rating, we believe that education is the most important thing we can do to win the future so that our kids have jobs and we have a better economy and that's why we make that investment. it's something that we are only able to do by forging the precious consensus to do the tough things like raising a sales tax by a penny in order to pay for it or putting on the progressive income tax or god forbid asking corporations to pay more on their corporate income taxes. >> governor, i take it that your taxes are not something that you like to raise. but what is the budget situation for schools in virginia? i mean all over the country, we're slashing school budget. what are you doing to -- facing your budget deficit problems? >> like most chief executive officers of the state, there are some tough choices that have to be made. we cut 4.2 billion out of our

budget last year. and we had to make construction k-12, higher ed, health care because we felt it was not the right time in this economy to raise taxes on the citizens of virginia. we made the tough choices and six months later ended up with a budget surplus. now this year we've been able to reinvest $100 million in higher education and k-12. we are now turning the corner, i think, in our state. >> i think it's probably fair to say that we should not over emphasize money. it's no question that it takes resources to pay teachers to build schools to create innovative programs. but so much i think of what determines the outcomes for the young people is a good principal. it's a concerned qualified teacher, it's an engaged parent

and it's the type of environment that you create where the kid comes to school and feels welcomed and motivated and seeing this is their ticket to the american dream. i think it takes both. if we don't put more emphasis on quality and outcomes and results, then we put too much on input and money, i think we are missing the vote. >> let's talk mayor ballard about input and results. when we think -- when we hear about school reform and in the most broad definition of it, the conversation often falls to private solutions in addition to government input. so let's talk about some of the private solutions. to what degree does -- do we have to depend on charitable giving, on private investment, and on things like charter schools which don't necessarily depend on the traditional model? >> i think it's okay to depend on that sometimes. actually, in our city, i think in most cities across the nation, the larger the corporations, the larger the

nonprofits, they want to be part of that solution. they are asking to be part of the solution. i'm fine with that. unless some laws have changed somewhere else, i'm still the only mayor in the country that's allowed to charter schools. i think they are wonder. i believe the competition of schools is a good thing. i don't know why choice is looked upon bad in education and good everywhere else. charter schools, i think, are a good option. i think a lot of reform measures going across the nation would have to be looked at. i am resulted oriented. if you are doing the same thing over and over again, and saying that we just need a little bit more money, you know, sometimes maybe but most of the times probably not, it's the model that isn't working, and we need to look at what works and what does not work. like i said when we have the graduation coaches and going on with the schools, bringing people into the schools because as governor said very well, it is the principal, it is the

teacher, and he said engaged parent, but i will tell you, there's a lot of kids that don't have an engaged parent. [applause] >> we must be cognizant of that fact. that's when some people want to blame the parents. i've never blamed the parents. because i believe personally we're in a multigeneration cycle. were the parents and some parents don't know how to help their kids. they never saw it, they don't know what it looks like. we must cognizant. some kids are smart enough they don't want to go home either. it's not a good environment there. we must put that caring adult in that kid's life. that's where the mentoring programs are important. the boys and girls club, we have an organization called star fish initiative. wonderful organization. they do a lot of that. our community, and i'm sure it's the same in most cities across the nation, want our community wants to be involved in the school system. we want the school systems to be receptive to that, because at the end of the day, when those

kids graduate, they are going to be in that system. and they should know some folks. so we have many, many different models in indianapolis. we are very lucky to have an organization called mind trust. which i think is one the premier educational innovation organization in the country. we are trying lots of different things on different levels in indianapolis. we want innovation, we want to try different things, we want competition. because we want those kids to graduate. one model does not fit all. i could tell you examples of charter schools that we've done. i know i'm rambling. we have one school that is just devoted to kids with substance abuse. do you want to see a high school graduation? go to that high school graduation. it is remarkable. there were six kids a couple of years ago. none of those kids ever would have graduated in a traditional high school. none of them. >> the model that you are describing is sort of the model that this grad nation program

and the civil marshal plan describes. i mean that -- you seem to have done it. i don't know how familiar you are with what is being discussed here. but that's it. it is to take these problem schools and surround them with the supports that the families and the kids need. it helps support education reform, after school programs, tutors, and stuff like that. to what extent, governor mcdonnell, are you implementing that kind of concerted strategy around the problem schools of virginia? >> i think that's a very good model. you can't address the problems until you address the entire community in which that young person grows up. the community and schools program is very good. it's been a great model particularly in the city of richmond, it takes a holist lick approach and -- holistic

approach and actors, and what can they use to access. the turn arounds specialist that come into the school don't have a one-size-fits-all approach. they look at what's going on in the school and try to integrate the social service systems and education system to provide everything that they young person might need to achieve. so that's the approach that we've taken. we've reduced the number of schools that haven't obtained compliance with the standards of learns down from about 72 to about 19 this year. so we are on the right track making progress and looking at how those individual schools. the other thing that we try to do, we haven't talked about yet, it's critically important. we have to ratchet up the stem focus in our elementary and school. [applause] [applause] >> we are -- it's frightening in a way, i think, in some degree we are falling behind some other

nations and the other young people that graduate in science, technology, engineering, math, these are the things that will keep america exceptional. they keep the military strong, technology revolution that's going on in america great. and these are frankly the things through stem and first robotics programs and other things that really captivate the young people and get them interested in school again. i think if they are excited about being there, you support them, they will do well. >> doesn't this -- you want to add things to what's being done now. doesn't it cost money? where do you get it? >> you know, we have -- if you look at what's happened i think in in country over the last couple of decades, it's generally not been money. in virginia, we have increased the student enrollment 7 or 8%. the amount of funding for education has gone up about 45 or 50%. it out paced the rate on student enrollment.

we are still growing. even with some of the cuts that we have made. i think it's about -- again, back to governor o'malley, good leadership in the schools, stretching those dollars farther and putting them into the things that you know has worked. focusing on outcome, not just input. >> mayor cornett, how do you begin to prioritize in a time of economic stress? we all agree in this room, preaching to the choir, there's a straight line between educational achievement and economic development. there's a good reasons for private companies and investments to be engaged. at some point, choices have to be made about resources. eventually, you have to decide as a chief executive where the emphasis goes. how do you begin to do that? >> first, public safety is the priority of city government. from the educational perspective, it's important to keep the philanthropist engaged.

if they get to the point where they don't feel like their investment is making the difference, they will withdraw. you have to keep it going between the leaders, superintendent, school board, philanthropist, and city government. the more people, the better chances you will be. in times like that, when budgets get squeezed. i hear them talking about having to cut the budget, you got to keep the philanthropist involved. >> give me an example how that's worked. >> we have a program called education care. i don't know if it has that name, basically it's going into the weakest performing zip code and spending quite a bit of money at kids starting two years, putting highly qualified teachers, and providing educational services for those kids at age two and age three and four and under. fillfillfillfillphilanthropy, gs one the big investors.

but if you get to the a kid early enough in the weakest, under performing zip codes, you can make a difference. it's not the kids. but there's still a question of can you afford that high level of early childhood education? and if not, what can you afford? how much can you dial it back and still get superior results? >> what are the rest of you doing about preschool, early childhood education? do you have programs for that? >> sure. one of the most important things that we were able to do with the increase funding from the thornton initiative which was about the last six or seven years was to be able to go to full day kindergarten throughout our state. when we did that in baltimore city, the year before, not a single grade scored majority proficient in reading and math. the very next year after full day kindergarten, the first graders were not only majority proficient in reading and math, i think they have now gotten to

a point we are above the national average. now one through eight are majority proficient after eight years of full day kindergarten. it made a difference. we have been putting together sort of a collaborative approach to target the pre-k interventions in the zip codes that need it the most, bringing together foundations and others for our ready to learn initiative so that more and more of our children in our state are ready to learn by the time they are ready for kindergarten. >> mayor, could you follow up on that? >> we have many programs similar to what mayor cornett said, a lot of private organizations have come along and going into the most difficult area of our city, and make sure the kids, three, four were five years old have what they need to get done and be prepared for the first grade.

that's a big part of our fill philanthropy. we are lucky to have big funders and want to do these sorts of things many indianapolis. i think it's had an impact. >> i'd like to provide the rest of the conversation to two general topic areas. who's teaching and who's learning? governor mcdonnell, the question about who's teaching has come down to the question of tenure and collective bargaining. how would you prioritize that in terms of what -- our concept here which is how to keep kids from dropping out of school? how important is that and how do you change it if you need to change it? >> i'm sorry. how important is international focusing on who's teaching, where it's a question of tenure, or checkive bargaining rights or testing? >> i think it's very important. again, able, talented teacher in the classroom with a reasonable class size is critically important. i think all of the literature

tells you good outcomes with those students. we are constantly looking for ways to get more people motivated to be in the teaching profession. that means everything from looking at salary issues to making an easier pass to license for former military to be able to get more people interested in the profession. so i think that's number one is recruitment. secondly, i know we have looked at the issue of continuing contract, which is our version of tenure for k-12 to see whether or not modifications may need to be made there. with those efforts typically not been successful in the legislature. but if you look at what makes people accel in american business, i think having an at will environment where people with discipline and hire and fire according to actual performance has worked well. you don't have that in the public sector as much. i'd like to see streamlining there to be able to hire the pest -- best people and have the

exit quicker. >> i thinkst the president's initiative for merit pay is great. i think working with the federal government and some of the things that they are doing in that area will really help to provide the incentive for teachers not only to enter the profession and excel why they are there. works in the private sector, we aught to use it more in government. >> government o'malley. >> yes. >> same question as well. let me phrase the question differently and i'll ask you all to answer to question. do you regard the teachers unions as an ally or impediment to school reform? let's just put it on the line. >> i take it a strikes a note out there. you can start. you are generally regarded as being prolabor. >> lucky you. >> i thought your question would be do you see your teachers

unions as an ally or an impediment to student achievement and student progress? and so i don't know. i don't think that reform for reform sake is something i'm much more entrepreneurial. i want to do the things that work to improve student achievement. there is not a large city in america with the possible exception of new york city that's experienced a bigger increase in student achievement over these last eight years than the students of the city of baltimore have. which is not to say that we don't have a lot more progress to make. but we are only able to do that because we treated our work force, our teachers with dignity and with respect. i mean our -- [applause] [applause] >> so my administration and the people that have made me look good to the extent that i've been able to look good as a

manager, we've won all sorts of awards and kudos for performance measurement, performance management, recently the data collaborative, i think, gave maryland an award from going to last place to making tremendous progress on longitudinal data tracking to track that performance. we don't go into this with a view that tears are the -- teachers are the enemy, unions must be destroyed, collective bargaining is bad, you either need to work together or find something else to do. a lot of times we have found that managers not only in the public school, but throughout government use collective bargaining and work rules as an excuse for not doing their job as managers to write people up and fire them when they are not performing. so i know it doesn't make a lot

of people happy. i know it's a construct, they are stopping all progress from happening, but i'll tell you what, mort, in the toughest of times, people would not have come together to make greater investments were it not for the advocacy, performance, and hard work of teachers unions throughout our state who supported us and allowed us to succeed in winning one of very few race to the top grants. so whether work force is organized or whether it's not organized, i think is a manager, as a ceo, you have to bring people together to achieve results. and that's what we are doing in maryland. [applause] >> that's interesting. where i sit with this in the city that i'm in, which is i'm a republican mayor in a leaning democratic city. but if somebody asked me early

on one of my staff members asked me are you for unions or against unions? i said i'm for the taxpayer. if they bring value to the equation, that's what it is. i'm not here politically. nobody knows who i am. that's fine. but all -- the four unions just endorsed me for reflection. so we do treat people with dignity and respect. what i am for generally speaking is what works. i don't think one model is the answer. different kids require different models. different situations require different things. i mean that's just the way it is. i think competition is good. i think choice is good. i don't think in -- i mean i can't speak to the states. i'm not going to speak to the state. i will tell you that when i walk in our a school, and if you ever want to have fun, walk in on a school completely unannounced. they are all on task. students there, teachers are

serious, it's all going on. no matter what school system, they are all on task. so that's important to me. that means something is working there. but also as you mention, we have difficult school systems. and we have to drill down as to what is working there and what is not working there. i mean i can't be able to really -- as long as the union is on board with making sure that those kids get educated, i'm all there. i have not seen any evidence otherwise, frankly. >> well, i was -- i'm the son of a teacher. my mother, i think i owe most of my capabilities to her. she was into early childhood education before it had a name. she taught first grade for 40 years. she was the member of a union. i will answer your question. my experience has taught me teachers unions are overall an impediment as better education. >> specifically? >> well, protecting teachers who ought to be replaced.

over and over again. and i just believe in more of a free market system where better teachers are rewarded, and lesser teachers find another way to make their living. >> governor mcdonnell? >> you know, we banned public sector bargaining 20 years ago in virginia where the rank to work state. the influence of unions, public or private is very small in virginia. i believe -- i think the governor said. if you are a manager, you take care of your people, you motivate them, excel -- compensate, and treat them fairly. it minimizes the need for union. we have powerful teachers and association. they have a lot of influence, they bring good ideas to the table, and we listen to them and implement them. so i -- i think we manage well without a union. but the influence or the input of the associations, frankly,

representing a large group of professionals is helpful. >> let me go back to mayor -- governor o'malley a second. i know that you are -- you are a merit pay proposal and maybe it's the law already whereby you can give extra pay to teachers who teach in difficult schools or teach hard to -- difficult suggests. but what about basing merit pay on student performance? do you favor that? that's usually where the unions are difficult. that they don't want people to get fired on the basis of testing results and stuffer like that. and they also don't want people laid off on the basis of their performance when they have to be laid off, but rather on the basis of seniority. how do you resolve that? how do you professionally treat teachers as a profession without holding them accountable for

failure and rewarding them for success? >> well, again, i think all of this comes back to management and having good superintendents that are running your local education associations. three things come to mind. in prince george's county, prior to race to the top there was already -- [applause] >> thank you prince george's county. in prince george's county, they already had an agreement whereby they had merit pay and had worked that out as part of their contract and as part of the bargaining process. in baltimore city, recently they passed a very innovative contract, failed the first time. but it passed when it was reconsidered after the union leaders actually pushed it on their members in order to have differentiated pay i think for harder to attract topics, subject matter and some merit aspects to that as well. >> but not performance?

>> well, and that leads me to the third point. which is as part of our race to the top, we had to be committed to the notion that somehow we have to come up with a way to tie student progress to teaching and teachers performance and we know have a committee that's working our way through how we constitute that 50%. what percent of it is progress on tests? what percent of it is other sort of progress that the student makes? what percent of it is -- how does that 50% come to be made up? that's part of what we are working our way through right now in a collaborative way. we are not done yet. there are a lot of strong feelings a att the table. i'd rather have it opposite side than the other building. >> we are running out of time.

i don't want to end the conversation without talking about people that are learning. at the key and heart of this debate are people -- children are not learning, many of whom are people who look more like me than like you on the panel. which is to say there are children of color, there are people who come from single parent homes, there are people who don't have advantaged. so there's an achievement gap which has sprung out with some of the things we are talking about might address and a lot might not. starting with you, we have to keep it relatively brief and going back around the panel, give us a sense of how you tackled that very specific problem? >> i think this goes back to the community. we deal with this all the time. it's hard -- heartbreaking. some of the stories are heartbreaking when you see them. we are lucky in indianapolis. we have a lot of people that are dealing with the issue straight

on. we will continue to do that. we got to make sure that the political leaders in the state get lined up well, maybe have as you know as people have been following, we have a little issue right now going on in the state of indiana. but the education -- educational reformers, i think, are going in the right direction. because that is exactly who they are trying to address. >> you know, i'm seeing african-american community dispersing. we have one district, which is larger people of color, larger hispanic than african-american. but our african-american is now dispersing throughout our community. to a certain extent, it's helping to involve. these african-american parents are making choices to help better their kids' future. that is going to a great step towards the lines. there's no question in america, in oklahoma, in oklahoma city, it is a disadvantage, it's general to be an

african-american person. i'd love to change it. it's not going to happen quickly. it's only going to happen if we work together and try to work -- first of all come to the conclusion it's the truth. and then work together to see if we can resolve it. >> and come to the conclusions about what the causes are behind the truth? >> absolutely. there are social issue that is are prevalent. >> i believe that the person's work ethic and their god given intellect really ought to be determined of the american dream, not where they live. i think the things we talked about earlier, using charter schools to create competition and alternatives particularly in the communities to raise the bar is part of the approach. most of the money we are putting in the turn around school is in the schools that will have a high percentage of minority students, but unfortunately we are some of the achievement gap is. and then again recruiting and

having incentives to recruit teachers where you need the biggest increase in performance. i think all of those together will help turn things around. >> in our state, we believe there's no such thing in maryland is a spare american. every child is needed. every child has to be successful. we are very proud of the progress that we are making and hope to be able to repeat that progress again. we have been able to cut in half the achievement gap between black and white students in our state over the last six years. and we believe we can do that again. [applause] [applause] >> we believe we can do that again. if we keep focus and institute the longitudinal data tracking and drive our decisions by the data and target our interventions where we can do the most good and where they are needed. >> governor o'malley, mcdonnell, ballard, on behalf

of my co-moderator mr. kondracke, thank you very much. >> ladies and gentlemen, that concludes that session. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] :

>> kb mcfarlane, national security analyst for fox news and former defense department official talks about global hotspot and discusses what's next for the middle east. his hour-long speech took place at the leadership program at the end of retrieving colorado

springs. >> in fact, if you don't know, those who were in the class or can remember, but at a mass gathering when about to go into her speak out section, i said we're going to pass for a minute because i'll show you somebody who typifies everything we try to practice your speak out and put on a big screen to youtube speech that is now world famous. and we watched it and by the time we were done, everybody was cheering and i said wouldn't it be fun to spend a little time with that guy? everyone said yeah, that would be great. wouldn't it be fun if he came to the lpr retreat? he's coming and that was really exciting. and now it's here. daniel hannan is a writer and journalist, a conservative member of the european parliament for south east england since 1999. when he reelected to the top spot in 2004 and 2009.

in the european parliament he led the campaign for referendum on the european constitution and was the first member of the european parliament to read in detail about the allowed as an expense is available in brussels. in march of 2009, a youtube clip of a speech to gordon brown in the european parliament attract 1.4 million hits within the first 72 hours, making it by far the most watched political clip in british history. hannan is the author of nine books, the new road to serfdom: a letter of warning to america. here it is right here. you want to go home with a copy signed by the way. you can pick up a copy. a "new york times" best-selling your. he blogs every day at www.hannan.c. o..u.k., addressing political and cultural issues. his blog attracts several thousand hits a week from 80,000 unique users. we are very fortunate to have

them with us today. the assault of a number parliament, daniel hannan. [applause] >> well, thank you very much for those generous words. in thank you for the welcome. its value is not something we are accustomed to as members of the european parliament. [laughter] we are generally not the most popular people. i've got used to it over the years, that may be the world has something to do with the fact that i am -- this is an away match if you like. now you don't -- you will find a politician united kingdom who is a bigger fan of justice that man democracy then me, but even your third president enjoyed being able to speak to an audience but no one needed to worry about

what he said. we had a general election and there is not the unlike people counting their vote to remind elected rep resented his up the full diversity of wildlife, whom he rep resents in his constituency. [laughter] your chairman knows what i'm talking about, but these too polite. he is nodding enthusiastically. i can see one or stood legislatively thinking the same thing and they are also too polite. there is one primary. you know about how to live in colorado, is delighted to come across and he told me this long involved story. he spent a great deal of money on the pedigree bull, which apparently just when served any of them. and then on the internet he discovered this wonderful drug

and put it into defeat in bingo the full couldn't get enough. everyone is as though the delighted and he was very alarmed to find that the european parliament was going to be in the substance. i may look into that for you. what is the drug called? he said i can't really remember what it's called. i can tell you that it tastes of nsc. [laughter] this is a -- this is an extraordinary country. when i was researching this book, i can't resist. i'll be available to find it. when i was doing primary research, i found myself last year drifting the republican committee of the rural county in the deep south and the committee

members looks pretty much the way it would've expected the members of the republican committee in the rural county in the deep south to look like they were bracket and sunburned and muscular and one of them asked a question, you know, you're losing for a long time and now you're winning. what advice do you have for the goe. and i said, you know, one of them is mistakes he made under the bush presidency he started running up huge deficits, spending lots of money in washington and you start downstate rate and euthanasia in a shudder went through the room when i got to the part about single-sex unit. i thought maybe that was not the red example to give to the republican committee of the rural council in the deep south. [laughter] and sure enough, when it finished, a chap came up to me,

an enormous man but the great belly -- [laughter] he said son, i appreciate you coming. [laughter] i apologize particularly at his attempt you'll see my story depends on building on defense. he said they agree with most of what you said about so-called unions. i said yeah, here we go. my theory is not being under any pressure to get into some estimate advantages actually as being a gay man. i thought truly this is an astonishing country. [laughter] every time you think you understood it, it surprises you. and the sheer diversity of the united states, the pluralism and variety you find here is what makes anti-americanism because to not like were all mankind is

represented. [applause] let me say it done with a huge pleasure it is to be in colorado. every time i come here and start at how intelligent and levelheaded and patriotic all people are in this state. now let me -- let me say that i haven't her had made a completely representative cross-section of colorado. i've been here three times. the first time it's used peak in denver. the second time was to speak to the coke foundation and the third time is now. so maybe i haven't made a completely representative cross-section of colorado society. nonetheless, i think there is something very attract good about the state and its face. it's an encapsulation of boiling down an exaggeration of the things that make america

special. americans came along way to find a particular lifestyle, to get away from intrusive government, to find freedom. and some of them went even further to look for more, to be even further from the government and those were the ones who came to the front. and so then designed their state constitutions around the maximum dispersal of power. one of the things i find most exciting is the way in which they have so much emphasis on citizen procedures and balance budgets amendment. this is politically as well as culturally an exaggeration of the american policy. i didn't think it was a coincidence that in thailand's novel this was the last freedom in the united states. in colorado it was defeated everywhere else. [applause] and i wanted to say a couple words about that political

inheritance. you know when i was writing this book, i traveled around a number of states and spoke to a series of people in the u.s. senators to congressman to beat on the left and right, journalists, and tanks, to ordinary citizens. the same preclusion kept leaping out again and again. most americans don't realize how lucky they are. you know, the political institutions that define this country are in many cases unique in almost all cases talking about the term, the recall mechanism. the initiative and referendum ballots procedure. i'm talking about states rights. i'm talking about open primaries in a totally unique feature, but one that makes legislatures answerable to the rest of us. and above all i'm talking about almost everybody from the share to the school board. it's human nature to take for

granted that which is familiar to us. but it's these institutions growing organically out of the constitution that is serve to keep your government and your people free. sometimes i say this and they say well, there are cultural difference is. we are naturally people who got away from the monarchies and closets of the old world. i'm afraid that explanation doesn't quite work. coulter is not from disinviting that exists alongside institutions. culture is a product of institutions. if you changed your governing arrangement, if you had the same welfare state, the same big government, the same world and the state mechanism that other parts of the western world can you see a very quickly those aspects of american exceptionalism would disappear.

the essence of this country is freedom. it was redone that first pulled the pilgrims across the sea. freedom of corseted literal sense of wanting to be able to organize and worship as they saw fit without intervention. but allies bound up with that was the idea of self-government and aristocracy on the institutions based on both governments around the maximum devolution of power. and so, when your fingers from her constitution, they were just working. they were in shining liberties that were very real to americans. what happened in the old coach house in philadelphia and remains one of the miracles. peter constitution serving to

prevent the constitution to make sure it the rulers are accountable, that no one in decisions are taken as closely as possible and that they have the effect. i., as a british history that loves the country very dearly and the praises of a country, republic that was going on over at fault against the british crown. isn't it a curious thing were praising your constitution would not draw the u.s. was a reaction against when paul revere browsed the nation with his pride of the british coming. actually no, he didn't. does anyone know what he actually showed it? what he actually said was the regular trout. can anyone tell me what it would

have been pretty bizarre for him to have shouted the british are coming? it would have been a pretty unusual thing. even in massachusetts they were all british. it would've been a very, very strange thing. it would not have occurred to americans, patriots or loyalists that great was the foreign countries. but the way in which the story of paul revere has been enriched by historians i think is a very telling one. it depends on editing out, disregarding a lot of the arguments, which your country of leaders for using that time. they never saw themselves as revolutionary. they sell themselves as conservatives. all they were asking for in their own minds with the freedoms they assumed they had been born with. the real revolution to them for

those in the court who were seeking to balance the constitution to the executives to pass unconstitutionally, to impose laws that had not been properly passed. and that's why if you go back to the foundational document, the main complaint in the declaration of independence was precisely the crown was using foreign soldiers. there was a lovely line they wanted to write into the declaration that was edited out. we may bring people together. well, maybe we still well. there's a reason worth stressing that this is more than academic or historical interest. if your government turns its back on the origins of your freedom, if you're rulers lack the humility to understand the air passing through institutions that are bigger than they are,

you jeopardize all of the benefits that came from that extraordinary political settlement. i was reading on the plane on the way over the words of text and jurists from the 1930s, where he says our freedoms were won on battlefields in england tiered he says there's a straight line that runs to philadelphia. and it's true. despite what the great charter was signed went unmarked until the 1950s. there is no memorial, not so much as a part there until a little memorial was raised at the american bar association. he remains the only monument at the site. if you have leaders who are fundamentally -- to put it embarrassed by it, to this aspect of your heritage, if you have leaders who are determined to go on the road apologizing,

who don't see themselves as heirs to a continuing tradition, who don't understand as your founder did that they are simply one more link in a chain that stretches back to the glorious revolution, but for the great charter to the anglo-saxon region that law comes from the people, rather than being imposed by the central states. then you are bound to have a change in the balance of power within the united states. and that is more or less what is happening. we were making this argument in an 1830s, arguing against the new deal, it gives the roosevelt administration. he saw, correctly, that the outcome of those constitutional changes would be a permanent shift in power, in favor of the executives. how actually the same arguments apply today would be seen in the

last couple of years, these shifts in jurisdiction from legislature to executives from the 50 states and washington are the elected representatives to be another good friend the state. your current administration are not a set of random initiatives lashed arbitrarily together. they amount to a comprehensive program of europeanization. our results on the a radio program recently, whether i put any credence of not having been born in the u.s., could he possibly aborning kenya? now coming is plainly plainly born in brussels. [laughter] [applause] if you look one by one of the policies he's pursuing on health care, on welfare, on college education come on green taxes and cap-and-trade, foreign

policy, they are a passion, a comprehensive policy of taking a country different from western europe and making it more like everyone else. exactly the point that charles krauthammer was making last night. let me tell you my friends, if any member of the european parliament for 11 years. i live in the near future. and take it from me, you are not going to like it. when you make these permanent shift in power away from the people ensure the federal bureaucracy, and cuba's fighting to get away from all of these. then you will find you your country less prosperous, less democratic and less free. it will fall further and further behind. let me quote a scary statistic from my point of view and it should be ringing alarm bells now here. in 1974, western europe

accounted for 36% of world gdp. today that figure is 24% in 2020 will be 15%. over the same period, the share of the world gdp accounted for by the u.s. has remained dirty. now what does that tell you? it tells me if you go down this road to award nationalization of belisle, to an award and expanding state for trade unions toward regulation of private remuneration committee will eventually make your economy smaller in relative terms. it's all very nice in the short term. having long lunch breaks and paternity leave and 48 hour working week and all the rest of it. what's not to like? in the end, reality imposes and you find easier economy contracts for you are sustaining it only through debt.

admit that this stage, my friends, that your problems become our problems. when i see you repeating the mistakes, when icu setting out sitting out on the road, which europe unwisely set out on after the second world war, towards more regulation, i don't just feel for you as fellow english-speaking allies, i also worry come as a citizen of the world, about what this is going to do to the balance of power in the world my children will grow up into. we are looking at you for the three or 400 year anglo ascendancy. the world has been a brighter and happier place because of the english-speaking people. [applause] we have great achievements that we should not be ashamed to pass on to our children. from the ending of slavery to

the liberation of tens of millions of fascism and communists. there's nothing god-given about our entitlement to that position. the laws of gravity are not going to be suspended in our favor if we pursue policies that make our nations poorer and weaker. since the credit crunch hit, it's been popular to quote the lines of jonathan swift, which are eerily apt to our president discontent. databank or losses on hands perceived as full, they have his soul who have his bond. it was like the writing on the wall. to answer bonsall? who owns american debt now? i think that the answer to that question, my friends, and he trembled.

at me quote something from the congressional budget office, 2010 long-term budget outlook. by 2020, your government will be paying between 15% in 20% of its revenues in debt entries, where defense spending will be down between 14% and 16%. and what does that mean in reality? well, last year, the u.s. spent $665 billion on its military. the chinese spent around 99. as beijing continues to buy and at the present rate, five years from now, the interest payments on your debts to china will be covering the whole of the chinese defense budget. should they choose to reach out and conquer taiwan come to you my friends will pay for it. now, there is nothing you can do and nothing you should want to

do about the economic rise of countries in a shed. if they finally discovered our western secret that the benefit, could the. good for them. to figure the market, the better for exporters. there is something we can do about arab decline. there is no reason for us to carry on with policies that unless consumption without mentioning production. there is the reason for it to carry on indenting our children. and i think we as people understand that we know in our bones, even if those call themselves our political leaders seem not to. you know, i was amazed just after the credit crunch hit two years ago, by how quickly an intellectual and political consensus formed around the idea of the massive state intervention about the stimulus packages. it happened by chance during the conversion party conference and

i was the only british public didn't politician at that time who was opposed to the bailout and who now birchers back say that it didn't work. it was one of those scary, panicky moments where it seemed almost unpatriotic to say we shouldn't be rushing to do something. it's one of those terrifying something must be done moments. i remember having an argument with a senior member of my party and he said you're completely on your own. zettabyte maybe not on your own. [laughter] well, two weeks later, the first opinion poll came out and i was able to send a senior member of my party and e-mail as an attachment same look and it turned out to be me and ron paul and 80-cent of the british electorate. because most people -- [applause] most people don't need convincing of the argument that governments, just like individuals have to live within their means. we all know from our minds if

you're maxed out on your credit cards can be ringing your spent eating. you don't spend more. you have to be an economist to politician not to understand that. and most people understand that it is wrong for taxpayers to be pressed into bailing out some very wealthy individuals in order to rescue them from the consequences of their own. we don't need to win the battle of ideas. if anything is tilted the argument, if the events of the last two years, but we do need to win the battle implementation. we understand and anyone coming into the argument to understand previous generations how disastrous it is to keep spending money when you're not making any that public policy is further than it's ever been in that object to. that's the challenge to you my friends. i hope you come out of this summit can make the case for it. you still have a representative

democracy. you still have mechanisms to make your legislatures accountable. your open primaries in the teeth party with friends that was formed in order to make use of the system has become the process of creating a legislature dedicated to fiscal sanity. that is not an argument you would want. it is a constant continuing debate once you take your foot off the accelerator coming of the government naturally will begin to expand again. make no mistake about what is at stake here. it's not just our prosperity. it's about the kind of world we have taken for granted, the world in which there's freedom in which we expect five to be passed in taxes levied on the popular consent. the world has been fortunate indeed in its superpower. things could look very black with an alternative power against.

so let me close to heart health implication from a british conservative who is this country to american conservatives who still believe in mirrors. keep intact the sublime inheritance do you have felt from your parents and pass it on securely to your children. under division of your founders. respect the greatest constitution designed by human intelligence and never be afraid to speak to and for this nation to which my good fortune and god's grace you are part of. [applause]

[applause] card >> alright. time for questions. we will use the microphones and alternate between the two. >> all-star but the lady her. >> linda champion. what is your government taking about or doing about possible increase in population and the islamic culture and thinking about the future of islam taking over in electing people to your government? >> well, we are to have a number of elect the most mps and elected muslim counselors. and their opinions are very different from some of the u.n.

takes you on television because he wouldn't get elected in the united kingdom, standing on the platform that we should be more like iran. there's a reason why these people moved and it wasn't because we wanted to live under sharia law. we do have a specific problem with some british foreign boys who have become so alienated from a country where the crew up that in extreme cases they have been driven to take up arms against it. on the battlefields in afghanistan and pakistan, we have rounded up dozens of british-born muslims. we had to voice what to do to gaza and people have asked, what is it that coded so alienated these products of the british welfare state that these kids who have grown up in britain with all of their cares what dr., what could've pushed them into this position of belligerence and hostility? the clue was and how i put the question. it is precisely their dealings with the british welfare state

would've taught them to despise the country. if they got any history at all in english schools, develop and present it to them as a hateful chronicle of racism and exploitation. when they find a patriotism of their indigenous countrymen scorned and reproduced when they see the updates for their country, arguing the nationstate is finished, that we should all be european-style public united kingdom is a discreditable confab,, how does that help them? it's perhaps no coincidence seeing britishness as a brand, that some of the native people of the united kingdom started groping backward towards identities of english or scottish or whatever. the word is that he is the child of immigrants? what is there for him to be part of. this is the point the prime minister made in his speech three weeks ago in munich. the problem has not been with

immigrant coming into mandate would change everything. the problem has been that operate inciter government sector who have a vested interest in local government. we have these armies of racism awareness officers and interpreters and cultural diversity of jesus. they are the people whose jobs will disappear if assimilation became a reality. in effect in sinclair wants rochon is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding something. that's the target of the prime minister. and this may come as a surprise to some of you and i know it's not what you hear at these kinds of meetings, but i've not had a single muslim constituents who has spent other than approving of what david cameron says.

it seems to them obvious to state should not be giving money to organizations that reject democracy and women's rights and equality. but furthermore, that ssb with a statement of the treaty bloody obvious. an extraordinary thing is that anyone found it shocking. the extraordinary thing is we got to the stage with the british prime minister had to stand up if it was was a bad idea to use taxpayers money to foster divisions. i think there is a lesson here, my friends. one of the things your country has been very, very good at is making people feel part of the common dream and a combination. typically an optimistic phrase that ronald reagan used what he said every immigrant makes america more american. what a great idea. what a wonderful way of encouraging people to settle. you know, you go around the world apologizing. if you turn your back on the things that make this country strong and great and free intro of your fathers to extend the

vision of freedom, you make it much harder for newcomers to assimilate. we've caught on almost too late. don't repeat our mistakes. yes, please. >> dave carlson, arapaho county, class of 2010. my question, and thank you for taking a trip to be here today is rather straightforward. i lived in holland for six years, austria for one year. at that socialized medical care. i lived under the socialist governments and systems and it's very clear to me that it's not the best system. no system is perfect. i'd like to ask you what we can do to inform people here in the united states to keep hearing over and over that the british medical system is better than here, that the canadian system is better than here, that the cuban system is better than here. and we soak it appeared that we

just believe what we read. i have to look at people and say i live it and i know what it liked and it's not superior to the system here in the freedoms we have here in the country and i just hate to see us moving in that direction. any practical advice you could give us would be great. >> once you've done this thing, you'll find it almost impossible to go back. it will bear down and it will take over the political system and you will find, as we found, it becomes almost beyond critical. so if you're planning to repeal this obama campaign, do it right now. the idea [applause] the idea you can see whether it works out and come back and tell you is not how it works. i'll tag you why. your specific question, and every health care system in the world coming of good good outcomes and bad outcomes. in every system you have good people and bad people. there is no system in the world that is perfect. the danger is people talk only

because for all human beings to attack only from from personal experience. but if you look at the measurable data. if you look at the empirical evidence, you know, survival, waiting times, longevity, you can make compares then you can be that the british system, based on the government anomaly is pretty bad. you know, we are on most measures behind some countries that are not merely as well as we are, how likely are to survive a heart attack, how likely you are to survive cancer. the most measurable things we do badly. in the current government is taking it's to make the system a little bit more responsive. but here's the thing. it is almost impossible to make that argument because any criticism of the system is how it sounds as an attack on the people who work on it. simply to say what i've said is

immediately to invite a response to leptin from the health care union you say you're attacking our hard-working doctors and nurses. well, of course i'm not doing that. we have many decent patriotic hard-working people who are doing their best and doesn't maximize their potential. far from attacking -- i'm not even attacking the lazy ones who statistically handled this by averages. all i'm saying is we can do better. in terms of innovation, outcome, you are on your way if you carry on down this road towards a system that you'll be unhappy with. once politicians become personally responsible for everybody laying on a trolley, not only will you be able to reform the company won't reveal to cut the budget. so i really hope you follow through because there will be no going back. >> thank you. >> john andrews, centennial

institute. we hear all about the fiscal crisis of greece, ireland, other periphery and union. from your standpoint as parliamentarian, how much is that going to affect the continuation of the whole e.u. project, the euro as a common occurrence he and the appetite of the british people to further integrate with europe? >> the reason is the only appetite in britain for closer integration comes from a handful of politicians, diplomatic and the corporations. no ordinary purse and he doesn't have some stake supports it. my main campaign is to get a referendum. if they were such a mismatch between public opinion and political opinions. two thirds of the people want to leave the european union. that position is shared by less than 2% of members of parliament. that's what happens when you have open primaries, entire schools can be frozen out of the

legislature. it's obvious what should have been. but this crisis has proved is that you cannot apply a single monetary policy to widely divergent economies. it is exactly what those of us who oppose the year would predict what would happen and it's come to pass. so what should happen is we should allow the peripheral countries to save the monetary union, to print their own currencies again to their own interests and need. unfortunately, that is not what happened. because the assumption in brussels is the answer is always more europe. you're doing well. more europe. you're doing badly, more europe. and of course there is a great

logical because european integration has failed, so let's have more of it. because monetary union has been a disaster collets of fiscal and economic union as well. i suppose in one sense they are indicating what eurosceptics argued from the beginning. we always said this thing could work if they took with a national democracy of the united states and had a single system of government. john keynes argued he who controls the currency controls the country. i promise you that it's going to be the only time i quote keynes approvingly. in fact, never mind. let me give you a much better source. the very free to the gospel of matthew, chapter 22. the lord has asked whether it's proper to pay taxes. what did he say? show me the tribute money. jesus said to them, who is this image? the afternoon seriously.

then jesus that i surrender the things which are caesar's and unto god. before you conclude that i've completely lost my mind, i'm not arguing our lord is on one side or the other meant about the euro. [laughter] the point of the story is that when he was looking to identify the supreme source of temporal power, the one absolute symbol of government control, he pointed to the coin. economic policy is the website issue they get around to after busy days governing. it's the essential goodness of the modern states. and if that power passes from the 27 nation eurydice duchenne said e.u. the unelected bureaucrat, we have given away part of it. >> elmo, colorado springs.

i live in the u.k. and can attest to what you say that any fees or given. there is a sense that our founders was worth repeating elsewhere. ideas flow back and forth across the atlantic. our leadership once more europe. our people come as you see, rise up against. in the u.k., you just had the concern of government. where are you going with that? are you going to get europe was flow-through state? >> communicants and sensible welfare reforms if that's the best thing the government is doing, but the government has run up again and again against reality of its e.u. treaty applications. if even the smallest domestic reforms turn out to be against some directives. so last week, but big idea which he calls the big society and will be familiar in theory to an

audience like this. his idea is there is a space between the state and the individual that churches and charities and so on should be doing most of the things the government is currently doing. brilliant idea. he was going to fund the transition to the society by using the money that has gone unclaimed bank accounts for 25 years or something. the currently aren't doing anything. the day before he announced the policy, he was told that was against the law. a five-point is something you should or shouldn't be able to access funds. it's what the devil does this have to do with the european union? how did that become a cross-border issue? and this is what we've come up against again and again. i discovered the other day that i am obliged to keep my children

in car seats when i drive them around until they reach the age of 12. i had been looking forward to discarding it at a much earlier age than that. i think of it not to the children. as some of you might think that makes me an irresponsible dad. the point is, how did it ever become an international question that you had to decide on an imposed on how the billion people? that is sent in your state legislatures to decide on. yet in europe is decided at an international level. more than 80% of our laws are coming from brussels, from people that nobody has voted for a beer constitution based on the dispersal of power, freedom of decisions and maximization of democracy. line one or clause one of the opening treaty and the ever

closer union. and from the basic design of the. i look forward to read the european union becomes brody nonconfidence my countrymen will reestablish sovereignty and i look forward to forming a closer nongovernmental, but genuine and organic union with other english-speaking peoples. [applause] when we have looked at the greatest threat to freedom over the last few hundred years and look at who defended, it's the same countries whose names keep coming up again and again. united states, united kingdom, australia. and that to me is a genuine union based upon speech, law, history and on the affinity, not on government or treaties or trade. i think we would be much happier people if we discovered our global location.

[applause] time for tomorrow. i can see three more, so i'll try to be quick. >> steve parton and i confess having spent nine months in the u.k. nhs hospitals, as a student. seeing some of the open words there. very different system, but that's not my question. at the moment, the dollar is still primarily the world's primary reserve currency, but at the rate we are printing them, that may not last too much longer. what kind of currency might you see is the worlds reserve currency of the dollar is dethroned? >> well, i would like to see a commodity backed currency. we have had 40 years of current cms than 40 years of inflation in decline.

[applause] whether that is likely to have been, i don't know. but i'll tell you this. are bank of england is now plainly pursuing inflation as a matter of deliberate policy. it's the only way they can erode the debt incurred by the government. and there is something fundamentally dishonest about doing that, but it is i'm afraid behavior we've seen from every government in the west over the past 40 years. i was reading a lecture by hijack called how to stop inflation and in his first paragraph he said i'm going to talk politically about how you settle the argument, how you can persuade people to pursue alternative policy, but how do you control things? you can do it overnight. it's the easiest thing in the world. it would be to stop the price, stubborn money, start making things. yes, ma'am.

[applause] speenine and alex tandberg from denver and austin texas. my question is whether or not the federal government, which cherishes and admires his power can possibly be expected to manage foreign policy, which we would hope would ask for the american experiment in sports, for example, strong regime of economy. spend the government generally don't do things very well. and that they work at it renan airlines, they are not terribly good at running hospitals or schools and even the things they more or less have to do, such as controlling policy, you could make them do it better if they were more accountable, more democratic, more into public opinion. what is the best foreign policy is the one you are founding, lead by oracle examples. show people successive year system similar to emulate.

it doesn't involve invading anybody. funny enough it is for your current president said on the night he won. he made one of his typically uplifting speeches. he said we shown that her strength is not in primates are and our resources, but it's an hour system, our democracy. great. i hope he had found that, the one thing you can be doing now the things that you can do is to show people a better alternative. you do not make yourself more popular by imitating other people. you make yourself more respect you when you policy. [applause] >> name is mica and i graduate in 2008 from aurora and i went quick question for you. but sort of goals and aspirations you have for yourself going forward? to have any other higher aspirations and goals for your currently at a government or do you plan on stepping up higher or anything like the next three

to five years? >> nothing would make me happier than to abolish my job. in other words, in a situation where there's no numbers because the united kingdom itself left the european union. so i may have to impose a term limit on myself since we don't have term limits in the u.k. but the best kind of term would be the abolition of the assembly. let me, fma, take us very briefly on this last one. i had the great privilege at the end of last year of visiting ronald reagan's rancho site santa barbara. has anyone been there? as a trench around that little touch i thought with every step, my respect for this man is increasing. i tend to remember a politician has says and usually there are reminders bear, pictures of the

guy with their skits from visiting statements, by importing people. in reagan's ranch, there is no hint that this was the home of the leader of the free world. there's nothing political about it. that is the only -- that is the only political -- she had telegraph poles where he saw himself and i thought this was this is what the founding fathers. the citizen legislature who couldn't wait to get back from government and right around his ranch. market asher loved it. immediately the basic care they are of the little ranch reflected its inhabitant. gorbachev heeded it. he couldn't understand how someone could the summer so special. you remember him wearing his

cowboy hat around. i was at the reagan ranch. [laughter] and you know, that was the great thing about reagan as he didn't want to be there. he couldn't wait to get back. all of the reagan quotes, which are now so popular and my favorite one was i never trade coffee at lunch time. it keeps me awake in the afternoon. [laughter] i thought isn't that sound -- isn't that what you want from every politician? he was visited once at his ranch by liberal journalists. she couldn't believe -- it wasn't her idea of how republicans ought to live. she said incredulously, why? what is the attraction? he said surrounding the california highlands i will lift up thine eyes. that's what you need, my friends, somebody who is modest enough to understand in

government you're passing through institutions that are bigger than you are. [applause] [applause]

>> now a session on job discrimination a cl session on b discrimination a class-action loss is in the case of wal-mart versus duke deals with allegation of wage and promotion discrimination against female workers at wal-mart. the supreme court will have a moral argument in the case next tuesday on whether the lawsuit can proceed as a large

class-action suit was approved last april by the ninth circuit court of appeals. the largest employment discrimination lawsuit in american history, more than a million workers are involved. posted by the american constitution society, this is an hour and 40 minutes. >> hello, everybody. we're going to go ahead and get started. i'd like to welcome you to today's program, the future of employment discrimination class actions, a briefing on wal-mart v. dukes. and carolyn frederick sand, executive director of the american constitution society for law and society. for those of you not familiar with acs, where network of lawyers, judges, policy makers and academics and law students as a protector of human dignity, individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, access to justice, democracy and the rule of law. wal-mart v. dukes, as many of

you know, is one of the most anticipated cases before the supreme court this term. oral arguments will be heard next tuesday, the 29th of march. in the decade since this litigation started, many would argue that little progress has been made in eradicating workplace gender discrimination and indeed a recent report by the department of labor demonstrates that working women still earn significantly less than workingmen. wal-mart v. dukes will house an impact on how future inequities based on sex discrimination will be remedied or not by the court. as the supreme court sorts through the technical issues and narrow questions class certification that are presented, we must understand what are the broader implications of this, the largest employment discrimination lawsuit in u.s. history. will class-action's available response to workplace

discrimination post-wal-mart? but will a decision and wal-mart meme for the future of all civil rights litigation? is the supreme court, as some say, inclined to wait corporate interests higher than those of our nation's workers? and can we elect to recent court decisions for answers to these questions? we are very fortunate today to be joined by a distinguished group of experts to examine these and other questions. at the very great pleasure of introducing today's moderator, professor selmi. michael selmi is research professor of law at george washington law school. he churches courses on employment law, employment discrimination in constitutional law and has been widely published to these and other subjects. prior to entering academia, he

litigated with the lawyers committee for civil rights under law and with the department of justice civil rights division. michael also served as a law clerk to judge james r. browning, who was then chief judge of the ninth circuit court of appeals. so please join me in welcoming michael. thank you very much for doing this today. [applause] >> thank you very much. it is an honor to be here. and before we get started with the panel, i just want to give a quick summary explanation of the posture of the case because it slightly unusual in the way that this cases arising in the supreme court. so the claim against wal-mart for sex discrimination nationwide in 2001 by a group of attorneys who formed the case around some claims in the case was originally filed in

california and although the case has been pending for 10 years, not much is actually happened and that's one part that i wanted to frame because that's going to be a lot of discussion by the panelists. so the case involves classified allegations of sex discrimination in pay and permission by wal-mart and a lot of the case involves statistical analysis in part because the class is so large and because the statistical analysis is able to identify patterns across the company that would not necessarily be present or if you didn't individually and that's one of the aspects of the case as a precedent. the question that is still being argued about is whether this case can be heard as a class-action, whether it can be done collectively as opposed to individual cases. and that issue was originally decided by the district court and the cisco 2004, so we are

saving yourself from the initial determination and that issue is still present. twice the next day, district court in san francisco held that under the federal rules of civil procedure, which governed the process, particularly against rule 23 year different components that are likely to be discussed, that the case could proceed if the class-action. in fact, it was advantageous to proceed in a case like this, given the size and common issues of a class-action. that decision was twice affirmed by the ninth circuit court of appeals over the ensuing seven years and once by a three-judge panel and then in the ninth circuit, they were also able to have a broader court, not the full court considered. and then there were an 11 judge panel that upheld the certification decision by a vote of six to five. the supreme court is now addressing the issue of whether the wal-mart case is appropriate to be handled as a class-action.

some of the issues involved in nature of allegations with discrimination, but it's possible is the case unfolds in the supreme court, they will only address the class-action issue and not get involved in the sex discrimination. the panelists will discuss that more and i just want to give you the framing. probably the best of the most advantageous thing for the plaintiffs, given the case in the supreme court is supreme court action as quickly, so won't be another seven years. from start to finish it will be another eight months and we should have a decision by the end of june. so with that said, i'm going to introduce panelists as they come up, rather than to them on now. our first panelist is marcia greenberger and she probably does not need any introduction, but she still deserves uncommercial give you brief introduction. marcia greenberger as founder of the national women's, where

she's been doing work with gender equity for many years and great work at that. she's a recognized expert for women in the ms worked on a number of landmark litigation cases and also legislation, including the most recent legislation in this area, the lily let other fair pay act. so please welcome marcia greenberger.

women with respect to pay and promotion at especially a large employer in this course wal-mart is the largest employer in this country. in the introduction i was described that i had worked on lee ledbetter case which is true and then legislation, the ledbetter fair pay act and dow was passed in response to a 5-for supreme court decision just a few years ago, which also seemed to be on a technical issue. that was an equal pay case brought by one woman and the question the technical question was whether or not she would be out of time and filing for equal pay case.

in truth when they found that she was out of time it undermined the ability of employees generally to vindicate their rights in court. here too are the workers banning together to demonstrate a broad pattern of discrimination and that is so essentials the bigger the employe year in many respects the important the class action is both to elucidate the nature of the problem, to make it practically feasible to come up against an employer the size of wal-mart, and to be able to discover and determine all of the facts addition. there are few things about the fact that issue in this case that i want to underscore just in setting the stages of the

discussion goes on. first of all, one thing that is common in this case was a place with respect to the lily ledbetter case and many other workplaces. impleader has a policy employees are not supposed to talk about their pay, therefore and lily ledbetter's case, she did not find out until decades after she had been working at a good year that in fact she was paid less than her male colleagues and only found out from an anonymous note. women in wal-mart, men and wal-mart are not allowed to talk about their pay with each other or to ask about it from each other, so the pay practices are discretionary, which allow a

policy wal-mart set out which allows managers of broad discussion to determine what the pay should be, shroud the decisions in secrecy, does not set up standards as the plaintiffs alleged that will allow an ensure for the kind of consistency and fairness that would root out discrimination, but rather as the experts describe it because of that kind of discretion reinforces stereotypes', old networks. secondly, it practice described at wal-mart is a failure with respect to promotions to post jobs routinely that are available. therefore, in many instances as

described by the plaintiff, women did not ever know that there was a possibility for promotion to be able to apply for the job. and often only found out after a person was elected, and the statistics showed far more often and no employee than male and female employees at the promotion was available to begin with. on to the evidence provided in the wal-mart case, women have higher work evaluations than men, lowercase, fewer promotions, and the further a latter-day went, the fewer promotions they got. and also, they had to wait longer to get those promotions even if they knew about them and

got them. so it's a reinforcing web of lack of policies, lack of procedures that would encourage fairness, transparency, that works to the disadvantage as experts described in a broad base way all across the country at wal-mart, but it's also a set on employment practice that we find in many employers across the country, and our best able to be uncovered and ultimately remedied through this class action kind of mechanism. buttressed by the individual stories that the plaintiffs like betty have described of her

situation, and there were about 120 sworn statements declarations filed by other women in please across the country at wal-mart who described classic sexist comments about ginnie queues in the women employees. women don't get the same pay as men because they are working just to work men are working to support their families. women don't need as much pay as men. women aren't as aggressive in applying for promotions of course of the yet known about them that wouldn't have affected their aggressiveness. meetings being held, let's put

it that who they're seemed from some of the examples to be some of the better places where some of these meetings or sometimes failed so these specific examples but rest of the statistical disparities in pay and promotion that the experts showed across the country at wal-mart. i'm going to stop my comments now but to go back with an observation that i need in the very beginning, and that is through the most technical and dense legal issues, this court will ultimately decide whether employees in this country, women in this country, minorities, others, older workers, disabled workers will be able to hold and

lawyers accountable, or whether it would be left to individual to uphold and protect her rights against the biggest employer in this country and have to find the resources on her own to combat the kind of litigation that has taken ten years just to talk about these preliminary matters before you ever even were to get to the chance to carry the burden the plaintiffs have of proving the discrimination that they are describing has actually taken place. enormous resources, wal-mart is perfectly entitlement to marshal them, to defend itself in court, but it's the class action mechanism that allows employees to be about to bring these issues to the floor and allow

justice to be served and ultimately fairness to be meted out what. and in these economic times if ever there was any time when the women workers and the families they support need that fairness and justice it is in these times. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. our next speaker is said who's an associate professor of law at the columbus school of law at catholic university where she teaches courses on the procedure in conflict litigation and the employment discrimination with the combination with respect to the procedure and the discrimination issues. her practice also included class-action work so we've got great expertise and please

welcome susette. [applause] >> thank you so much for having me here. i'm going to address one of the issues that is before the supreme court. it's a little technical so bear with me, but it's very important. and the question here is whether or not plaintiffs in wal-mart can seek monetary relief under this particular class action rule. and if they can under what circumstances can they see their own monetary relief and then let's think about why is that important to employment discrimination cases. first of all, as was mentioned before we are looking at oral 23 is what governs but it's appropriate if you have a defendant that acts in a way that's broadly applicable to most people in the class then it's appropriate to have a class-action and they're seeking

an injunction or declaration. for example if everybody is challenging the same general practice, the same sort of systemic conduct in the workplace everybody pretty much shares the same goal. if we share the same goal then we are united and it makes sense to come together as a class. and because of that, under this particular rule, the lawyers don't have to send notice come individual notice to every class number were get everybody an opportunity to get out of the litigation and we allow this because the class by definition is very cohesive. we are all employees, challenging this particular policy that is in place. so maybe we want an injunction, we won the court to say we want this discriminatory policy to end. or we want a declaration, we want the court to say we are declaring that your conduct is illegal so we are bound together and we are a cohesive class.

not surprisingly, this is exactly the type of class action that has been popular for civil rights cases. in fact the drafters of the rule told us this is what we designed the role in mind with the civil rights cases in mind. it was designed for exactly the kind of case the we are looking at with the wal-mart case. we want an injunction to stop this policy. we want a - operation we think is illegal. in addition to this declaratory relief that the plaintiffs are looking for they are for monetary relief and certain types of monetary relief that's important, they ask for back pay and punitive damages so basically back pay is simply wages, salaries, any kind of monetary relief that you are entitled to that you are denied because of the discrimination and would have been paid ex i would pay why. and that is just meant to make

somebody whole again to put them in the place they would have been but for this discrimination, and we know often back pay is easily calculated. it's based on the formula, the employer has the data. we can calculate that without many complications. plaintiffs are also looking for punitive damages and punitive damages are put out and serious cases, serious circumstances where an employee may have discriminated with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of its workers and so here the idea of punitive damages is not so much how we compensate individuals but it's focusing on the conduct of the employer and the idea is to punish the employer and the tour's future misconduct so we know the plaintiff in wal-mart we are looking for that, too and finally something called compensatory damages the than pursue the - but that's important to know about. compensatory damages you

compensate somebody because of emotional harm and distress they've been through. mental anguish, sort of loss of enjoyment of life, that sort of thing and those are pursued because those are more difficult in terms of having individualized hearings you can't really bring that necessarily together. as of the plaintiffs are sought monetary relief and the question is any monetary relief permit it? the answer is yes. wal-mart argues that this will behan's monetary relief but that's not true. if we look at the world the rule was silent. the rule doesn't see that monetary release is allowed and it doesn't say it's prohibited. as a you can't import language into the rules it's not there. how do we know monetary relief is available for the plaintiffs in wal-mart because the drafters of the rule told us so. they basically said the advisory committee in their notes indicated they had in mind monetary relief when plaintiffs

were coming forward as long as the monetary damages you are seeking are not going to be predominant or take over the case and be more important in the injunctive to clear tory relief and in fact all of the courts of appeal have agreed have come to the same conclusions of this is a well settled law. the only issue that is open is whether or not if you are sick seeking monetary damages do those monetary damages have to predominate. i want to see something about back pay because it has historically been allowed in title vii cases of the act of 1964 and that is the plaintiffs were looking for. that is equitable relief, it's related to that in john tiffin declaratory relief and that force for decades allowed back pay the debt it's a critical component to tunnell seven and

two enforcement in the employment discrimination law. and we know that back pay is critical to eradicating the systemic discrimination, to making people whole and detour future misconduct by employers so the only -- in fact that is so important the supreme court said there's a presumption in its favor. so we know back pay is important to the enforcement of civil rights and that monetary damages are dealt with a little bit differently. the courts allow monetary damages like compensatory damages and punitive damages. but those damages you do have to be careful that they don't predominate, they don't to go for the litigation because the courts have recognized there is a little bit of a risk that the class members may not share the same interest, talking about compensatory damages to the delight of the will to four nj -- put into a formula. everybody takes the

discrimination in different ways so you have to figure out whether or not that release predominates. so really the question before the court now is how do you measure predominance, how do you figure that out? it turns out the courts of appeal are divided in three ways. they come up three different tests and so the supreme court is going to have to figure out how do i results that three-way circuit split on the courts? if i can conclude with telling you why does this matter, why do we care in terms of if this case the point of sloughs, if you can't of the class-action this is important. it's too be as a class action and for many people, employees, consumers and so forth, this is the only access they have come a meaningful access to the court system. so we want to be careful to protect the class action and make sure that people continue

to get back pay to eradicate discrimination to make people whole and the tour's future misconduct. [applause] >> the next speaker is the council mcgwire was where his practice focuses on class-action defense so we will have a bit of perspective here and he's the co-author of the class action playbook and maintains the class-action countermeasures' blog which discusses considerations involved in the class-action defense so please welcome andrew. [applause] >> hello. can everybody hear me? i know adjusting the microphone is sometimes an issue so i got asked before and as i was eating my lunch with or not i was the token right wing on the panel

and i hate to disappoint you all but my mother had me handing out michael dukakis for governor when i was much smaller that hasn't really changed actually, so i think that also get out to appear wal-mart and my answer again is going to be no. they have 1 million employees, it has a market capitalization of 174 billion, it has assets of 170 billion, that is with a be again, and it has failed last year 384 billion with a b. wal-mart can take care of itself. so who am i have here talking about? i'm going to talk to you about all of the people who are not in the caption of the case and those are the absent class members as they are frequently referred to, and one of the reasons will 23 is important is it allows people like betty and keep in mind this is a david

versus goliath matchup. didier is a greater at wal-mart. her job is to stand on her feet all day wearing a blue vest and make people feel welcome to her store. she's one of 63 named plaintiffs and those people who put their stories out there. they are behind them 1.6 million other women, and the issue here is whether or not she and her 62 fellow plaintiffs can adequately represent all of those other people. if you rule for the dukes can you take the verdict and handed over to the other 1.6 million have their case is proven? that is what role 23 is hardly about, that's why it is so powerful when it is well used and why it is so important that it be used carefully. so did the two things i want to talk about today are the difficult issues the court is going to have to face and they both have to do with whether or not will 23 was used carefully in this case. i don't think anyone here is going to argue wal-mart probably has no gender discrimination.

1.6 over time there is going to have been some discrimination there. is this the right to try the case. let's focus on the two most technical and at the same time important issues that are going to come up. the professor did a great job of describing and that is what bucket deep with the case in the the the second part of the rules? to parts of will 23 others 23 a and 23 be depending on the case you're bringing you have to prove slightly different things so let's start with the end part, rule 23. there are three buckets and 23 be. the first we don't have to care about, nobody's brought it up, but let's call the to the zero some, it exists when you have a case where any one class member verdict would actually deprived of reveals of getting their fair share of whatever is in dispute, bankruptcy although that isn't exactly what it is. the second bucket, the 23 and

the rule itself says for injunctive and declaratory relief. it doesn't say no money but it doesn't say money either it just says in giunta and declaratory and that is the legal that bucket. the third is traditionally used for money damages and anything else. and to have to jump through a couple of extra hurdles you have to demonstrate the common issues predominate and to have to demonstrate a class action is better than any other way of resolving the dispute. we call that superiority. and the reason you have to do that is because when money claims are issue somebody decouple suddenly carol lot more than if it is just an injunction, not that injunctions aren't important, but an injunction is going to go out the matter what and people are going to be effective matter what and it doesn't make sense to ask whether they want to opt out of changing the company's behavior, it will change the matter what. with monetary relief you release your claims in exchange for money and if you are going to make that trade and if you're going to train your claims for money than you need to have proper notice and the notice

requirements are different between 23 be committed in jumped of bucket and 23 b to the question is what is the case really about? is about getting the injunction against wal-mart or is it about getting the moment three relief? no matter what you call it. and thankfully in this case one of the things the courts has to wrestle with is the following fact. there are 1.6 million in the certified class and the lower-court. 800,000 of them, that's half are no longer employees with wal-mart. changing wal-mart's behavior does nothing for them at this point. they're only in it at this point for the money. the other 800 are in it for the injunction or the money. of uniting the other clauses on the jury believes, should you put them and the injunctive bucket that is the first question as you can tell from the way that i framed the question i disagree with professor velo and i think even though you can have back pay in this case it's the money during the case is not the intent of relief and that matters and what

does that matter? because these 800,000 people who are out there who aren't going to benefit from the injunction really care about whether they're going to get hurt in the case and the only way to get the notice and opportunity to opt out of the claim is particularly strong as if it is put in the money will bucket as opposed to the in jumped. in the money but it you can opt out of the class if you have a very strong case is the case is stronger than the dukes. in the ann jones if you can't and that is a really important thing going forward for the women who may have suffered greater discrimination than betty. the other issue i want to address very quickly is the other thing the court is addressing primarily in the that is the issue of what is called commonality. that is in the rule 23 a. there are four things everybody has to demonstrate to want to have a class certified. morosity. we have one pond 6 million women here. it's not an issue. nobody's arguing this one. commonality is the second one and the question is if you have an issue that is common to every one is that enough?

ordinarily, commonalities and lobar to meet but it's not so low that it doesn't exist. we can define people in such a way that no matter how we define them they have a common issue we can simply ask did what treat all these people like human beings? it's a common question that the problem is the answer to that question is it going to take you very far in the litigation to prove discrimination from that point forward you still have to prove how it was wal-mart treated you in humanely. in this case we are not far away from the level of generality the way the question has been defined. as it has been defined i'm going to use the language used by the plaintiff in the case is whether or not wal-mart fostered a, quote, corporate culture that allows, quote, gender stereotyping. and a corporate practice of giving store managers excess of subjectivity in multiple types of personnel decisions. when you ask a question like that it's pretty easy to see that it's common to everyone here but the answer isn't going to make a lot of difference to

these women. in order to prove they themselves were discriminated against the are still going to have to bring forward most of their claims and that means you've held a huge trial for very little progress at all. that's not to say that you couldn't certified the class against wal-mart. very briefly, wal-mart has 41 different retail divisions all of which are staffed by your own vice president who makes the policy. you could become a class-action in to 41 of these. right now i think the damages have been put at roughly a billion dollars for the class, for the forced of a billion and still enough to make a lot of lawyers sulfate systole enough to allow the cost to go forward this class we was certified may have been too big and diverse and that's one of the things the supreme court is rated the wrestling with. thanks very much. [applause] >>