee on the judicial branch committee that explains his participation here today. among the country east most widely read and respected journalists. a masters in journalism from columbia, covered the supreme court in 1979 through "usa today" and covered the court

continuously since then. he contributed to a number of books including "illustrated great decisions of the supreme court," and i had a chance to read the book, and i can think of no better text to introduce someone to the supreme court. he's been twice listed as among the top 50 journalists in the city, but keep in mind, this is just one city with not that many journalists, so it's not that big of an achievement. [laughter] finally, margaret mcewen is innative of wyoming and graduate of the georgetown. she has her jd and also an hon their degree. she practiced in seattle becoming the firm's first female partner. bears mentioning that the firm has offices in 17 cities worldwide now and hundreds of

lawyers. she also worked in the carter white house for the secretary of interior, a job i assume helped prepare her for the duties on the 9th circuit with the heavy case load of environmental land use. she earned perhaps the less desired distinction of being nominated twice, and the senate wised up in 1998 and confirmed her and has been on the court since then. she has written on business and commercial topics with a particular topic on trade secret lit gages. with this experience, it's wise for your moderator to stay out of the discussion. i hope what i -- i'll ask what are open ended questions and let the panel take over. i hope we have time for audience par participation as well. the title suggests that the work of the appellate court is

anonymous and can use new media. my first question then is this, is the federal appellate court anonymity a problem? why should they deserve more scrutiny? >> let me just set the stage first, and that as professor merck said, sometimes the courts that nobody knows, and yet for the vast majority of federal cases being large or small, profile or no profile, the court of appeals is the last resort. that's especially illustrated with these statistics. look at the last 20 years, look at the supreme court, they started with about 125 cases that they decided by opinion each year, and that's, of course, progressively declined over the years, and now it covers essentially in the 70s. at the same time, in the federal court of appeals, the filings

have sky skyrocket the over that same 20 year period from about 47,000 filings up to 68,000, and now we're leveling off in the 57,000-58,000 cases in the federal courts of appeals. that means the supreme court is taking maybe one eighth of the percent of the cases leaving the court of appeals as the court ofless resort. it's a sand wimp. you have the higher cases, and we're like a little part of the middle of that sandwich that people haven't heard about. i might add that sometimes when we try to explain ourselves people don't understand this. one time i was at a seminar where i was explaning to a public group what the circuit court did and what the 9th circuit did. a gentleman raises his hand and says you must be very tired. i said, really, why do you say that? he said, well, you say that you ride the circuit and

particularly because you're a night court, i imagine you don't get much sleep. [laughter] i said, well, actually, we're the 9th circuit, but you have to good point. [laughter] why the anonymity? just a couple comments and we'll move on. one is a structural geographic issue, and that is that the appeals are heard in major metropolitan areas, but they come from multistage jurisdictions so if you're, for example, in the 8th circuit, cases are herd in st. louis or minute. if you're in the 10th circuit rntion it's denver, but it could be a case from kansas. if you're in the 9th circuit, it could be nine states from alaska down to the mexican border, but it could be heard in san fransisco. there's a disconnect where the cases are heard and the genesis of the cases. also, this challenged the news media, more of a local

structure. i think the change in the media will enhance the visibility of the federal courts, and finally, some would say that some judges don't want to have any profiles, don't want to remain ano , ma'am mouse which may or may not be a good thing, but sometimes the work product itself while important and substantive may not really be a big sound bite. you start in the appellate opinion and you read the following, something like this: john smith appeals the court's denial of his rule 56th summary judgment motion in relation to his claim that -- and that doesn't real grab the media as tony would tell us. finally, there's little public participation. this is the largest audience in years, actually.

[laughter] i usually look out and there's one or two people in the courtroom and i wonder which is the party and who is related to whom. it's a guessing game. with that, there are structural and sub substantive issues as to why we have in effect flown under the radar. >> just to follow-up briefly with the statistics from the 2nd circuit, it consistents of new york, vermont, and connecticut. we have dispositions running in the range of 7,000 cases per year, and if you want to look, for example, at traditional media coverage, in 2008, looking at the judicial media, that is to say the print media, there were 32 cases discussed in the

traditional media. last year, there were some 55 cases, so when you think about just the number of dispositions that we have versus the coverage, now, obviously, not every case is important. we know that, but you can see a huge gulf between the numbers of cases decided and actual coverage. i'm excluded the specialized newspaper in new york, the new york law journal, that routinely covers the work, but i'm talking about "new york times," "washington post," and other journals nationwide that cover general news. >> i look at this a little differently. yes, the numbers are important in that -- but regardless of

what the numbers are, it seems to me that our system of government really depends upon the cooperation of all the branches of government and the public in a kind of different and unique way. we often speak about the fact that the judiciary doesn't have an enforcement mechanism, we have no police force, and so that ultimately we rely to a great extent on the validation of the application of our constitutional principles by acceptance by the public of the principles espoused, and when it happens that much of our law is now being made by the courts of appeal as margaret and robert point out, it seems to me there's a common obligation to cover those courts so that the public does understand what is being -- what is happening with the law in our country.

much -- i think there is a real responsibility to raise consciousness of societal views pertaining to the application of principles to new fact patterns, and i could tell you i'm prepared to talk about not specifically, but many issues which are being resolved by courts of appeal which i think could benefit from a lot of conversation about whether those opinions are right, wrong, or how they -- how maybe they could have been resolved differently. cases, for example, that a dress whether or not a private prison management company is not a public entity even though it's doing exactly what what the state department of corrections would do. it's not a private company subject to the american disability's about. was that covered? conversation about whether it should be or shouldn't be seems

to many should be part of our national conversation, and there are many other -- there are many other areas in which i think we could benefit from exposure as it were to the public about what cases are being heard and what holdings are being espoused by various courts of appeal. i wanted to say -- wanted to make one comment about the blogging situation. yes, we are being covered extensively by bloggers, right wing blogger, left wing bloggers, but i'm not talking about being covered by bloggers. i'm talking about being covered by a neutral press core that will examine the opinions in the cases the same way they examine fact pattern, and i think the public is entitled to have that kind of coverage rather than the coverage by people who have appoint of view to express. i think we need neutral coverage of opinions to explane to the

public exact -- explain to the public exactly what is being held. i think we are too anonymous, and i think it would be a healthy and a good thing to have more exposure about the kinds of cases we are resolving. >> mr. mori row, what obstacles make appeals difficult? >> well, the first is geographic as was said. you know, when i first came to washington, i covered the supreme court for the gazette chain of papers, and i would see a supreme court case originating from rochester, and i'd call up the local editor there, and the editor would say -- i'd say what the case was, and they say, i don't remember that. there was a big trial six years ago, and then we lost track of it, and that's where it was for all these years, at the appeal

court level, but because the appeals court is either in new york or atlanta, you know, somewhat removed, that's a problem. i think the other -- there are other obstacles, we'll get into some, but one that was said that the way the appeals court rulings are written, they are not really grabbers. my suggestion is write them better. [laughter] use a little verb and clarity and understand that, you know, that there is, and we'll get into this later too about the obligation of the courts, but i think there's an obligation for the courts to explain themselves clearly and i think it can only improve what the public

understands. there are -- there have been also developments even before the new, new media, but that have raised -- there's a number of high profile hearings, and i think the general awareness that something does happen between the trial court level and the supreme court, but we certainly need to do more. we spoke of the need of a neutral press core to cover the cases fairly. in light of the state of journalism today, do you think there are sufficient journalistic resources to adequately cover the work of the federal appellate courts in the fashion discussed? >> well, i think it is a reality that my industry is not doing well. the news industry in that there are enormous gaps in coverage,

not just the courts, but especially the courts, i think, judges used to complain that the media coverage of the courts was lousy, and now they're complaining we never see any reporters in the courts. ..

it may have a somewhat more casual tone than a news gory, but it's reported and hopefully is not on one side or the other. generally overall there's more coverage of court. >> part of the problem is that there is -- there was anyway and i'm going back to the time when i was involved in retention campaign and i've seen and observed other states having gone through this process of merit retention campaigns, but part of a problem that seem to name existed with reference to the media is that they did not do the reporting of the cases they might have debuted the reporting of a factual situation, something that actually occurred. in my case anything then, other

cases where judges are being attacked. the report -- the newspaper story has to do with what so-and-so said about your opinions. so and so said judge barkett's opinion court judge on this opinion has done this, dizziness, but they never in the articles they would be opinion actually said. and mike arrington might today within florida, as many of you know, we have been very much involved in the process between the media and the court, i believe. and many of my conversations with my colleagues in the press would really do a complaint that if someone came to band said judge so-and-so was caught streaking in the mall for some pain, they would never chew most publishing that if in fact a judge had been stricken in the law.

whereas when they report that somebody said something characterized in an opinion in a particular way, thinking specifically of an opinion, for an example, that our court had permitted ultimate decisions to be made by guardian based upon the witches of a person who is dying and the florida supreme court has now endorsed euthanasia, which obviously was not. but nowhere -- not until later in the campaign did the "miami herald" for whom i'm very grateful, you see these opinions and see if they stay with these people are saying. i very much appreciated that, but it took a long time to get to that. i think that is the concept i was referring to when i said we need a issue a press corps. we need someone to report to the opinions. i don't care.

it seems to me to report it fairly. what is it that i actually said? >> malik greatly enjoyed to tell the judges to make it to speak on this man's name to close my mouth and i will happily keep quiet. >> great job that judge mcewan has started with the apa, will everything wear, but it's a project in which they are essentially brief summary of case is that are available before argument. and i think this will have a very useful impact in terms ultimately of the way the cases are covering stories in the near

court of appeals and they're not second circuit and they are not reporters who have an understanding of the court. at least they can turn to this source and have a sense of what the critical issues are facing the corner. i think it's a very valuable initiative. but we try to do the second circuit from time to time their state courts is to have gathering of journalists and judges worried make ourselves available to answer general questions about the way our courts function. because unless you are a beat reporter, you don't really have that background. and public understanding depends upon these journalists who

essentially mediate the discussion. justice o'connor's very important project in understanding court premised in part on the basic notion they would improve understanding about how the courts operate. if there is that understanding, there is likely i believe i don't think naïvely, to be more respect for what court do. and so, things that we can do is court in april or delay to stimulate discussions with journalists, not about case is under review, but about the process by which we undertake our work. i think those kinds of things are very important. and but judge mcewan is doing, justice o'connor's project of

understanding is vitally connected to what we're hearing on this panel. >> project is called media lawyer to the court of appeals in a diverse set out of the discussion like this, and in the courts are covered. how do you cover them? you have to really natural media market. new york and you have a fairly close alignment between upmarket in the state and the second circuit. the d.c. circuit is to is to not be assigned the supreme court is happily had ordered but there is a lot of press. but that's not really true as they move up and take "the new yorker" cartoon at the east coast. the thought was, how could we do some thing that was of value to the press with the shrinking press, they don't have time to send reporters to the court room reporters from louisville and

not necessarily going to be covering case in the thick circuit, for example. so we were trying to figure out a way to use the new media to advances. and what we came up with was the media alerts on the federal courts of appeals. and what this says is essentially a daily service, circuit by circuit that includes short summaries of key cases coming out of the circuit on that particular day. and it includes contact information for the lawyers and then a summary. so how do we do this? is a huge undertaking. we did it through the good graces of law schools and their students. there are now -- the project was started in late 2009, so really it's been up and running just over one year and we now have nine circuits represented on this. and there are professors that

oversees student in writing the short summaries. one of those is here from the university of texas and professor marcus, professor link whiskered does the fifth circuit. professor marcus put the ninth circuit at the university of san diego because it such a large circuit. what they do in creating aces try to put them in plain english. when we started these by experimentation, we sent a few of these tony and said how do you like these? he said well, i don't. he said you might think this is english, the people who actually read and speak english wouldn't really view it that way. great learning experience for the students. so a few more rounds to get prototypes of what it takes to not only get the soundbites to get the essence to have quotations so that a reporter can take, in effect, a news for the blurb and report on it or follow up on it. but in some cases, that maybe all the reporter is doing. so we like to think these are

not intended. we believe that to bloggers and others here but the values you have already made press story if you want. your public access and you also have quite an interesting educational opportunity or students working with not only professors and others. we now have over 500 subscribers. a soap income is free to the public. the website is supported by the aba. i actually sign-up said this morning that not only conquering its circular a court. we have a public information officer at our core to make it new key cases, comments, blogs and the ninth circuit that comes to the core. from the library at the court, get another media alert. and then i look and get the aba media because i don't have time to go through the other thousands opinions in the court

of appeals. it's a quick way to look and see what's happening across the country because that is the narrow circuit and what others are doing it quickly do it. tony may not want to comment -- she's the user of the product. >> it's very, very helpful. when they want to mention is attested around the problem of laughing in the panel, the concern of -- that the courts don't want to be in the positions highlighting one murder case over another murder case, but this is done, it's the law schools that are doing the screening and putting out summaries of significant cases. so it's not the court itself saying this is a big deal and this other cases that. >> that was an important part of it. the courts are elected chewed up for obvious reasons. there is some obvious cases on the courts of appeals, which are of high, high interest.

certainly the same-sex marriage case set of the ninth circuit appears in other cases that are in the circuit. it goes without saying that they'll be high profile. but there are other very significant important cases in the circuit doesn't want to pick and choose. [inaudible] >> -- but the briefs that have been done. by former law clerk, and michael baldwin is supervising and judge mckeown said the students just love it. it's a tremendous learning experience for them. and when i read these briefs, i'm very encouraged by the quality of information that is out there. if only it were read by everybody that we can control. >> this doesn't really say of a larger problem. somebody actually has read this website or receive these alerts are due some pain but them.

and it does raise it larger problem as to whether the courts should be doing more to raise their profile. one of the studies a number of years ago said that the biggest impediment in terms of the public view of the court since really basic understanding of the courts. and that is the team at goodyear with justice o'connor's project and others, that people really don't understand the courts. and i think we are just starting to tackle that issue in the courts of appeals. we can come back to some of the things the ninth circuit has done. i'd be happy to talk about those later. >> well, one way arguably the work of the appellate courts can better be understood is that the appellate courts permit cameras in the courtroom about the public watch their proceedings. i didn't intend that as an advocacy statement, although it might have come across as such.

i think i might be in good company on this panel. i wonder if the judges made describe their surrogates, and also their experiences in the appellate court room, maybe discuss the ways in which concerns at the trial court level might might not be applicable at the appellate level. >> first of all, my core policy is not to have cameras in the court room or anywhere near. i don't agree with my core, which they know. and i don't agree because of the experience i had while i was on the florida supreme court. we have -- i think we were the first state to permit cameras in the courtroom in which right to do it in a very orderly way. we started -- i was on -- i was in palm beach county when we first started reporting and

permitting an actual trial to be recorded and sent out as a feed to the public. i want to separate that experience from cameras in the appellate court room because they do concede the differences in some problems and permitting cameras to record an entire trial and to try and any problems that might be at the appellate level. and frankly do not see that those problems exist. when i was in the florida supreme court, we remodeled our building. i will talk fassler burnell scabbing opportunity. your honor that building, put a hole in the back while the courthouse. we had a room in the back where an operator from florida state law schools that every oral argument for every single case and recorded every argument.

we had another camera behind the judges bench in order to move back and forth between her when the lawyer was speaking in the judges said they were asking questions and for 15 years i was on that court. every single argument was recorded and it was held in storage at florida state law school's library so that players could access the prior arguments pertaining to the particular subject to matter. and many of the concerns that have been raised i did not been cracked this. many people argued or thought that it would affect taylor's presentation. i did not see that occurring in all those years. many thought it would affect the judges demeanor or his actions are actions then i'm probably embarrassed i am sure that didn't happen.

i'd be mortified to see some of those arguments today i am quite sure. but you really forget that the cameras are there. and the worry that well, we're going to have a proliferation of misrepresentation by media taking a portion and only presenting the portion really didn't happen either. i mean, it's true they could do that, but they didn't do that. and i did not see what some of us that what happened, which is you'd be seeing yourself on the news every night. we never saw herself on the news because when you had all of the arguments available, nobody wanted to look at them, but they are there. and so my experience has been very good. i cannot think of an intellectual argument really that should mitigate against having them in an appellate court room. you have jury shoes, witness issues, other things which i think warrant consideration and

debate. i don't think they warrant prohibiting cameras in trial courts. but i do think that's different than appellate court. >> i wonder if i might follow up very briefly. every state to some extent permits cameras in the courtroom. can you explain why your colleagues recessed? were there cameras in the 11th circuit? >> i think there can learn -- well, some of the turns expressed her concerns for safety. they don't want to be -- they don't want to be viewed on television and then become a target. basically i think you have to have another panel on that. you know, it's just a natural, human proclivity to avoid change i think.

it's something different to hear nervous because you don't know how it's going to play out, so you're hesitant to think it's going to change the way you been doing business i think. >> let me jump in. i want to comment on the question and exposure of legitimate concern. but the reality is most judges and justices are out all over the united states giving speeches. they are participating in core programs, giving speeches to the public. and most of those are rebroadcast on youtube. so if we were to do a youtube search, and many judges would be surprised to find they are already all over youtube and it hasn't actually posed a specific security problem. and if there are particular security issues for an individual judge, then that could be dealt with on a

case-by-case basis. on the ninth circuit, are really used to be you have to have unanimous agreement of the panel to have a camera for the appellate argument. our current rule is simply that the majority of the judges, either in a three-judge panel for an en banc panel must vote to approve. and the reality is that by and large most of those are approved. the other thing to remember sometimes you think if we have cameras in the courtroom, then there's going to be dozens of cameras and media requests. it takes money and resources to actually initiate the media coverage, but was drinking media are not going to cover every case. for example the last 20 years, only 300 xt five cases have actually been on camera.

looking last year, there were only 20 cases and then their 64. sometimes there's multimedia requests and recording it does. that needs% of those requests were granted in the ninth circuit. in 2009, it was interesting, cases shut up to 83 cases, which is pretty huge. the reason was there is a new interest into the market at that point called courtroom view network and they filed a lot of requests and their business model, as i understand it, is to make these videos and camera record is available to the public of the defeat. that is their option. for the court of course with amateur radio then about that for you. it's basically been unobtrusive as far as the cameras. we usually don't have anything

like c-span here. we have hidden cameras that can do most of the recording. the biggest concern we have for people is that to the judges changed their conduct? well, i can to use some of the conduct of judges, some of which is amusing and i might be retaining to some of the layers. the lawyers would tell you pc that day in and day out. the television recording doesn't that actually have anything to do a conduct of the judges. you might see some lively judges on camera, but if you walk into a courtroom without a camera, you'll see the same lively judge. we're not looking for nielsen ratings. nor would we probably even register in the lowest kill, but it might be a there's a couple cases that come to my mind that really illustrate why cameras are so important. one example was when there is a question of the recall of the

governor of california and whether the election would go forward. but would be more significant to the people of california that was in a big case and was televised nationally. i had to laugh. i got a few calls from people. most people didn't want to comment on the merits is that i like your scarf. other than that, it's not like the public proof such there's going to be a safety can learn. another case on which i sat where we approved the cameras was national security case, involving wiretapping of telephones. there were a number -- many, many parts of that record were under the highest security level possible and access to the judges. i felt like when they brought the document is handcuffed to the agent and i had to look, you know, it said we manage to have the entire oral argument without discussing the particular

alleged the secrets or any of the security so they can see what the issues were on both sides. and in that case, we actually embargo that tape for a short time, just to assure ourselves that they are would be some accidental slip of the judges are the lawyers of any information. as someone said the war come you don't take one extreme case and never fit into it. in terms of national security risk and claims, but then the public courtroom. i think that our experience in the name circuit has and it's only for the better in that it does bring the people to the chorus. finally, you never know why somebody wants to take the case and the clerk of guys sometimes they just want a panel of judges that they're going to use for something else.

the news media have a range of reasons and that's by they were there for one of my cases. they can't think of any other reason they might've been there. >> our rule is to permit coverage in civil cases, but prohibit coverage in criminal cases. decision as whether whether to permit cameras in a civil case depends on the panel. if any member of the panel, the concern of jack's, there wouldn't be approve of giving. the overwhelming majority of cases, approval has been given. it's quite interesting compared to the ninth circuit. and look at just requests from the broad media, not courtroom

command. we've only had sent 2069 requests from the media for coverage. those have been some of the bigger cases. and usually from c-span. it's surprising we haven't gotten more requests. and it's not even a subject in discussion in our court because it happens very rarely do we have these requests. and we have coverage, there's never been -- >> was the rationale for the civil and criminal in the appellate contest? >> that predates my joining the court. so i don't know the history of it. i am not sure the rationale would we can soften the issues and the criminal cases are not

issues that would involve any sensational issues are issues having to do with security. >> i just want to say is the only panelist who was an honorable at pier [laughter] how pleased i am to hear three court of appeals who have had experience with cameras of the court and they are okay with it, maybe even better than okay with it. i've been beating the trends for 30 years. obviously to no avail. but i say that punishing is

there an advocate like the senators back tears that i want the cameras in the court said that the public can see all the bad things the courts are doing. i'm more in the nature of, you know, like a proud. of a shy child in the school play. i think the more visibility of the appeals court gag, the better -- they look great. generally speaking, the oral arguments that you see i'm the one thing i see in person show the court to be tremendously conscientious and studious and tried to get it right. >> and started to enjoy the dynamic here. i get to tell the judges when they talk.

mr. marlys of course apparent. [laughter] if only this were the case more often. judge barkett. >> i think it is terribly important that we reassure your the public that the judiciary takes great care with its cases and sorted in conjunction with that, explain how complex these issue are that the judge has to address them to show them that complexity by having the lawyers present one side and then like a judge says coming hear the other side say yes, it right about that. that makes a lot of sense, too. and then hear the exchange between judges and lawyers which shows the judges are trying really hard to record i'll are points of view they are hearing would be applicable.

i just think that is a huge -- we have to give the public a huge sense about the difficulty of the task at hand and also the effort that is being made to try to get it right. i agree would endure to the benefits of course. a consummate and says it shows the courts are doing wrong, and also get the opportunity to address those things. people used to say, look at the o.j. simpson trial. that's a whole circus and that should be on tv. they say it should be on tv. the problem wasn't that it was on tv. there was the problem that a particular judge's handling of some and perhaps got out of hand and maybe that should be addressed. it isn't the fact that it seen by the public, but by california at the time. i think would be a great tool to reassure the public of the status of the judiciary.

>> just following up on that, as reading blogs on a panel that i didn't sit on. and i was really interested to see that a number of these from across the spec to commented on how well prepared those particular judges for her. that can only enter to the benefit and i think that's true. there's a huge amount of preparation by all the judges on the art of appeals before going on the bench. and people don't necessarily know that, as judge barkett was saying of the care that is taken with cases. >> judge mckeown, one distinction between the trial courts and appellate court is in a trial -- a jury trial, lawyers and the judge are presenting a case where they audience. appellate arguments in contrast are often quite technical. they started the metal things. there's no background story.

in the several high-profile cases you mention, cases which are a fair amount of media attention, did you feel any obligation to change your behaviors lately to make the arguments more accessible to an audience that may not know what an appellate argument is all about? >> i would say that the panel at 12 did not do so. i think our job is to review the case and use that oral argument time to talk with the lawyers. however, there's two other options. one is that we are not respond well for airing the cases. that the media. at the media coverage i saw, there is always some lead-in to ask lame that some of these cases are covered by c-span and they do a nice job of providing a profile and a context for the cases. i think that's really the role of the press, not the core. the other option of course is the press information officers for the court with background

information to the media or in connection with that. i think that's certainly been done and certain high-profile cases. in the ninth circuit, we have had press releases, not to talk about the merits of the case, which is the process of where the case is at that point, with the argument will be, access, less accessible be. we've had both her work of the court, our circuit executive in our information officer available to the press to talk about these days. so i think again, in my view, that not really the role of the court at that moment. our role is to hear decided the case. >> well, with an eye in the time, we start approaching the actual topic of the panel. the appellate courts in new media. several forms of the new media have been mentioned, blogs, youtube and the like. maybe i'll start with judge

katzmann how it has changed over time. >> this panel, i asked adriana mark and her superb staff to do a data analysis. you know the old story about reality in the dose. and if we had at the end notes, there's data. so you know, distributed to a set of materials, what i did was i asked to get information -- traditional media coverage in the renamed the, a second circuit opinions. and these are traditional media. i'm talking essentially about the print media. and then i asked for 2008 and

2009, looking at the traditional media, care unit to the new media that is bloggers and the like. what i found was that in terms of the numbers of cases and in terms of the postings, the stories of the traditional media in 1990, 2008 at thousand 10, that the numbers of stories were in the traditional media were about the same. the difference however is that the stories in 1990 i found tended to be longer. talking but especially the more important cases. tony mauro can tell us more about that. in the days before you could

actually access and opinion on the internet, their reporter would undertake a lengthy analysis of what the decision. if you look at the table 2008 versus 2010, what you see is that in 2008, there were 220 stories in the print media. and in 2008, in terms of blog post, they were four or three. by the way, the blog post that i'm talking about they generate the blog posts are edited pose. i am talking about posts that didn't tony mara's post and then talking about posts that might be listed in howard ashman's appealing. these are generally blogs of all

kinds of opinion. left, right in the middle. what's fascinating is that if you compare 2008 and 2010, the media is more or less somewhat similar. not that urgent. but the blog posts have gone from 43 to 1092. justice o'connor. >> is there anyway to tell me -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i wonder if i could repeat justice o'connor's question for this vacancies and. is there any way that people read the blog post versus how many people would read the traditional media coverage?

>> there is actually a way, but it's decentralized. in other words, everyone who has a website page has the technology to monitor how many hits there are. and so, there is a way to do that if the website pages -- those who run the website for the blog are willing to participate. that's a great -- i would be a great research project for someone. >> diagrams for a very dramatic -- [inaudible] >> red column versus the loop column. >> i think what would publicly find is those who read the blogs are those who already have an interest in the area of law. and so that in terms of it tent

city of discussion about cases, among those who have an interest in those areas of the law, what we're seeing is that that's rising. and you're also finding more and more looking at the blogs. and in the internet generally, i think that you your project, justice o'connor, that is premised on the view that nowadays young people essentially used the internet and the computer, rather than the print media to think is exactly right. i can't remember the last time a cycler with the news paper in his or her possession. so although we don't have data on readership, i think that we can say that everything online,

on the web and that's where more and more coverage is -- it did for example, even in the print media and he knows much more than i do, you are having distinguished journalists like himself who used to be articles for the newspaper now as part of their daily lives, participating in blog postings. >> i question whether whoever the demographic is as you say young people, so let's take a 25-year-old engineers to enter marketing today. they're not going to go through these legal blogs to read about cases or read about the law. are they going to be depended really on the general newspaper,

get their information quacked >> they might need. that's very true. it's also the case that going back to our first point, that the numbers of cases -- the numbers that even if you look at the print media and say okay, by dealership and readership, the fact is because so few cases are so few covered, that there is -- there's much more of a public education effort that needs to be made to come to the lack of coverage. >> it does depend just by nature of the case, you know, our blog crashed when we read about the bankruptcy case that has to do with -- have been to involve and

i can't understand why. somehow people found it ambitious kind of no controlling that. >> i agree that a lot of clerks and others don't read traditional print news. i teach a class called substitution in the internet. definity subscribe to a newspaper, i might as well be asking something about astrophysics the way they look at me. no, they all get their news off the internet. more specifically to the point of just getting their traditional news know they are using aggregating sites generally and many, many of the people who get news off the internet using sites rated from jake and others were actually the readers, how they have time i don't know, vote on stories. what bubbles up to the top are some of the most popular stories. a lot of people go to the aggregator sites of which there are multiple of these. and then you out gibbon

homogenizing news as to what is the best way for date or whatever. and whether any of the leaks bubble a in the top hundred stories of the day it's hard to say. but i think we have to recognize really the changing way in which not just younger people, but any people process and receive newest information in civics. >> we had a proliferation of these tv shows about trial court, trial lawyers and prosecutors and defense lawyers. maybe we need the good life in the appellate court. [laughter] >> should've been better maybe because the supreme court would be a great tv series, but that particular one didn't do well. >> that show tried to leverage the drama in clerks lives, which fortunately there is no drama.

we have 15 minutes remaining and i'd like to open up the discussion to the audience. the first day of two questions that i think are important to address both having to do with the fact that new media is interact to vent permit, although maybe not desirable to do so between judges in media. first, given that people who post on blogs and the like don't tend to come from -- in many instances don't come from a cadre of professional journalists and may not have the same constraints that require them to detect cases and accurate unbiased manner that judge -- of a judge sees a post on it that is ideologically slanted or accurate, and a judge takes a measure to correct that situation? the flipside of the question is,

if a judge sees the blog post on his or her decision quite shortly after the decision is rendered, before the chance for rehearing, can the judge looked to the commentary and make any decision based upon how critics are responding to this issue? >> all open up to the panel. >> that really raises another question. i'll put on my hat as the chair of the code of conduct committee, which is the committee that addresses ethics issues nationwide for federal judges. under the hands of judicial conduct, were constrained in commenting on the merits of a pending or impending cases. so my short answer with the if a judge were to see something on the blog, even if inaccurate, pending case that the judge

could not -- should not respond. now let's say though that there is wild speculation and we sometimes get this. were you on the panel because you're an expert on this? at a structural issue, where it shows randomly by a magic computer in the sky. seems to me that is something that someone within the administration of the court might be able to step up to the plate and comment time. as far as an individual judge, there's not that many things in the code of conduct that are absolutely flatlined smacks. >> even if it's just a factual error, the judge could -- by the judges -- ioc weight judge couldn't just call a reporter or blogger, whatever you say you got this wrong. >> my reaction would be because it couldn't.

you get engaged in a conversation in the next thing you know, you're talking about the opinion or explaining the opinion. i agree with margaret separate from what the ethics says. they think it's very wrong to try to -- i think that's all the reason why judges should work really hard and we have to somehow get the funds to make -- to permit judges or to provide them with all the tutorials and so forth it they can have our youth to make their opinions clear and make sure they say what they intend to say. i think you get into real trouble if you start trying to explain what you meant during the time when there is a pending rehearing or when something else could happen in the case. although, i wonder about the

outfit that newspapers to editorialize about a decision while some pain is still pending, a rehearing or some thing. isn't that like trying to influence the judge? [laughter] >> completely. any time. >> i'd like to open up the discussion to the audience. i will do my best to repeat your question without an overabundance of caution in hope that it's okay for television. yes. >> judge mckeown, what is the lifetime between the decided decisions and when they are published on the ninth circuit the ninth circuit courts of appeals media site? and related to that, which circuits are not participating in this project? >> the question is what is the lifetime between when the decision is rendered and they

are. on the media site and was circuits are not covered presently by the media alerts project? >> first of all, virtually every court of appeals has real-time publication on this website of the actual opinion. but that of course is different. but there's a two summaries prepared by the aba, we might a professor link with answer, but they can be within a day or so. the idea is to be immediate because they are not that useful if they are days down the road. they do have to let the professors comment on how quickly they can turn this around. >> when you work with students, which not all schools do, so were supervising students who are then creating the briefs and placing them on the web and we have to ensure that the briefs are uniformed at her work in a or seven students.

dependent logical benefits are enormous. i do want to change the process, but sometimes it gets on the web. so maybe sometimes longer. our objective is to post within 24 hours. >> the 10th circuit is on their from denver in the 10th circuit. the 10th circuit is not on here. the fourth circuit is not on the sixth circuit and the eighth circuit. therefore assert it's been added gradually and with all of you here, you know fossils have been a there's would be very open to hearing your suggestions. but would like to read the remainder of the circuits. the been trying to do a progressively. >> the problem with the first circuit, parents and a good law schools within the first circuit. [laughter] >> i would like to just --

[inaudible] >> one thing i would like to quickly add and this may be true -- probably is true for most other circuit so that we can be as user-friendly as possible with respect to the media. we posed everything, so the root porters know that if there's a court of appeals decision it will be posted at 10:30 a.m. so they can plan their day accordingly. >> just a question and then i'm going to try to speak loudly if i can sort want to hear me. also a comment. i am wondering if those who are in a very upcourt or cameras in the courtroom have really spent enough time and focus on the security issue. and i'm wondering if there's possibly a difference between the district court.

we all know the most controversial issues by the supreme court united states. and i am sure that they have more security issues than the district court's does. but it's really easy to critical about this unless you have personal experiences. and i'm not worried about the media. i think that they are responsible, just as this person on the panel. i'm more concerned about those people who are on the blog and had ill-conceived and ill at dies and the eldest on the issue before the court. and there's then not just me personally, but on the district court in arizona, a number of instances where we've had to send out the troops and we have had prosecution come back.

so we're not going to be able to stop all of this or deter it. and i'm not opposed to the internet. i think they are important. but we've all seen in even the last year, what can be done in about a hobby is it any other way, but compared to what is recorded. and because they have their own agenda. what other kinds of matters would replace on the cameras, other than controversial matters? i mean, who wants to hear? >> is going to take an exquisite balance in determining whether or not cameras in the courtroom are appropriate. i think loeffler's i think for

lawyers who are generally cold to these kinds of issues and will have an open mind about it. i would not have concern about that. but it did if you make the access on television and then you have those that have a different point of view, there may be problems. if you take this conjunction, what i'm failing of the marshals service and i have been to embrace it marginally. they do the best they can. but they don't have the resources to serve the internet to see if there are threat. in fact, i've had to rely because they came to my attention a number of times.

the anti-defamation website. we've had a number of these, withers and prosecution. >> i'm sorry. i don't understand what security concerns are thinking about. >> there is a misunderstanding with these issues i reported. so much so the last week i kocher for showcasing on the blog -- i'm not so sure the appellate court room. i'm more concerned about the district court. >> that's what the pilot project is all about. >> the judge makes an important point. nobody would minimize security issues with respect to judges, generally with respect to federal judges. they think it's at the top of everybody's concern and issues

list. so in talking about federal courts of appeals, i wouldn't in any way say that there are potential risks. and why one panel has said discretion is the nightmare of various journalists, i think that the court's discretion to determine when to permit cameras is a really important part. and that is time over speaking on the courts of appeals that have remains an important component of the discretion of the court. with respect to the internet, we are entering an age that is changing as we have this conference. and all the efforts to get us off the internet, so to speak, it's like sticking your finger to a certain degree. their efforts being undertaken in some serious purity considerations. i think everybody here has acknowledged that there can be

differences between the court of appeals in the trial and some of those are aired earlier. but in all the discussion, i think it's important to say we cannot lose sight of the security concerns, so thank you for putting that on the table. >> unfortunately we have run out of time. i'm going to the taskmaster into the argument is over. the lighted sign. please join me in thinking the panelists for such an interesting talk. [inaudible [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> will have more from the rehnquist enduring american bar association to marinate. journalists, judges and lawyers will talk about pretrial publicity in the balance between fear media access and fair court proceedings. watch at 8:00 eastern here on c-span 2. >> up next on the same two economist ran by sperry gets his assessment of the u.s. economy.

>> up next, a conversation on capitalism, politics and the u.s. economy. we do from chief economist for the joint economic committee, brian west berry. he works for the american spec tater and is also a member of the chicago federal reserve bank's advisory council. he spoke last month at the leadership program. in colorado springs. >> how about