[inaudible conversations] >> hello, i'm peter singer, and it's my pleasure to welcome you here today. the 21st initiative works with the forces working with the age-old phenomenas of war. these forces range from changing technologies to new actors in war to changes expectations or places warriors and changing doctrines and training schemes and even doctrines. a little over a year ago, we were honored to be joined by this gentleman who set before us a vision of how he saw some of the key issues, policy, and questions that surround an important new aspect in the discussion of what's changing in this war. the introwx introduction of -- introduction of unmanned systems. we discussed the navy's growing use of technology and unmanned systems into the current and

navy force structure on the information dominance side. he also addressed the major operational challenges and benefits from the new and rapidly evolving technologies and spoke to the doctrinal an ethical questions coming out of all of this. it was a very fascinating discussion, and what's interesting is that through the power of new technology, that discussion has, in a sense, become a living entity spreading both geographically, but also chronologically that is a year and a half later we continue to get questions and contacted from folks about that talk from everything from navy lieutenants on ships thousands of miles away to students at the navy war college to students here in dc, but one of the challenges of the technology, and i would argue the wider policy world today, is the incredibly fast pace of change, so for instance, if the short time since that

discussion, we've seen technologies that western, for example, -- that were, for example, you can describe as the dream stage now start to take flight. as an example, we have several programs vying for the navy view class program for the unmanned on deck systems or the fire scout in the time since we've had this discussion, the navy's unmanned helicopter went from doing sea trials to just deploying out to afghanistan in support of coalition forces there, so in essence what we're seeing is new possibilities and also new challenges that come out of not just the advance of this technology, but also by putting this technology in a wider set of hands for uses, and this will only continue. as an illustration last week i was involved in a war game set in the year 2025, a year a lot of planning scenarios,

documents, and strategy head towards. one thing i had to remind the team planning in terms of what the red and blue teams have was the fact in the year 2025, the 18-year-old sailor in that space will have been born in 2007, the very same year that the iphone was born, so the 18-year-olds in 2025 will have a very different sense of technology as well as a very different set of technologies at their hands than the 18-year-olds today which already is tough enough for us to wrap our heads around, and so it's lucky for all of us we are able to do something that's all to rare in washington which is to pull back, reassess, re-examine where matters stand and where they are headed. in essence, to take a much needed second look at at rapidly changing issue. we're even more lucky today to have admiral gary roughhead join

us for the rei look. he set us on this journey and brings a wealth of command and operational experience in the service including being one of two officers ever to commanded the fleets in both the atlantic and pacific, a well-deserved reputation as a thinking leader dedicated to mentoring the next generation of leaders and serving in the u.s. naval academy from which he previously graduated and he brings unique experience to the challenges of dealing and integrating with new technologies into the realm of national security and war including being the first officer to command both classes. admiral, it's an honor to have you rejoin us here today. >> thank you very much. [applause] well, i really do appreciate the opportunity to come back and visit and talk. i apologize for my tardiness.

if i said i was in a budget meeting, i know everybody would believe me if i said that, but it's true. [laughter] it is good to be here. the last time we were in the middle of the qdr for 2010. we were putting together the budget for 11, and it seems as if only yesterday i was here, but if you think in the intervening time, not only did we wrap 11, we wrapped 12, and now we're into 13, so time does fly when you're having a good time. i think that the other thing that has changed even though we could see it on the hoer horizon and sense it and beginning to get the first buffets if you will of what is sure to be a very interesting and up deed a

challenging budget environment -- indeed a challenging budget environment, that was the environment as we came together the last time, and i talked, and all that really is now starting to come to pass. at the time that i was here, we had just stepped off on really changing and recasting how the navy was approaching what i called the world of information. the advancing of information as the focal point where we wanted to bring our combat capability our operational capability into focus in a different way than we had in the past because it was clear to me we had moved beyond what i called the primacy of the platforms, the airplane, the

submarine, and the ship, and how we focused our budgetary thinking, and how we thought about our operations, and how we even organized ourselves as we made fundamental and significant decisions for the navy. we were at the beginning of that, and i'm very pleased to say that we have stayed the course, not only have we stayed the course, but i have seen exactly what i had hoped to see and the benefits that were to be derived from that change in direction. sense that time, we changed our staff structure and moved into the director for information dominance by bringing together the director for intelligence and the director for command and control. that has worked out extraordinarily well for us. we have now gone through two

budget cycles, going into the third with that construct. first was rather formative. 2012, i could really see the difference in how we thought about things, how we made decisions, and what those decisions produced. not only has the clock gone by quickly, but the officer that i had been waiting to move into that position for a couple of years as i thought about where i wanted to go has now completed his tour. he has done it brilliantly, and vice admiral jack who was the plank owner as the term we use in the navy as the first director of information dominance is going to pass the baton to his successor this summer, but i can't say enough about what jack has done to really put that organization in

place, and we'll be relieved by kendal card, his trusty right hand and truly workhorse throughout this entire effort, so i'm very pleased, and i'll touch more about some of the benefits on that. at the same time, we also move forward, and we reactivated the u.s. 10th fleet, a fleet that first came into being in world war ii to get after the threat of the u-boat in the atlantic. it didn't have any forces so to speak of. it was taking on a new form of warfare, and the way that germany was using the u-boat and the 10th fleet was able in a short period of time able to overcome that threat. vice admiral accelerated the 10th fleet faster than i had hoped in my wildest dreams.

in fact, we just had another session this morning as he continues to refine that, and we've made additional changes, and he's the only numbered admiral who has budget authority, and we have the warfare structure in underneath him to gain more first timelies and -- efficiencies and greater effectiveness going forward, and, of course, i think one the keys to it all is the creation of the information dominance core when we brought up all of the various specialties together and have begun to operate them as a corp., to lead them as a corp. and manage them as a corp.. there's 45,000 people in the navy when you do that, and we're beginning to see that we've been running long enough to where we are now cross-detailing so you may have a crypttologist

commanding a unit that at one time would have been commanded by an intelligence officer and vice versus and there's better awareness of the total information dynamic taking place. it's also in that organization that we put our unmanned systems and some of our manned systems again to better manage that portfolio as an information domain opposed to things that are done on ship, submarines, and airplanes and that in the course of the normal routine, maybe you can integrate them together so there's no question that what we've been able to achieve and where we are now would not be possible without better structuring ourselves, approaching this information dominance concept comprehensively, and then integrating into that the

approaches that we have with antiaccess ariel capabilities. at the time we started down this path, air-sea battle as a concept was not really flushed out, but it's really in how we organized ourselves that when we got together with the air force and the marine corp. to do air-sea battle, it was a natural fit in how we organized ourselves, how we were able to look at antiaccess ariel denial because of the world we live in today, most of that is going to be in the information domain in one form or another, so, again, that has allowed us to move ahead. it is not been without challenge. in fact, peter may recall that i used a favorite quote of mine as i was talking about where we were going that nothing is more

difficult to take in hand more pearl peril yows to conduct than to take the lead and new order of things. that's just the nature of the beast. as i look at where we are today, we have been able to move through that. that's not to say that there's still not areas where we have to do some additional work to better sink sing crow news activity, the tardiness often robs us of opportunity because i believe we're in a period of budgetary time where it's going to be important to move quickly, to solidify the gains that we have made, and to make good decisions about the paths that we want to be on in the future. i think that innovation in the

navy is something we are proud of. we have seen it transform naval warfare in the past. the fact that we're celebrating 100 years of naval aviation is one milestone of that innovation, but i also go back in time and think that it was kind of a mix back then as well. i look back with envy on the first stirrings of the idea, and then from that idea of flying an airplane off of a ship that we had in three months actually procured the airplane. i wish our procurement process worked that good today to be able to do it. [laughter] again, you hit this inertia, and six years later, there's only a few aviators in the country, so it's a very slow climb out, but

then when world war i came along, that's when you began to see things move, and so i think that's one case of naval innovation. the other i submit is nuclear power that totally transformed where we can be as a navy, where we can be persist tent and where we with exercise ultimate stealth, and i think the initiatives we're talking about today in information dominance and in unmanned systems will fall into that category when we look back on this period of time. the process we have gone through as we put our budget together in 12, not only has it served to capitalize on what we are doing in information dominance, but the other driving factor that we in the navy have focused on is getting our arms around total

ownership cost because i think in the types of systems that we're acquiring today, if we're not thinking about that total ownership cost, including manpower as well, we could be delivering a force that is unaffordable, so we have looked very, very hard at that as we've made our investment decisions, not just in the information dominance area, but across the board as well, and i'm also pleased that in the 12 budget and what we have been setting up over the last couple of years is really to create some stability, some uniformity in how we're going forward, and if you look at the navy's fore structure, let's just remove the information dominance piece that i've talked about, i'm very pleased that in all of the platform areas, which i said are now no longer, you know, the

dominant drivers that perhaps they used to be, and in the submarine community for example, we built two virginia class submarines in a year, and we are now in the design of the replacement for the ballistic missile submarine in the ohio class that i consider to be the most survivalble leg, and our surface fleet right before christmas getting the approval to go forward with a buy of 20 la tore yal combat ships. that is going to be very well-suited to the environments that i think we'll be operating in in the future. restarting the gdg51 line, building the joint high speed vessel, and some of you may have seen where we have now in cooperation with the army, we have now taken all the joint high-speed vessels that had been in the army now will all be in the navy and operated by the

navy. we continue to build the big deck am ampphibs to address the needs of the marine corp. because the amphibious capability and the abilities to offshore will be increasingly important in the years ahead where sovereignty concerns will weigh so heavily on countries as they deal with different situations. i think in the aviation area is where we are essentially renewing ourselves. the joint strike fighter in the navy and proceeding on with that and the airplanes are not too far from undergoing testing. we have continued to procure the superhornet which will bridge us into the jsf quite nicely.

we have, in test, the p8 maritime patrol aircraft which is the replacement for the p2. that testing is going well. we have in our scwawn drone the advanced hawkeye e2d which when coupled with other systems in the navy rave -- really gives us a reach we never had before. i point out that the e2d does not reside in the aviation portfolio, but rather resides in our information dominance portfolio. two new hell -- helicopter series that we have, the romeo and sierra, the most advanced helicopters on the planet, but i'm also very pleased with what we've been

able to do with unmanned as peter alluded to in a very short period of time. we have done a trial deployment of fire scout, the vertical take off uav. there were some exciting moments on that deployment to be sure, but as i tell everybody, the thing that i have come to find out about uav's is that they do exactly as they are -- what they are told to do unlike most naval aviators. [laughter] all you have to do is make sure you have the code right, and you know exactly what it's going to do. no offense to my friends, but since that time we have pressed it out again on another deployment that's in support of special operation forces in the middle east amassing hours and mission at a very steady rate, a very reliability rate, and as

also has been mentioned because of the capability of that aircraft, we have deployed some of them into afghanistan to support ground troops, and as we put this unmanned enterprise together the direction i cave gave to my people is it has to be flexible and agile and we will not be constrained by saying it's a naval capability. it is on naval ships. we want to be flexible. if they need an attachment, you pick it, and we will provide that. it may be on a ship, ashore, or on a platform off the coast of some country which i think gives tremendous potential for maritime domain awareness. we continue to fly the bams

demonstrator surveillance system in the middle east. it is worth its weight in gold. we applied the first demonstrator there a couple of years ago for proof of concept. we're wondering where it is because it's not come back, but i think that speaks to the value of it, and we are continuing that program in our budget because i think that's going to give us the long dwell that we need. it was extraordinarily pleased with the flights of the x47-b, the carrier version of our uav. it's a flying wing. some of you may have seen the clip. the flights went very well. the airplane performed very well. the landing was dead-on, which in carrier aviation is critically important because you don't have a lot of real estate

to work with, and we remain committed to getting a squadron aboard a carrier by 2018, and we're going to press to do that, so good focus there. the control system for the ucass is in a king air and in a hornet surrogate so we can continue to refine that process and what for us is a bit more challenging unmanned environment than for most because of the extraordinarily magnetic environment of our ships at sea. that's a capability and a feature of unmanned systems that we pay a great deal of attention to, but i would also say that, you know, so the naval aviation i think is a pretty exciting place. in fact, if you're a young sailor or officer coming into naval aviation today, you are

looking at an entirely new fleet, and the point that i make about everything i have just listed at a time when budgets are going to be very, very challenging, you can touch everything i talked about. you can physically put your hand on it which i am pleased that we have been able to do because those things that exist in powerpoint may have a problem crossing the valley of death, and i think those of us who have been in the business can understand how challenging that can be, so please, with that -- i'm also very pleased that we have been able to keep the press on unmanned underwater systems. in the session that i had here a couple of years ago and in different veep -- venues where i talked about unmanned systems, i challenged the technology community, the

research community, the academic community to give us power in unmanned underwater systems, safe ship ward long duration power is the coin of the realm, and i've been extraordinarily pleasessed with the -- pleased with the response we have received and the advancements in technology in that area. i'm pleased with some of the tests we have run with networked unmanned underwater systems that i think will have the potential if we do it right of changing the underwater domain, so the fact that when we talk unmanned, we tend to look up in the sky. i look underwater because that is an area where you can truly change naval warfare. i would just say that some of the challenges that i think we

face, and i talked about, you know, tardiness and how that could rob us of opportunity. the need to compress the cycle, compress the time line of being able to take concepts, to be able to take test vehicles and get them out there, that compression is going to become increasingly important. i've worked over the last couple 6 years to disturb of years to make -- of years to make sure we're not taking time out of the process and take it through what are lengthy developmental tests and evaluation processes, i think we have to be able to do that. we have to have a very serious discussion as we are in the navy about what the bandwidth requirements are, what are the network requirements, and as new

systems come on, it's great that we're designing a new system that can do x, y, oz, but if you rely on existing networks to do that, existing data links, they are pretty well catch waited particularly when you are dealing with the maritime environment where our pipes are going on and off ships are somewhat more restricted than what you find in terrestrial applications. we are looking at that and looking at the architectures we want in place. also examining in the navy how we would be introducing these into our fleet, and we have not elected to develop separate organizations that will deal with our unmanned systems, particularly on the aviation said. the original plan as these were first envisioned was to be able

to put separate squadrons together of vtuav or u-class or the bams, for example. i can't afford the overhead, and i think the overhead is excessive when we do that, and so you will see in the navy dtuavs become part of helicopter scwawn drones and we operate them in an integrated way and to think of the battle space not as an unmanned mission or manned mission, but how do you bring the two together? i think the other thing that will be important as we go forward and this is sometimes more challenges than it may appear on the surface is how can we fail well? how can we realize that we're riding something that's not paying off for us divest of it and get out of it cleanly and

move on to something else without penalty? in the system in which we work, i think those who worked in the system know that can be one of the hardest things to do in washington, to admit that something isn't working, that the money that was invested was invested with due diligence, but that the technical leap we were trying to make didn't deliver, and therefore, we move forward, no harm, no foul, let's get on with it, and do something else. i think if we want to be truly innovative, we have to get beyond the impediment that keeps us from being able to do it. some of the other work that we are doing particularly with a group that i have chartered up at the war college in newport that works for me, the strategic studies group, a group that reconstitutes every year about a dozen or so bright navy captains

and air force colonel, marine colonel, and a coast guard captain on there is to look at different things of interest to me. i personally write the tasking letter which is less than a page for them. their work is delivered on the unmanned mission and the u26 and the 10th fleet and information dominance corp.. this year they are working on a new computing environment for the navy because i was struck that when i pulled my droid out of my pocket and look at the big computer on my desk, i can do more with that little thing i hold in my hand, and so what i chartered them to do is to talk to me about how we can rethink how we move information and how

we're able to tap into information in a very, very secure way. i won't go into the busyness because the focus today was the future, but it's safe to say we have been rather busy, and i think that what we have also done in the last couple of months is reaffirm the strategy that we issued with the coast guard and marine corp. about three and a half years ago. i always get the question is the strategy going to be rewritten? if you recall, the strategy calls for six capabilities that we want to be able to field. we want to be global. we want to be a deterrent force both with the nuclear deterrent, but also with our conventional forestructure, exercise sea control, project power, conduct

maritime security, provide humanitarian assistance to disaster response. coi understand -- codidn'tly, that question was asked when i knew what we were going to do in libya, but it had not been out in the public yet, so i thought about that question, and i said, let's see, deterrent forces on patrol as it has been for decades, two aircraft carriers are sitting in the north arabian sea as we see changes sweeping across the middle east, not a bad conventional deterrent force that's down there. we knew what we were going to be doing in libya, projecting power, controlling the sea and the access to the ports there, sea control. go a little further to the east, conducting counterpiracy operations off the coast of somalia with a strange group of countries to include china, russia, and india and every once

in awhile iran comes down and spends time there. that's maritime security, and then at the same time, we have ronald reagan strike group that was en route to a deployment that pulled off on one day's notice and provided humanitarian assistance into japan, and so if we question the relevance of the strategy, the capabilities that we continue to see employed around the world, that one snapshot in time kind of captured it all. the question for us now is how do we advance the capabilities? how do we anticipate the future? how do we properly develop the human capital that will operate these new systems, and then how do we control the total ownership costs, and that's where i spend a lot of time thinking, so with that, i will stop. i have spoken far too long.

hopefully it primed the pump a little, and i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> why don't you join he here, okay? i'll use the moderator's power for the first question. >> so you quoted, perhaps the greatest italian philosopher, mac veally. i'll come back to you with mark twain. [laughter] >> by the way, he's loaded on my droid. [laughter] >> he said history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes, and i appreciated the way you related certain parallels you saw in technologies that had

previously transformed naval warfare such as planes, nuclear power, and i wanted to maybe question you to dig a little bit deeper for us in terms of your view on two questions. one is where in the history say those parallel technologies and experiences do you think we might be today? the second is what are the lessons you draw from those experiences both in terms of maybe positive choices they made back then, or false pathways they went down to. what are the lessons you draw from this other than perhaps we need to find the great, great grandson of that navy contract officer back in 1911 who got a new plap out there in three months. what are the larger ones? >> yeah, i think when you ask the question where do i think we are? if i could go to naval aviation,

i would say that we're probably in 1938, 1937. we have the concepts. we have the tools, if you will, but the leaders in 1938 probably didn't envision midway which was really the, in my mind, the real advent of carrier aviation, not just on the part of the united states navy, but also on part of the japanese imperial navy, and so i think we have the things we need, but how it all comes together and how you use it in conflict really didn't come to

pass until then. i think we are moving down that path i believe of putting structures in place, we're developing the skills. we're now starting to -- excuse me -- beginning to develop the numbers of people who are truly becoming quite expert in that, and as i go around, and i visit our young operators in the information dominance area, they're pretty good, but how does it all come together? i think that we're, you know, kind of on the edge of jumping into that. i would then like to go to the nuclear power analogy, and i think that's one of the greatest stories of perseverance and bringing new technology quite frankly, very disruptive technology into an organization that ultimately transformed

naval warfare. what i would like to be able to take away from that is the discipline with which we did then and continue to operate that capability because i do believe that even though we want in the world of information to allow innovation to flow because of the security issues that same type of discipline and process, and as we train very high-end operators, you know, what are the expectations? what are the standards? what are the steps we take those people through? so kind of blended the answer there a little bit, but i think those are some of the things that we really need to think about because kind of touching back on the security piece, you know, we've look the long and hard, for example, at how do you use information, some of the new

mediums and applications and you immediately -- you immediately are drawn into the security dimension, and so how do you balance the benefit and the security? who are the protocols you use? i think that being somewhat risk adversed, we tend to default hard on the security side, and i think that can stifle the use. we have gone through that debate and become quite avid advocates for the use of social media and how we move things around, and so i think it's an area where we got to get this protocols, the security, the standards right, but not lose sight of it because just as a current example, when i got up the last few days, i've been getting up

in the morning and i get great reports from people in the field of we did this, and this is the status. i've been watching the water coming down the mississippi. why do i watch that? we have a base, last year, that does all of our personal activity that flooded out, shut the navy personnel system down. getting great reports from the commanders, but i go on millington's facebook page, and i can find out exactly what's going on in realtime and what people are doing about it and how they feel about it and the level of anxiety that exists, and i can't pull that from a normal report, so how do we want to use that sort of, you know, idea or technology so it's pretty exciting, actually. >> okay, great, thank you. we have a lot of questions. wait for the mic, please introduce yourself, and here all

questions end with a question mark, starting in the front here. [laughter] >> dane from aviation wing. there was a lot of concern about whether the technology you're investing in was important during the libyan operation and i think their electronic and cyberoperations -- were there enough cyber and electronics used there to validate your need for that against what many considered a really third-rate power? >> yeah. the -- let me touch on the electronic attack first if i could, and i'm going to flog the cyberbusiness a little bit because of, not wanting to get into areas that i shouldn't, but electronic attack i would submit that a story of the value of

electronic attack, but also the agility of it. my view is when you -- when you talk about a third-rate power, i don't consider our aviators flying into a third-rate power any less critical than going into an air defense system of a high-end power. i think it has to be taken very seriously because of the proliferation of systems that we see around the world so my sense is that you are always going to have to go in and effect that system electronically before you do anything kinnectly to it. we are connected and we very much wanted the mission to take up the broader electronic attack

mission which led to the procurement of the growlers that the navy had. the grawler squadron, the first growler squadron in iraq, recovered from a combat mission in iraq, and 48 hours launched to libya on a mission from italy. that's pretty extraordinary as far as agility and the capability to do that. it would have been better to not have to move that squadron, but that's why we're up vesting in -- investing in growlers. i think electronic attack will become increasingly important. it figures prominently into our information dominance portfolios, not just in electronic attack that's carried on board. our airplanes, but also the electronics we're continuing to advance on our surface ships and submarines. i do, in the cyberside, i do

believe that whether it's a submarine, a ship, or an airplane, but particularly a submarine, i think, can be an extraordinary system in which to participate in cyber operations, particularly in the way which we tend to rely more and more on mobile capability, so i think that, you know, those are areas that we have focused on, that we're putting significant investment into, and it's a may -- mayor part of what we're doing. >> is the answer that the capabilities in libya that yes, they did prove themselves valuable? >> yes. [laughter] >> right there. >> michael dayton, retired officer and service affairs. you referenced machevelli so

often but said tardiness robs us of opportunity, but you seem to be content with the board carriers. maybe i associate incorrectly some urgency with uks, with the chinese usbm, is that the best we can do and what we should stick with and do you make that association? >> okay. i think if i have any of my staff in here when there's an ioc beyond 2013, they know i've become pretty irate over that, but no, what we're doing is particularly moving on to u-cassu-class, i think that if we can deploy a squadron of u-class on board an aircraft carrier in the next seven years

given where we are today, given the environment in which will -- as i said, the electromagnetic environment of the carrier, the nature of everything else that's still going on on the aircraft carrier, where we are with u- cass and u-class and we want a squadron on board, that's pretty rapid. i'm not saying i'm satisfied with it, but that type of technology and the application of the technologies, that's at a pretty good clip, but at the same time continuing to invest in the types of capabilities that we are with the jsf, the additional superhornets, and keeping all those investments balanced. i'm satisfied with that. if someone were to come in and

say, hey, i'll give it to you at 2016 at the same price, i'll take them up on it. >> okay. some folks further in the back there. yeah. >> bob, robotic technology. a couple kids ago there was the concept -- a couple decades there was the concept of a vessel that would be largely unmanned and heavily weaponed. since then, the technology advanced considerably, so is there any interest in revisiting the concept to take another look at it? >> i would say that what you saw employed in libya is not a bad arsenal ship. it was the fsgn. it happened to be in the mediterranean at the time and was able to, you know, send quite a few missiles in toward libya, but to the point of a

surface ship that would be an arsenal ship, no. again, i think we have to look at all of the capabilities that we have in place and the nature of the developmental costs that we're dealing with. the fact that we can now integrate our systems in such that i think the future is going to be very realistic for one ship to be shooting off of somebody else's information, and so i think we'll see the type of concept arsenal ship was envisioned to have, but at the present time, taking a blank sheet of paper, designing an arsenal ship, not on my plan right now. >> i want to push a little bit further not on the arsenal ship,

but the idea that you noted we're getting to the ability to shoot off of someone else's knowledge. one of the keys within air-sea battle doctrine is not just that kind of exchange of information in terms of targeting, but also the inverse in terms of vulnerability, depending on someone else to guard your systems. particularly such as an air defense or the like and to go back to the prior question against ballistic missiles. are you satisfied right now with where we're at in the exchange of information, not just within the maritime environment, but perhaps cross services within the air-sea battle doctrine vision? >> yeah, i think the air-sea battle process and integration was really quite remarkable. the openness that the services had in the navy and marine corp.

pretty open because we are all working off the same budget, but in the case of the air force and the navy, our teams were integrated. we opened programs to one another that had never been opened to one another before, and so the ability to go forward together and look at where is there a gap? where is there redundancy? where do you think you have to have increased capacity? all of that has been very, very openly vetted, and i believe we've been able to make some, you know, far better decisions than we would have if we had had stayed on the old path, so i was pleased with that. >> all right. okay. right there. >> jap harper with --

john harper. have you seen the evidence that the chinese are working on uav's, and are you concerned about the potential of that happening? >> there's no question in my mind that china's as well as many other countries are working on uav's. i think that they've kind of captured the imagination, and, you know, not only are the countries that have the more technology advanced militaries working on them, but you can buy them from somebody else if you want to so i think uav's are here to stay, and to be advanced, and i would also submit that, and i touched on it earlier, the key will not only be to get the good vehicle, but how do you move the information? how do you sense the information? how does that information find its way into the operational

decision making or into the connectic result you're seeking? the thing that i look at is the fact that somebody has a uav is interesting. how is it being used? how is it being networked? what are the capabilities? it's one thing to have it. it's another thing to use it effectively, so, you know, that's where my interest goes is as soon as i get a sense that somebody has a uav, i try to dig in deeper and see how it's being used, and, quite frankly, what are the potential as a as a vulnerabilities of them because that's part of the game as well. i think we tend to take a lot of weapons developments and thing in terms of it exists, therefore i'm at a disadvantage opposed to it exists, therefore, how do i seek an advantage?

that's how we have to look at all warfare, particularly in the information world. there's a lot of benefits to be beginned, but also vulnerabilities almost at every turn. >> as a writer, i can't resis, there's 44 other nations beside the united states building robotics. that historic parallel you laid out for us of naval aviation, in many ways, another parallel is that wrestling everybody's going through what's the best dock drin for utilizing this. time for one more question. right there. no, we need to give an air force guy a chance. [laughter] >> colonel with the officer net assessment. walked us through a couple transformation that the navy has gone through as far as aviation and nuclear power. as far as the battleship, and i

wonder if you would comment on what may happen with the carriers when we look into the future, particularly if it's challenged by these range capabilities -- >> yeah. >> and similar with the battleship. where do you see particularly the supercarrier moving into the future? >> yeah. i think one it's how do you look at the carrier? how do you look at how the carrier's employed and the totality of the systems, sievessive systems and -- defensive systems and offensive systems it has. i know there's a great deal of interest in the carrier vis-a-vis, the df21. that's the big question, and how that carrier now becomes vulnerable. the carrier is movable. the carrier is maskable, and then there's a whole set of

defensive systems that are able to be employed. i would submit, and you'd expect it from somebody wearing this uniform, put me on that opposed to a fixed land base where i can tell you exactly where the coordinates are, and they're not going to change, and so i think it's interesting that we have the debate about the carrier or the questions about the carrier when the fixed land sites which are extraordinarily as a vulnerable are not part of the question. it's not a question of either/or, but how do you maximize both of them. with regard to the carrier, and i'll kind of step back and put a little different spin on it. i think of carriers as movable sovereign airfields that -- that we don't have to have permission

to move. we don't have to have basing rights. we don't always have to have over flight rights particularly if coming from the sea and the area that we're interested in as a coastal area, and so the question to me becomes where does the nation want to have the ability to have these flexible airfields that we can putt wherever we want them and can move them rather quickly. you can move from the arabian gulf and into the adrey yatic because i've done it before in seven days, and to be able to move that amount of power, that power projection that quickly without any negotiations having to take place, i would submit is an aspect of the military that the nation may find helpful.

even in the -- as you look into the future and the challenges that may be posed against it, you know, we have been dealing with capabilities and systems that are a raid against an aircraft carrier really since the beginning of aircraft carrier aviation. they have moved from other ships, other aircraft carriers, submarines, air defense systems, cruise missile, and that's all part of how warfare developments. development occurs, you develop counters to it, and we'll work our way through it. the fundamental question for me is do you want to have the ability as a nation when sovereignty concerns will become more acute in my opinion in the future? do you want those sovereign airfields where you need to be them where you can use to detour

or assure, and that's how i view the aircraft carrier. >> well getting to the closing time. there's two thoughts that i have herement one is that when we talk about the determinants of success, the first in navigating these types of revolutions and technologies and challenges, the first is to keep our eyes on the horizons to be aware of what's coming at us and also be able to mime the lessons of the past, and we've seen evidence of that here today. the second is one of the major determinants of success is something that doesn't change, and that's good leadership, and i'm thinking of the historic parallel of admiral moffit in the story of naval aviation that often its leaders that may not come from that particular background, but have a combination of vision and drive to get things done that often determines whether we really do achieve success, and i think with those two things in mind, it's very lucky for us that we

have you serving in our nation's service, but also that you've joined us here today to discuss these challenges issues with us, so please join me in a round of applause. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..

the u.s. commission on civil rights today held this all day even on bullying in schools. we will first hear from education and justice to part with officials about what you're doing to combat the problem. that's followed by a panel on sexual orientation discrimination. this part of today's event is just over three hours. >> the hearing will come to order. my name is mardy castro chairman of the commission on civil rights. i want to welcome you all to this business meeting of the u.s. commission on civil rights. i also want to take this opportunity to welcome back michael, the commissioner who was recently reappointed. welcome back, michael. the time is six ackley 9:01 may 13th, 2001 the purpose of this meeting is to conduct a briefing on the federal response peer-to-peer violence and a bullying as well as harassment as information today will be gathered for the purposes of our 2011 statutory enforcement report that will be presented in september of this year to the

president to the united states and congress to the united states. this is an extremely important issue for us all. every one of us in this room and on this panel and listening to this has children in our lives that we love and care for, whether they are our own children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, students, got children, neighbors, and we all want them to have safe, happy and all the lives where they can reach their full potential. i know that i can say that each one of us regardless of our affiliation or political audiology wants to have communities and schools that are safe for our children regardless of their race, national origin, sex, religion, disability status or sexual orientation. where we may differ is how we want to accomplish that goal. to that point today we are going to hear from jerry is individuals who are going to present to us different points of view and different perspectives on the legal

responsibilities and the constitutional and civil rights implications of those different methods to protect our children. i think that as we have this discussion i know that each one of my commissioners and i will lead by example so that today we have a very thoughtful discussion about these issues with our fellow commissioners and the witnesses so that we prepared for congress and the president of bipartisan report. i want to thank each of you for being here today and give you a little bit of the ground rules on how we are going to manage the panels for today. we are very fortunate we provided 20 highly distinguished speakers to provide a diverse array of expertise and viewpoints. unfortunately with so many wonderful panelists, time is going to be at an extraordinary premium. in order to maximize the amount of time and opportunity for discussion between commissioners and witnesses and to ensure those people that are participating on panels leader in the day have an opportunity for their fair share of time going to strictly enforce time allotment for each panelist to present his or her statement.

panelists are going to noticed there's a system of warning lights set up like a traffic light. when the light turns green to yellow, as we do when you're driving, we know it's time to show caution and wrapup. you have two minutes remaining when you see the yellow light. when the light turns red i'm going to ask all panelists to please cease your presentation. we have your written statements, we have reviewed them part of the record so we ask you to strictly adhere to that time limit. i don't want to have to cut anybody off which i know my general counsel will require that i do, so please, keep to that. the first panel will have a ten minute time frame for this defense and the other succeeding panels throughout the day will have seven minutes. also due to the time constraints i'm only going to be giving a cursory overview of the individuals panelists background, all of their fall biographies and some of their presentations are out in the lobby at the table, if you would like to see the full biography please, make sure you receive a handout if you already have not. lastly, i'm going to ask my fellow commissioners to consider

it to the panelists and one another by keeping their questions and comments concise. i will be calling on commissioners as they raise their hands, and i will fairly delicate time for them to ask questions, so when u.s. question, please come and get one question, although i know that at times there will be multiple parts to the question. we just ask you to keep the to eminem. if we abide by that arrangement we are going to have multiple opportunities to ask questions of all the panelists. we will begin with panel one which is the federal agency efforts to enforce the civil rights law. we have as our speakers the u.s. department of education and joselyn samuels, senior counselor to the assistant attorney general for civil rights of the u.s. department of justice. assistant secretary russlynn ali has a tight schedule and has to leave early this morning so to accommodate her schedule i am going to bifurcate the panel so she will have ten minutes to answer -- to make her presentation.

we will follow that with questions that will occur until 9:40. at that time, we will go to ms. samuels will have ten minutes to present her presentation and then we will question her until 10:ten. so i would ask each panelist to please, raise your right hand and swear and affirm or affirm that the information you are about to provide to us is true? and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief.????? assistant secretary ali, we begin with you. >> thank you, commissioner castro and all of you to be here with you today. this is a hugely important issue, and as the secretary of education arne duncan has bate the come made it clear it can't come from washington alone, solutions can't come from washington alone and certainly not from the department so that you are taking the time to think about this issue. we very much appreciate the hugely important moving forward. i don't have to tell anyone in

this room and certainly none of you how important the crisis of bullying has become. you would have heard the president talk about it and that we need to shift the paradigm in the schools, the cultures that give rise to bullying and make it seem as though bullying and harassment are somehow a rite of passage. we are working with local educators and officials across the country to help change those patterns. as the secretary has also said students can't learn if they don't feel safe. so i will work in the office for civil rights on this issue has been geared towards that, ensuring that students in our nation's schools, colleges and universities, and that those responsible for teaching them understand their role and responsibilities when it comes to comply in and helping to

adhere to the nation's civil rights law. we are working with educators here and community members, advocates and concerned citizens everywhere to help students, to help students understand both what their rights are and to help teachers and their community members and parents understand what they can do in the event that their child is a victim of bullying and what to do in the event that they see bullies or teach bullies and their schools. we are a proud of the affects of some of our recent work has demonstrated already. for example, and i will talk about it a little bit more momentarily, recent guidance that we issued on sexual violence under title ix, making it clear that sexual violence

can constitute a violation of title ix, that there are responsibilities for college campuses and school districts to ensure that victims feel safe and day address the cultures that give rise to sexual harassment and sexual violence and the help prevent it from moving forward. in very short order, several universities began taking action. we have heard that stanford university, yale university, the university of virginia have all announced that they are proactively changing their standards of proof in title xcii better comply with the office for civil rights standards and our guidance. we have also recently resolved some complaints on the issues of harassment and bullying working with our colleagues of the department of justice, we are

helping school district that are confronting this issue today. recently in the school district in minnesota a case involving harassment of some of the american students. we worked with local officials to ensure that those students would feel safe and we would address the very serious acts of harassment those students suffered. the superintendent, i am pleased to say, said in the press when asked about this that the office for civil rights and we together with the department of justice have made her school district better. the guidance that we've issued has been designed to help school districts and universities for sabine's of federal funds, just that, understand what their responsibilities are. we have issued two of them recently. one on the sexual violence, where we made it clear come as i

mentioned, with the requirements were when sexual violence occurred, what the requirements for win education of title ix come plants happened on school campuses, the kind of interim support that might be required if the victim needs them. we've also issued this past october guidance on bullying and harassment under all of the statutes in our jurisdiction, title vi, section 504 and title nine they are with the intent of making it clear what responsibilities were and providing as much assistance proactively that we could to institutions. we are also embarking on some technical assistance, coordinating our work with amazing relationships, the department of justice, so that we can ensure that we bring all of our resources to bear to help solve this problem.

now the rule of the privacy guidance, while it intended to make clear what the standards are are also a little more detail than you might have seen in the past. that is because we are trying to apply the guidance and the legal standards for school districts in the circumstances they deal with in real time. we understand some of the concerns about the guidance so that we proactively address some of what we have heard. we have heard the we are changing the standards of proof. we've heard that davis versus monreal requires actual notice, not institutions to know or should have known the acts of harassment or violence occurred on their campuses. there though we are talking in

lonrho very different circumstances. we were talking about monetary damages and the private litigation, the courts have recognized that we said standards to the two standards and since 1994 in 2001 and beyond the office for civil rights has made it clear that the standards for harassment or whether institutions knew or should have known that harassment occurred. we are also very mindful of the concerns and the play of our guidance with first amendment, and as our guidance in october made it clear, this in no way seems to attempt to trump the first amendment, those values and core constitutional principles or complementary and are not contradictory to enforcing the nation's civil

rights law. but even so, very little of the harassment that we see involves protected speech. physical harassment, violence, threats, there never constitutionally protected as i know you know. harassment the same thing as unpopular or a sense of speech and as our dear colleague leaders made clear student on student aretas and violates federal civil rights laws, and cities to create a hostile environment that interferes with a limit students' ability to participate in or enjoy the benefit of the services offered by the institutions. the first amendment free-speech clause does not give students license to say what they want when they want without regard to the effect that there speech has on students and schools. we will not tolerate discriminatory harassment that interferes with providing a safe and nurturing environment for all of the students. and of course no universal

one-size-fits-all approach will be right for every school or every student struggling with issues of bullying and harassment and the policy guidance hasn't attempted to keeping the schools free from harassment is primarily a local responsibility and one that we want to help institutions maintain. the other aspect of the work as i mentioned some of the very positive feedback we have received has been our complete resolution. last year we were seeing a little over a thousand complaints on the basis of race, gender or ability. it's about 14% of the total number we have received on all issues and in 31% increase from 2009. that is almost twice as many as we saw in 2005. we review all complaints.

we determined whether after our evaluation is sufficient jurisdiction its threat to launch the investigation and thoroughly in the diligently investigated. we are also pleased to see an increase in the voluntary resolutions around this issue in particular. 13% of the cases were resolved either through the complete resolution which is a kind of a mediation or through a voluntary resolution and negotiations. we are collecting data on these issues in ways that we haven't in the past, disaggregated data on instances of bullying and harassment and the role of the statutes in the jurisdiction. we are launching compliance reviews on this issue over the past five years since you initiate a dozen sexual harassment complaints reviews, one racial harassment and one

disability, five of those work began in 2009 and in 2010 issued to sexual violence reviews. this year we have initiated to under title vi and section 504, the other on sexual violence under title ix. lastly, the kind of correlation that you will hear from joycelyn and myself certainly during the question and answer period has been hugely important to ensure that we provide the kind of assistance that we know is necessary. we are also working with several other agencies. you would have seen the department convene alongside other agencies the bullying summit in august the president and other agencies like the white house in march to bring further attention to this issue to understand the kinds of best

practices are so that we can help replicate them, model them and show what's working for the nation. thank you. >> thank you, assistant secretary. i will open to questions from?? the commissioners.?????? commissioner harriet.?????? >> thank you very much. i want to talk about the 800-pound gorilla issue here and that is the department has had a sexual harassment policy for some years. and it similar to what we are talking about today. it hasn't worked out well. for one thing, the school districts have often responded by adopting the zero tolerance for rules, and some of those tolerance rules have turned out rather silly. for example in texas a 4-year-old kindergarten student was punished after a teacher's aide accused her of pressing during a hug. at the elementary school in

maryland we had a 6-year-old who was accused of sexual harassment and written a comedy called the police on him. i am told that in maryland, and of course that is just one state in the year 2007, 166 elementary students were suspended for sexual harassment and that included three preschoolers, 16 kindergartners and 221st graders. i know the department of education is not looking to punish preschoolers, but the fact is whenever the federal government gets involved in an issue that is so very local in character, and better dealt with at the local level, there's going to be overreaction at the local level. how is this policy going to be different? how can you prevent that kind of response? >> will certainly can't say whether that kind of response is

due to the work of the federal government in the past. what i can say is we are providing a kind of technical assistance to ensure that institutions understand rights to the level of the civil rights violation, would clearly our enforcement standards are and what doesn't rise to the level of civil rights violation we are also collecting data on things like this your tolerance policy so that we can better understand how they are being implemented. >> you've got to remember a school district, the worst thing in the world that can happen in an investigation which is often what happens. i was a little troubled by your quoting the school district, school board member prisoner the department remember they are under your authority. you're supposed to know when somebody is under your authority and they praise you you're not supposed to take it seriously. and this is realized they may not be what they are thinking. >> i can only take people for

what they say come and look at superintendent said was clearly that she believed that we helped reoccur the institution better. we also heard just recently from the general counsel compliance review that we resolved the general counsel had been sought and whittled a destruction of justice when they tried to do their title ix work. when we are confronting issues of sexual violence, and our work helped them to facilitate an agreement with the local law enforcement to resolve some of those issues and longstanding tensions. two of the general counsel's said that we helped break down of the silos and their institutions and helped make their institutions safer and better. >> we do have to limit the fallout.

we want to have the opportunity to have all the commissioners asked -- i appreciate that, i'm sorry to interrupt. commissioner? >> thank you very much mr. chair and i just want to say that it's great to be back after my four month furlough. just a quick response and then a question. i always get a little nervous when people start talking about issues being solely of a local character and therefore should be of local reaction because certainly we heard that refrain during the 30's, 40's and 50's when it came to certain items of discrimination that happened in this country back then. we are not talking about that. we are talking about an issue that is transcended in local areas. it is a national issue and that is why we are having this hearing today. what happens at the enforcement level, bill local level is something we can't discuss and monitor but it doesn't diminish the importance of what we are talking about today. now there is one aspect of your

testimony i think is probably going to be for both. you, in the next round, but for you, is assistant secretary, and that is one of the things that has come about in the news is that the issue of cyber bullying and the fact that basically any person with coming young person with ill will or lots of people with ill will can sort of king upon someone in cyberspace and we kind of emotional trauma and damage that we are concerned about. could you talk a little bit about seibu bullying and a sort of got potential limits, if there are, of the authority has the role of the responsibility of the schools on really what could be described as off-campus but as we all know probably emanates from within a particular school circle of people. >> thank you. that is certainly an issue that in this world of social media to

many superintendents and schools and university folks are wrestling with. we are working in real time with our colleagues in the part of justice and another agency to produce some guidance on this issue that addresses of the emerging technology and some of the novel issues including that of jurisdiction. that said, we have seen cases where bullying on things like facebook has been done in school and clearly rose to the level of adults in school knowing about it and in fact result a case just recently where the bullying and harassment that occurred off campus that was promoted and talked about very social media was to the school district officials and school officials knowing about it on their end. we worked with them to revoke

those issues. >> basically anybody with a smart phone inside a classroom can engage in that kind of conduct. >> again, the standard is whether adults know or should have known about it. so, that is really going to be a case by case determination. we do believe that there are some principles that we can help institutions understand. at this point i think it is a premature for us to articulate what they are. we are working with our colleagues to sort through some of the complications, and i would be happy to come back when we are ready to articulate them. in the meantime, we are focusing on again, what happens in schools, when information occurs out of school that is making it clear with those responsibilities are. >> the chair recognizes commissioner.

>> this lead and might take a little while. >> try to keep it brief. >> i will try, but on the witness to understand the premise. it's sort of related to commissioner heriot's question. if the department of education in all matters student teasing, sexual harassment, state level petty crime, it can come in and i have concerns on with other panelists on whether you've done so in the way that you've done it is authorized by your statutes and whether the way that you have done so will lead to increase in violations of students' first amendment rights who politely disagree with school administration views. but my question for you at this time is a much more pragmatic one and that's whether coming in as the 800-pound gorilla will necessarily make matters better at the local level for students rather than worse.

i can forgive interest groups into thinking that the lower levels of government are involved and the harder it comes down on local officials the better. but the problem i have with that is that it allows local school boards to deflect the accountability that they have to the parents and to those same interest groups that would normally go to the school districts, and it's quite understandable that federal bureaucrats who want to help will also tend to believe that they can make things better. but when there are thousands of school district there are tens of thousands of schools. when parents and the interest groups are led to believe that the federal government is the guarantor of preventing teasing of little johnny orr little

of betty i have a concern that would allow the school districts to deflect the accountability they have to the groups saying we are following federal guidelines, we are doing everything -- my hands are tied. the doe is telling us what to do. to the extent did you study that issue and how did you study that issue, the sort of unintended effect of undermining the accountability before you issued your letter? >> thank you for your question. certainly we want to help, but let me be clear, we also want to do our jobs. we are enforcing the law that for decades has been in effect. we are neither expanding our jurisdiction nor the scope nor

creating new standards. our work is not designed in this context to imply that, and teasing that perhaps shouldn't be common at all, rises to the level of a civil rights violation. we are talking about a hostile environment that is sufficiently severe based on the student's race, skin color, sex, national origin or disability status, and that harassment is so severe that it interferes with of their ability to learn and to enjoy the benefits that every student in our nation's schools, colleges and universities should

enjoy. i will stand with my colleagues as we work to enforce the laws that congress has given us the job to enforce. we will provide technical assistance wherever possible so that institutions understand clearly what their wines are. i have not a college president or a superintendent or a teacher anywhere that says that if they want an environment where any student feels unsafe. >> i'm going to have to limit the fallout. i have a couple over here who haven't had an opportunity to ask questions. thank you. >> the chair recognizes the commissioner aaberg. commissioner titus. specs before. madam secretary, thank you for being here. you don't look like an 800-pound gorilla to me but we welcome you this morning. the administration is not the only branch that is working on

this problem or recognizing that it is an escalating issue that we need to address. in congress, there are a couple of bills pending. i know you're familiar with them, safe schools and provide act, and student nondiscrimination act. both of these have bipartisan sponsorship, and they are in both houses. i just wonder if he would comment on those come hell if you are supporting those there are elements that help you do your job that hinder or just in general have an effect on how he will move forward on this issue. >> we are viewing of the laws to better understand them. the proposed legislation. we have not taken a position on them as an administration. they are certainly any work done with the bipartisan congress to seek and protect students is work that we will pay close attention to, and is charged

with the authority to ensure that the laws art and flat treated and in force. we will diligently do that.??? >> thank you. >> we are going to go to the?? commissioner now.???????? >> thank you, mr. chair and thank you for coming this morning, ms. ali. you have stated that the issue of harassment is primarily a local matter and might like to follow-up on that a little bit. >> my understanding is there are at least 44 anti-bullying and harassment laws at the state level. there are scores of ordinances in this effect. there are hundreds of statutes that deal with the underlying acts that might otherwise qualify as harassment so just laws against battery assaults, stalking, what have you. what evidence is there that

state and local authorities are either incompetent, incapable, don't have the resources to handle this matter, and could you give us an example of how the office for civil rights and the value or can do something better than can be done at the state and local level to address the issue? >> education at large is primarily a local issue. as i mentioned and as the psychiatry often says, we can't make the kind of transformational change that our schools need to undergo from washington alone. our guidance was not intended nor is any of our work to suggest local officials or incompetent, but as they see the complaints, the allegations of the complaints, what we are

learning in the compliance review, places where gang rape has become all too common where young girls feel like if the report being raped to school officials even if they are laid on school grounds that they will be subject to a kind of public humiliation and victimization all over again. from general counsels as i mentioned that need help as they are working to ensure the justice system through the local law enforcement and that they also comply with their civil war its responsibilities, standards and laws that have been in place since the 70's and beyond. so, our role while this clear and defined is but one role in

the system to ensure that all children feel safe. we are making clear -- i'm??? sorry.????? thank you.? >> the chair recognizes the??? commissioner aaberg. >> -- the commission the distinction between the context in which private parties seek monetary damages as compared to the context in which the department, through its various vehicles including compliance or views exercises its prerogative to set administrative procedures within the parameters of the civil rights laws. >> of the distinction between

private, the standards in the private litigation and the enforcement of title ix have been clear for a very long time the many institutions as we saw from yale and stanford and others have somewhat of a high your standard mortarboards convincing not because they are attempting to thwart the title line responsibilities but many because they were dealing with

title mine sexual violence harassment issues in the disciplinary context of which there was a higher standard so we were helping to articulate. >> the chair recognizes the vic? chair thernstrom.???????? >> i join my colleagues in? thanking you for being here thi? morning. a couple of very fast questions. you talked about hostile environments are severe as to interfere with students to learn. is it crystal clear in your view when actions amount to add up to creating a hostile environment, those are nice words, but it seems to me they are very vague and to put some specificity --

to talk about specific instances just underscores the problem of the vagueness and let me ask another question to answer the same time. the commissioner talked about state and local authorities and their ability in all the regulations that are already in place. well, i spent 11 years on the massachusetts state board of education, and we were not impressed with the ability of the state level to in any way regulate bullying nor were we particularly impressed with the ability of local school authorities, that is school

boards, but we were impressed with was the ability of principals and teachers in a school to establish a culture in which such bullying was not acceptable. and the ability of those same local authorities to reach out to parents and say this is your responsibility, too. and i just wonder what your reaction would be to those two points. >> to the latter, yes. they're certainly are as we talked about the local responsibilities and principals are in the best decision to be able to as our teachers parents and communities have a hugely important role to ensure that what happens out of school also

is safe for students we at the federal government and the department of education also have very important role. one that is to provide real assistance, for example the commissioner reference to the 44 states in increasing numbers that are just developing statewide policies on this issue. in december the secretary issued a memo to the state officials pointing to what the policies work, helping to identify some model practices and some things we know are working from the state level. while the stakeholders, local law enforcement, local officials, parents and communities have their responsibilities, schools have a responsibility, too come and adults and schools have a

responsibility of the civil rights law to ensure the students are free from a hostile environment based on projected characteristics of what this design is to help them where they need it, remind them where they have fallen short. let's also be clear if the office for civil rights gets involved in an enforcement way, not a technical assistance way is probably too late from tragedies and the unfortunate things have already occurred. so we are trying to help prevent them on the front end as much a? possible.????????? >> thank you. we app?reciate the time you spd in your testimony today and i know we have to leave soon. >> thank you for your time. >> we will now move on to jocelyn's and you as you have ten minutes to make your presentation and then we will do questions and answers.????? >> thank you very much for??? inviting me here today.????? i'm delighted to be here and i? appreciate the commission's??? focus on this extremely

important issue.? before i get started i would?? like to introduce my colleague? who is the chief of the???? educational opportunity civil?? rights division.???????? i also like to thank the section for all of the work they do in this and other areas to ensure that students can go to school free of harassment and discrimination as well as students who are able become the tomb in this environment. we have seen truly dire

consequences and students who are harassed and feel like they have nowhere to turn. we have seen harassment based on sex, disability, religious beliefs, national origin and race. the harassment occurs and is not remedied by a school district. we take action under bill law that have been in effect for decades. we've been involved in this area for very long period of time. for example, in the seminal supreme court decision in the davis cases. we have brought harassment cases or worked with school districts throughout administrations. the laws that we enforce as i said have been on the books for decades. among those are title four of the civil rights act of 1964 which bars discrimination in putting harassment on the basis of race, the national origin,

sex and religion in public??? schools -- >> thank you. the americans with disabilities act which bars discrimination and harassment based on disability. we enforce equal the educational opportunities 74 which among other things requires states and school districts to provide services to english-language lerner students come and on the referral from the department of education or of the federal agencies we enforce title six of the act of '64, title - the educational amendment of 1972, and the rehabilitation act of 1973, which barred discrimination and harassment when educational institutions that receive federal funds violate the law.

now, under title mine, both cord and the department of education have recognized for a long time that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on stereotyping. in 2001, the office for civil rights issued guidance stating that gender based harassment including that predicated on sex stereotyping violates the law and we apply that on standards. now before continuing just want to provide a little bit of background information to put in context. the information that we've provided in response to your interrogatories and document requests. the educational opportunity section is comprised of 20 lawyers. it's a very small group, and we do the very best we can with the limited resources that we have to enforce the law is mandating equal educational opportunity and in the context of which the allies. we get complaints about

harassment and other forms of discrimination in numerous ways from phone calls, from letters, congressional increase. we look into those and marshall our resources to get involved in the cases in which we think that we can have the greatest impact. those in which we can promote systemic reforms that can serve as models for school districts around the country. those where there are questions of law that would result in interpretation's the would be applied across the board or in various areas of the country. we do not have the resources or frankly the jurisdiction to proceed with every complaint that we get. and the number of complaints that we have reported to you we think represent only a small component of the amount of bullying and harassment that occurs out there. so, for example, while bullying and harassment based on wheat or

income or appearance are all on a fair and something that school districts should address, the federal law simply doesn't give us the authority to look at or to take action in those kind of cases. as a result, the numbers that we have reported represent those cases in which we believe with our resources we are able to make a significant difference, not a representation of the universe of the problems out there. let me talk about some of the cases in which we've been involved. as i mentioned, we looked for opportunities to help school districts with systemic reforms, and often i should say lowercase is are resolved by agreements with the school district, who are anxious to ensure that they are providing other students a safe environment in which to go to school.

school districts are conscious of their responsibilities here, and along with our colleagues of the department of education, we believe that voluntary compliance and technical assistance to enable them to recognize their legal responsibilities and implement effective practices is the preferred way to promote school safety and antiharassment policies. so as a result in our case is, we have often looked for systemic reforms that we think will help the school district down the road to address the kind of conduct i know we all deplore. as the assistant secretary ali mengin along with the office for civil rights, we entered into an agreement with the school district to address severe and pervasive harassment of the somali american students. our agreement there provided for a review of the school district's policy is, training for teachers and staff about

both the standards of the law and effective practices to prevent harassment, evaluation of the effectiveness of the policies engagement of an expert to assess whether the school district is in fact providing the kind of support and oversight that it needs to in order to truly address this problem. similarly, in south philadelphia , we entered into an agreement with the philadelphia school board in a case of true harassment by african-american students and asian-american students that resulted at its climax in having numbers of children sent to the hospital because of the physical violence that had occurred on the premise of the school. in that case as well, we agreed with of the school district they would retain an expert to

evaluate the policies and provide advice on how to address bullying and harassment going forward. we ask them to ensure the complaint procedures were effected. we provided some training and notice to parents and students of the resources available to them if they were subject to harassment and agreed to work with the school districts as they report to us on their success in implementing the provisions of this agreement. in both of these cases, these were district wide relief that i think would make the school environment for all students in the district a better one. we also entered into settlement agreements in cases in which there are cases pending in court. so, for example, last year we entered into a settlement agreement in mohawk new york on behalf of the student who had been severely harassed on the

basis of sex stereotyping. this was a student who engaged in a feminine behavior who was as a result of verbal and ultimately physical was sold to which he was subjected, forced to stay home and miss class is, and again, the agreement that we have reached in this case provided for the kind of systemic institutional relief that we think is ultimately beneficial to enter the students protected going forward. similarly, in the lopez case against the national school board we were involved on behalf of a autistics student who was raped by a teenager on a special-education bus coming and the school had knowledge that the perpetrator of this assault had engaged in similar conduct in the past and had not taken effective action to address it. in this case our settlement

agreement in fact will enable them to do so we look forward to working with them in the future. i'm happy to take your questions. >> thank you, ms. samuels. recently the national council issued a report on discrimination faced by the latino youth and at around the same time in the national crime victimization survey indicates that about one of four students believe they've been bullied. in the work that you're doing have you seen anything to substantiate those statistics? >> yes, i am sorry to say that harassment in bullying seems to be on the increase across the country and on the basis of the national origin is no exception particularly following line two -- 9/11 we have seen an uptick in the harassment on national origin groups, and we do everything that our legal tools provide to us to be able to

address the situations. one thing i should note and make clear is that there is no federal law that prohibits bullying. our authority goes to harassment which is a physical, verbal or other, but that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment that interferes in the student's ability to learn. so there is, unfortunately, a level of school york taunting that we do not have the jurisdiction to reach, and that of course is in part a recognition of the first amendment concerns about over leave restricting student speech. but to the extent that there is a hostile environment is created by the harassment that is something that we absolutely would take steps to address. >> i will remind my fellow commissioners the we will not be doing compound questions or??? multiple questions, so please,? ask one question.????????

commissioner yaki indicated he? wanted to ask? a question. >> yes, i always wonder how you define compound. a quick question for you think you for the hard work that you have been doing on this. understand that one of the -- i'm going to stop referring and instead go to package terms come on top of the elephant in the room here, and that is the fact that we are talking a lot about, and i talked about this last year and the year before about where the commissioner should be going, and it addressed the issue of bullying, of lgbt kids in this country and the rise and the terrible toll that it's taken on families and on the young people in this country. to me, the elephant in the room is to the extent to which you have the authority to proceed

based upon that -- upon the orientation of that particular individual, the ability to protect their civil rights. i believe that the state has, the federal government and the state has that ability especially when it comes to young people based on a case going back a hundred years about the state's ability to override certain protections, not even -- of even override, but simply to act on behalf of protecting a young person from harm and in this case serious psychological harm that can result in a suicide, self-inflicted harm and other sorts of things. ..

[inaudible conversations] >> okay. >> just in the interest of time we want you to continue. >> abcaeight. the late 1980's. the supreme court said people who penalized for acting contrary to stereotypes about the way members of their gender should act are protected by the prohibitions on sex discrimination. courts have simultaneously said that the federal laws do not --

discrimination based on a fundamentally different category than gender stereotyping which this debate. -- behaviors mannerisms. that said, we know and there are studies that demonstrate the school policies that band harassment or bullying based on sexual orientation have a significant impact. so, for example, a recent study that was done so that there was a 20% reduction in the teen suicide rate in schools that have lgb t supported environments, gay-straight alliances, explicit policies that ban sexual orientation discrimination, students feel that they have a place to turn. this is one of those areas as across the board where schools have a responsibility as a matter of fair treatment of

their students to step up and make sure that all of their students can go to school in estates -- safe environment. >> we now recognize the following commissioners. >> thank you, and thank you for appearing. you're talking about the increase in protected class harassment. at understand that you have jurisdiction only for harassment and not bullying based on a protected class bullying but harassment. when did the department of justice began tracking data related to essences a protected class harassment? what has been the trajectory in terms of the number of such instances if you have collected the city? >> thank you for your question,

commissioner. let me make two things clear. we do not have jurisdiction over bullying on any basis, even if it is on the basis of sex and race, national origin, religion, or disability. we only have jurisdiction over conduct that amounts to unlawful harassment. in addition, we don't have jurisdiction over harassment that is not on a prohibited basis. if it is because of someone's way or someone's appearance absent the sex stereotyping we don't have jurisdiction over that. with regard to our tracking, as you will see from our responses to interrogatories, we have only tried to those matters that we, in fact, open for investigation. we get many more complaints every year then we open. i don't believe that at this point in time we have any means to evaluate or assess the nature of the complaints that have come

in and have not resulted in department actions. >> madam attorney-general, thank you very much for your participation in this hearing. i am assuming that the department of justice does not assert jurisdiction when there comes forward as single incident of playground taunting as some have accused the department of doing. but when activity rises to the level of creating a hostile environment as you have stated, could you clarify the distinction, consistent with

commissioners question. care you respond as well to the notion that most of these issues are better dealt with at the state and local levels and by professionals such as principals and teachers. >> absolutely. in response to the first question, we do not have single incidents of playground taunting absence something like physical conduct that made a single incident sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment. i think one of the things to recognize about harassment is that it is necessarily a very fact based inquiry. we are both because of resource constraints and because we

recognize that school districts need to be able to a be able to address situations in ways they see fit, we don't find the standards. we will address and intervene in cases only where we find that the conduct or the speech is so severe or pervasive that it has limited assistance ability to take advantage of the educational offerings. most of our cases are not even close. in south philadelphia we have students being sent to the hospital. in lopez we have students being raped on a special education bus. these are serious cases where it is not at all a question of whether a hostile environment is being created. with regard to local issues we absolutely think the schools are in the best position to address

harassments and ensure safety of their school environment. that is why, first of all, we only get involved when there has been a failure of the school district to take the necessary steps. the resolution agreement uniformly contains provisions for training of staff, evaluation of procedures and engagement of experts so that we can get the schools the help they need in order to be able to take the best steps possible to protect their children. >> the chair recognizes commissioner harriet. >> thank you. i just want to make sure i understand the apartments cert. when i was in school we had separate personal grooming and dress codes for boys and girls at elementary school and junior high and a school. what is the department's position on such cuts? >> i'm not aware that there has been case law about dress codes. in the old days there were cases

that did talk about reasonable dress codes and certainly employers' ability to create reasonable just does has been recognized in the case law. if we got an allegation, just violated title mind, that is something we would take a look at and make a determination about how to proceed on. we don't have cases of the sort now. >> no follow-up questions. i'm sorry. we really have to get through. commissioner. >> thank you. it sounds like your educational opportunities section is overworked. >> and i appreciate the good work that they are doing. but you mentioned that you would, perhaps among look at other cases if he had the jurisdiction. i understand that, but the resources. several times that has come up that you don't have the resources. i wonder if there are not meritorious cases that are falling to the side because of those resources.

is there something we can do or recommend? maybe not a better job, but a broader job. >> rob, thank you for asking that question, commissioner. i think we do excellent work, but we are truly limited by the resource constraints that we face. i think with additional funding and additional staff we would be able to, as you say to of broader job and address more of the complaints that we get that we find to be meritorious but that, for example, won't necessarily result in the kinds of systemic relief that we think of the best use of the resources that we have. we would very much like to proceed in cases which often present egregious tax, but which we simply did not have the bandwidth to be able to take on. >> ninety. >> you are recognized by the

chair. >> thank you. he talked about the philadelphia case, but that is really an extreme case. as you recognize, it involves physical violence. i mean, it seems to me there is a bright and clear line between physical violence and verbal harassment. i think everybody here would agree. i am still having a problem defining when verbal harassment amounts to something that the department needs to get concerned about. i mean, kids are monsters. i mean, they are in a sense. you know, you are talking about playground stuff, you're talking about, as you said, it is saying, you're fat. that can be very wounding at a certain age. i mean, it was a lot of baloney

stuff that goes on and schools. and back to my point that the solution to that, he talked about the culture of the school. i'm not sure that the federal government can affect the culture of local schools. i'm not even sure the state can. to some extent local districts can't, but it really depends upon the authority. there are, frankly, too few school authorities that really are committed to creating a culture in which kids are safe. >> thank you for the question, commissioner. you know, i think we all agree that abuse by children whether it is illegal or not can have

damaging consequences the schools ought .. to. you know, as i mentioned in this study before, school actions on this basis can really make a difference. i can assure you that there are legal standards in place to ensure that we will act to hold schools accountable only when the environment that is created in false harassment to, whether verbal or physical, although verbal is often a precursor to physical harassment. we have found that in many of our cases what starts as verbal harassment escalates into a physical violence. we heard school districts to take action to nip these kinds of things in the bud of because it will prevent legal problems down the road and also because they owe it to their students to provide them a safe environment to get to school. as of federal government there are legal standards that govern

when we get involved. we make that assessment in every case to ensure that we are using our resources to address and bring legal action against school districts where the harassment has, in fact, resulted in a hostile environment that limits the students' educational opportunities. >> thank you, ms. samuels. i wanted thank you for being here today. we appreciate it. as panel one leaves we are going to ask folks on panel to to begin to come to the podium here. panel member to will focus on issues of gender and lgdv status. those individuals who will be on panel member to, the national women's law center. the center for equal opportunity. the university of california davis, columbia university facade, the liberty institute,

and chapman university. we ask the panelists to please take the seats. given the time frame we are and we're going to ask each panelist to limit their comments to seven minutes. we have your written statements. we have reviewed them. they are part of the record. we will thereafter have a 70 minute discussion that will take place among the panelists and commissioners. i remind our commissioners to please keep your questions brief and simple. non multiple. please take your seats.

[inaudible conversations] i'll ask all panelist to please raise your right hand. swear or affirm that the information you are about to provide is true or accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief. yes. okay. great. we will begin with ms. graves. you're up first. >> good morning. i am the vice president for education and employment with the national women's law center. i am so appreciative for the average into a touch to testify today. cinder based harassment including bullying environments manifest itself in many ways to include sexual harassment and sexual violence. it includes harassment that is not sexual in nature.

instead it is based on sex stereotypes. for example, the conduct of a group of students who harass and intimidate a female student to discourage her participation in wrestling because they consider her athletic activity to be not feminine would constitute gender based harassment they girl who targets a female classmate for repeated humiliation and name-calling through electronic means, as school, names like a slut and for and things like that because her classmate is pregnant is engaged in gender based harassment. these of the sort of intake's we get frequently at the national women's law center from parents are concerned about their children. agenda based harassment need not be perpetrated by boys were targeted at girls. students can be harassed by other students, by teachers, by coaches, school employees, their parties.

it can involve the images that are posted on walls or through electronic means. comments can create a hostile environment. these are all core principles that have been developed over time as they have grappled with these issues. the office for civil rights has hopefully spelled out in guidance for education and institutions. as you heard earlier today, title number nine plays an important role in addressing harassment, and we really view bullying as a form of harassment when it rises to a certain level the supreme court has recognized that title nine provides for a private right of action under which students may pursue claims for damages and for incentive relief to address harassments. you know, i raise this because i know that there has been some confusion over the standards purses' damages versus the standard for administrative

enforcement or incentive relief. today it was explained that this distinction has been a long one, but the good news for students is that even though some courts around the country have interpreted the title nine standards for damages in ways that have really raised the bar for being able to us bring these cases, the standard for administrative enforcement and for interactive relief is whether school officials knew or should have known about the harassment. this should have known standard applies also when individuals file a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief only. likewise, for enforcement action that has been brought by the administration, and these are standards that are closer to the legal protections for employees

and the workplace. moreover, even the suit for damages, which has been talked about says only applies when the harassment does not involve an official school policy. as the purpose of the standard it is to ensure that the school is held liable for damages for its own act and not responding to harassment for third parties. so, for example, and since inverses university of colorado the tenth circuit held that the university had an official policy of delivering different sexual harassments. so they did not actually have to show that actual notice a particular incidents of harassment. speaking in part to clarify what constitutes unlawful been debased harassment in the wake, around ten years ago the office

for civil rights issued 2001 guidance that has been discussed today. that guidance it recognizes that conduct that is sufficiently severe from a persistent, or pervasive remains accessible under title nine. the office for civil rights also emphasizes that a harassment that rises to the level that denies this his ability to participate or benefit from the educational program and verifies the schools failed to respond to harassment of a student on the basis of the system's failure to conform to stereotyped notions of masculinity or femininity. despite the 2001 sexual harassment guidance to new base harassment continues to pervade our schools and in some cases such conduct may have led to a particularly tragic consequences it was unclear whether educational institutions understood that the conduct that was referred to commonly in the

media as bullying and buying schools as bullying included in some cases gender based bullying which could have implicated title mind. trying from this revised guidance we were pleased to see that in 2010 the department issued is new guidance reiterating from 2001 to providing a pedicles that allowed schools to really be able to see what the standards mean in practice. does not imply a break with or expansion importantly in 2011 the office for civil rights also released additional guidance on peer to peer sexual violence.

among other things that guidance supplemented the 2001 guidance and expanded upon the standards that apply for sexual violence. we have really been gratified to see some institutions change their standards even in the past month that some of them announced they would be implementing, for example, upon dense of evidence rather than the higher threshold that they had before. we saw the university of virginia made that. >> thank you. you're next. >> thank you. i am the president and general counsel. a conservative civil rights organization. for four years in the reagan and bush of ministration i was in this or rest division. my duties included supervising

the educational. in my written statement i focus on the issue of bullying and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation. i make two basic points. one is that title nine does not cover that kind of bullying and harassment. the second point i make is that this is not an area where the federal government involvement is likely to help. additional statues bullying in this area would be a bad idea. we're going to hear a lot today about how damaging bullying and harassment can be to individual

students. it can certainly be heartbreaking. we are also going to hear about how widespread is. the first point is not really disputed. nobody disputes that bullying and harassment can be a terrible thing. the second point, how widespread it is. i would say at the commission needs to take it with a grain of salt, the numbers you are given by interest groups and by federal bureaucracies who want to expand the jurisdiction, especially when the two are working together. i also think that we have to bear in mind when we are looking at trends that there are changes in technology. you know, the internet has made it much easier to file complaints. they have also made the kinds of harassment we are talking about here more widespread. i think that is something to bear in mind when people are

trying to lay the groundwork to say that the federal government has to get in here because it's a problem that is not being addressed. as i say, this is of very difficult area with a lot of difficult line drive that has to be done. you know, when does protected speech become unprotected speech. when does that become harassment? when does horizon become a threat? when does the threat become an actual, you know, physical assault. these are difficult line drawing questions. i have heard nothing today from the administration representatives to suggest why the federal government is going to improve the way that this line drawing is done. i'm not going to, you know,

repeat what i say in my written statements on that point. but i would like to focus on a little bit in my oral remarks here is why i actually think that the federal government involvement will make things worse. i think that the burden is on the federal government to show why the federal government is story to make it better. i don't think they can carry that burden. in addition, i think that there are a lot of reasons, and some of the commissioners have alluded to this to my wife federal government is actually going to make things worse. it is pointed be the 800-pound gorilla. when the federal government gets involved this going to be pressure for them to have guidelines. these guidelines are going to end up creating not only for but in some cases a ceiling. it is going to encourage local schools not to be as proactive in this area as they should be. the guidelines will inevitably

lead to speech codes and sensitivity training. it will coerce schools into zero tolerance policies. the involvement of the federal government makes it much easier for interest groups to get involved on both sides of the aisle. get involved and use that as the means for affecting policy in this area. you can see that by the interest that these hearings today have attracted. this is going to create a a fact. as administrations change it will be pressure brought by interest groups to change the guidelines that have been put out. pass new or different laws, many regulations. local schools are going to be caught in this bind where they are afraid of getting sued if they do and if they don't.

it's going to chill the kind of local involvement and local attention to these issues which i think everybody that i have heard so far to date agrees needs to happen. this is really its policy in this area. it is very odd that the gay rights groups should need to be reminded that government legislating morality, particularly the federal government alleges that the morality, it's just something that we ought to be very wary of. it wasn't very long ago with a morality that was being legislated was aimed at gay rights or at case. now we are being asked to pass laws that a going to the get the federal government involved in saying what a fifth christian says it is or is not something that ought to be, you know,

ought to attract the attention of the federal government. finally, i also think that we ought to be -- both sides ought to agree it is carried in this area to have the federal government making up lost so that they can go after behavior that they view as being immoral. i don't think that tall , i think everyone agrees that title nine is about sex discrimination. it is not about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. the federal government is being very aggressive in concocting a legal theory that it is using to prosecute school districts. accomplish something that is not there in the statute. >> thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, members of the commission, i'm pleased to have the opportunity to appear before

you today to discuss. appear violence and school bullying based on sexual orientation. a thank you for addressing this important matter. i am a professor of psychology at the university of california davis. as a social psychologist i have been conducting empirical research for more than 30 years. as detailed in mind was made, have published more than 100 scholarly papers and chapters on these and related topics in received numerous grants for my research. i am a fellow of the american psychological association and the association for psychological science and testified on behalf of the american supply school association for congressional hearings on anti-gay violence. been invited to participate and present plans 1991 white house meeting on day crimes and recently convened by the national academy of sciences to prepare a report on the health of sexual, day, and bisexual

people. these are detailed. my written statement details the findings of social science will there's -- research related to school violence. to put that research in context it also discusses current knowledge of sexual orientation and stigma. in my oral statement i will briefly summarize the material. sexual orientation is commonly used to refer to an enduring pattern of sexual romantic a pattern of males or females are both sexes. also used to refer to an individual's sense of identity, his or her patterns of behavior is expressing them, and his or her in the community of others to share them. all the sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, it is usually discussed in terms of three categories. in terms lesbian and gay, commonly used. the mental health professions have long recognized that, such shoddy is in normal expression of human sexuality and there is

no inherent linkage between sexual orientation and the person's mental health or ability to contribute to society and to lead a happy, healthy, and productive life. .. to the orientation. thomas edge alladi remains stigmatized in the united state and such in the institutions of society and of individuals. large numbers of lesbian gay an bisexual people experienced harassment discrimination based

on their sexual orientation and because of sexual orientation i not readily apparent in most social interactions virtually anyone can be a target of anti-gang violence or harassmen regardless of their actual orientation. children and adolescents and adults to behavior or per guaranteed to be here is appearance are frequently victimized often because the perpetrators have assumed the gender nonconformities on a marker for homosexuality or bisexuality. in addition gender nonconformit is itself stigmatized and some people are targeted entire yearly because of their gender. although there's no linkage between sexual orientation and mental health research indicate experiencing stigma related victimization as stressful and can lead to psychological and physical problems of those to the extent of heterosexuals are subjected to additional stress beyond what the heterosexual population normally experience is including stress resulting from stigma they may as a group manifest poor or overall physical and psychological health. with this general discussion as background return to the main focus of today's briefing, violence and victimization base on sexual orientation are

widespread in school settings. the problem may be more expensive today than in the pas because contemporary sexual minority youth appeared to be recognizing sexual orientation and coming out at earlier ages than was the case in previous generations. been identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual poses risks to students in middle and high school where negative attitudes toward homosexuality and sexual minorities are common. experiencing bleeding and victimization based on sexual orientation is associated with mental health problems includin depression, anxiety izzie and suicidal thoughts. it also is often associated wit truancy and poor school performance substance use and other risk beavers. although bullying and victimization are likely to hav negative consequences for all students to experience being targeted because one's sexual orientation is associated with more problems and greater distress and is experiencing bleeding or harassment on related to one's identity. the psychological effects of anti-gang bullying and dictum a station can last long after students the high school. institutional practices and

policies may help reduce your victimization based on sexual orientation and mitigate its negative impact when it occurs. research points to lowercase three promising strategies firs having antibullying and nondiscrimination policies that explicitly include sexual gende minority use it to reduce anti-gang behavior among students increased ceilings of states to discuss safety and create safer schools. second schools and teachers and staff are trying to stop and prevent harassment and victimization of the minority youth are likely to provide a safer environment for those i a focusing on your violence and sexual orientation was some of the research in my written statement also examine the experience of gender minorities that is transgendered people an other individuals whose tender expression doesn't conform to the cultural norms. gender minority youth some are also lesbian gay or bisexual routinely experience harassment and violence and they are likel to benefit from a policy of

intervention to protect sexual minority youth a comprehensive approach the problem of the victimization and schools will necessarily include attention t their specific needs as well. thank you. >> thank you. professor? >> good morning mr. chairman an members of the commission. i am a professor of clinical medical sciences at columbia university school of public health. my background is in psychiatric and social psychology. that is i study patterns and causes of mental disorder and mental health problems particularly as they relate to social factors. i submitted a report for the record that is in my oral testimony and includes references to the research as well as my curriculum data. in my testimony today i will discuss three issues. the nature of the anti-gang stigma and how it forms threats for sexual minority.

the sexual minority youth to stress related peer-to-peer violence and bleeding and the effect of such stress on mental health and well-being. the stigma is a function of having an attribute that convey the valued social identity in the particular social context. the related concept prejudice refers to the negative attitude and actions that society as a whole or individuals take against a stigmatized group member. for example, the discriminatory acts and anti-gang violence or expressions of stigma. i have developed a theory of minority threads that state whe compared with heterosexuals, stigma, prejudice to access and as a result of increasing prevalence of mental disorders and other adverse health outcomes. stress can be defined as any condition that requires adaptation. researchers have shown stress -

the impacts a multitude of health outcomes both mental and physical well-being. in addition to stress all peopl experience, the people are exposed to unique added stress. i have referred to these as minority stress. minority stress sexual minorities because they require adaptation to an inhospitable social environment. exposed to the threat is chroni in that it is attached to the enduring persistent social structures. exposure to this minority stres is a risk for mental disorders and other adverse outcomes. other general causal relationships are difficult to prove public health research results from studies of sexual minority youth provide a solid and irrefutable support for the minority showing that social stress resulting from stigma an prejudice against expos them to

the unique stress that in turn cause health problems. it has been shown in the numero studies that sexual minority individuals, especially youth have more stressful experiences than sexual peers. results in the social minority youth are abandoned and overwhelming in their evidence. indeed, of the numerous studies conducted many with large the samples conducted in the united states, canada and other nation i know what not one study that shows significant contradictory evidence. gay youth at home, at school an in the community at large significantly more frequently than their heterosexual peers experience adverse events. at school, sexual minority yout experience bleeding including physical assault, being injured threatened and harassed, having their property stolen or damaged , out of school sexual

minorities are more often victims of violence, physical and sexual abuse, verbal and physical sexual harassment and forced sex and dating violence. studies have also shown unlike other minority groups, rejectio can occur at home and anti-gang evens can be pritchard to perpetrated by family members and youth. it is important to note that th stress related stigma has a symbolic meaning even a scene during the minor instances such as being called derogatory name can be damaging because of the cultural meaning and creates a pain beyond a seemingly long magnitude. in the context of school clement , minor experiences especially when chronic can cut the entire environment for the sexual minority youth sending the message of protection and

sustained. this message is exacerbated whe it has been found to be the cas teachers and school personnel and more instances of such harassment such as name calling and joining the perpetrator in rejecting the sexual minority youth and sending a message tha the gay youths are to be scorned . studies of the assessment of th outcomes of to provide conclusive evidence of the depopulation including the yout of higher prevalence of the disorders and adverse health outcomes compared with heterosexuals. the gate populations are about 1.5 to three times as many disorders as heterosexuals including mood, anxiety and substance disorder and more tha twice as likely to have suicide affiliation. against minorities does comedy people individually as well as gay communities as a group moun coping efforts that build resources that may cover all

stress. research shows coping and socia support can reduce the adverse effect of stress, health outcomes. in the context of the minority stress, coping and social support must have an affirmativ function supporting the person as a gay person. for these reasons and because families and other community institutions such as the church are not always reporting and sometimes rejecting and even harmful it is important for schools and community organizations to provide sexual minority youth with resources t counter a minority stress. many studies and using a variet of methods have shown when families, friends and school environments are supported for sexual minorities that otherwis observed the stress on health and school performance draw significantly. overwhelming observations on health and academic performance of comes and ameliorate it with

the coping and social support have many schools and governments and non-governmenta organizations to create supported services to sexual minority students. studies in the effectiveness of such programs spend over a decade now. the have been conducted in different states and locales an using a variety of methods -- >> thank you. semidey show that such programs have been effective in improvin dating violence and improving the health and educational outcomes of sexual minority. >> thank you, professor. >> i am the director of litigation for the institute an i've spent the better part of a decade both suing and defending government entities in the area of first amendment including a free speech and religious liberty issue. the liberty institute like othe organizations such as the aclu seeks to protect the rights of students to express what are sometimes unpopular views at school, even views that reflect particular religious sentiment.

decades ago, the student speech rights were much different. we have students who wanted to protest the vietnam war matt an military friendly towns were wearing black armbands to schoo and had to take their case to the supreme court to ensure the right to free speech. we have students in the south who were wearing freedom button to protest the desegregation, not a very popular stand for them to take the time to read the had to take their case to the courthouse, too in order to prevail and ensure the have the right to where the freedom buttons and in the middle of world war ii, there were too elementary school children who did not want to say the pledge of allegiance. they want to express their patriotism and other ways. a day, too won the right. these early victories have led to a body clearly established law that protect students, free

speech rights, while they are a school specifically as relevant to this particular issue, the religious viewpoint or the viewpoints that students may express. the case law is very clearly established. there has been no wavering for more than half a century the students must be free from the viewpoint discrimination perpetrated by the schools. unfortunately, the schools have not always responded in the cas law positively, and that has le to continuing conflict of schools engaging in sort of roving censorship of religious speech. some examples i would like to share, and these are not limite to any particular faith it seem that students of all faiths hav had their troubles recently being invoking a law that have been hard fought and won by and our group and the aclu and others. for example there was a student

in muskogee oklahoma who wanted to wear her head covering that is consistent with her muslim faith, and it took litigation t enforce her clearly established law to make sure that she could continue to wear this at school. you have little kids who wanted to hand out candy canes to thei classmates, not causing a major problem but those candy canes had to be confiscated by the school because they were to get dangerous for all those other kids to see because they have attached to them a religious message about the candy cane. jesus pencils being ripped out of kids' hands will be a standing in line after school outside the school building to get on the school bus because this type of message was not going to be tolerated. it is a lot of intimidation and harassment that goes on in schools unfortunately a lot of it seems to be directed at religious students, students expressing their religious fait

and attempts by the government roving sensors to ban that speech. it's quite unfortunate this sor of a ticket's going on and if h will read the papers you will notice many of the cases we are deciding on the current example are within the past few years. that seems to be a growing tren of this roving a censorship of the religious sentiment at school. another example, might come again, it's not a matter of one particular faith. it was a school district in texas recently that the aclu ha a case on that the kid wanted t wear his hair lank fielder than the dress code allowed because of his native american faith. well, that law has been clearly established for many years in the fifth circuit to the school district continued to fight to try to ban him from wearing his hair so this is a very sensitiv issue and a very litigious issu that's going on which is totall

unnecessary because the law has been like i said established since world war ii. one of the outgrowths of the sort of call there has been a call for training students and trying to persuade them to hold a particular views that runs to the korean conflict with clearl established law from the 1943 west virginia versus barnett case ig with a two before dealing with the pledge of allegiance, justice jackson and the marvelous opinion really expressed i think the sentiment that most americans agree with which is that our school districts are not there to teac and in green and students the particular orthodoxy. they are not to decide what is right and wrong on questions of social importance. those should be left to parents and other institutions and that has been the law since 1943. as a matter of fact, i think th supreme court said it best in tinker forces des moines and i would like to read the quote

because it is really a magnificent quote. it warrants against this type o indoctrination to try to teach students of a particular -- wha ever it is, whenever view it is this happens to be the homosexual rights issue but it could be on any issue. any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble in variation from the majority opinion may inspire fear and spoken word in class and lunch room on the campus that deviate from the views of another perso may start an argument or cause disturbance. but our constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it's this sor of hazardous freedom, this kind of openness that is the basis o the national strength and independence and the vigor of americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive often society. freedom to speak among our students has been a clearly

established right for many decades to the effects a broad range of issues from students fighting against racial desegregation, segregation rather come students protesting the vietnam war or even to the students protesting military actions and other perks of the globe. these rights are very precious because as a supreme court said we have to be careful lest we strangle the free mind at its source of our students obviousl the most impressionable and tha impression ability is greatly impacted by the power balance o school officials. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. my name is eliza and i am the director of the day was be an administrative network founded in 1990 by a group of educators parents and students, it was an now the leading national education focused on the lt bet

issues on kids through k-12 and committed to partnering with school districts across the nation to promote school cultur of respect and safe schools for all students. i want to begin by introducing you to joey a fairly typical high school junior except in on respect, joey's day. until he revealed this, he was popular kid and never thought twice about his safety of school . after he came out, joey steven scully experienced changed dramatically. he was harassed daily come a problem that escalated to the moment when another student threatened jolie with a knife. rather to intervene, a school administrator response was to encourage jolie to act less gay and to suggest the bullying tha he experienced is something tha he deserved. on joey's behalf, i think you for shedding light on this important issue but i must also urge you to act. visible or invisible, lt btu fo

in every district in this country and are drawn from ever constituency that you are in power to protect. the need your help to cut through the malaise you often surround this issue. students this bullying, harassment and violence that ca deprive them of equal the educational opportunities, undermine their individual well-being and keep them from achieving their full potential. in 2009 nationals will climate survey, nearly nine out of ten lgbt students reportedly given verbally, physically or sexuall harassed in the past year at school because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. one in three skit school becaus they were simply too afraid to go, and one had been physically assaulted. the violence do less well academically are less likely to plan to graduate from high school. rajdeep is to lgbt to the more likely to engage in a heater that put them at risk. because of the discrimination

and violence they suffer. these statistics are grim. equally disheartening is the fact the situation has not yet sparked the response that requires. only 18% of lgbt students repor that their school explicitly protect them on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and the vast majority of lgbt students report that when a member of the school staff witnesses antilgbt behavior, they do little or nothing about it. a court challenge we face is th fact that bullying complicates adult response. plater out of the fear of controversy, failure to recognize the seriousness of th behavior or active in differenc to the fate of the students involved adults charged with th education and the care of your children are not consistently living up to their responsibilities. federal leadership is necessary to make the basic level of the

extent of the responsibilities crystal clear and assure those of you controversy a backlash that they are doing the right thing. we are grateful to the office o civil rights, the department of education and the department of justice for their commitment to exercise what authority they have under title mine to protec lgbt students, but this statute only covers some of the serious challenges that the lgbt students face. research consistently shows the policies that most effectively address antilgbt behavior in ou schools actually name the problem by specifically enumerated sexual orientation and gender identity as categories included within the commitment to protect all students. lgbt youth whose schools have such policies are less likely t be victimized and more likely t say school staff intervened whe the witness and i lgbt be here. in the recent months, school

districts in oklahoma city, jackson mississippi, dallas and park city, utah have adopted in memory the policies that includ sexual orientation and gender identity among their protections . just last month the state of arkansas passed an animated and i believe in law. the 11th state to do so. but state law and a district policies create only a patchwor quilt of protection for lgbt students to read as a baseline matter of safety, we need to establish a national floor of protection upon which states an districts to rebuild as the national issue of equity we als need nondiscrimination protection for some of our nation's most vulnerable students. i encourage the commission to support the improvement at, a measure introduced in congress with a bipartisan support in both chambers and a broad base support among education and youth development, health, religious and civil rights

organizations and the student nondiscrimination act which the standard on the protections to students on the basis of the sexual orientation. you have heard testimony that t extend the protections would somehow compromise the first amendment rights of other students but strongly held personal belief regarding homosexuality. as an educator and as a parent, myself, i am firmly committed t the principal of respectful debate and dialogue as part of good education. but let me be very clear the word stifel are not part of any religious creed and or assault and crime. to those in need to be to deny the need and attack the enumeration i challenge them to provide data to support their argument today for every jackso mississippi and park city to talk there are places where bullying prevention efforts to not explicitly protect all students and more the consequences are real. jolie knows this all too well.

his family had to move across the state lines to find a schoo where he would be treated with the same respect as every other student. fortunately, his family had the means to find that seat school. many parents don't, nor should any parents have to make this choice. every child in this nation deserves a school environment where they are safe and respected. each deserves the same chance t excel, and the need your help t have the equal opportunity. thank you. >> thank you. professor? >> op chairman and members of the committee, thanks for havin me here. back at the civil rights commission. a number of years ago is the director of the public affairs office here so it's nice to be back. although a different date than we had then had on vermont. i'm not going to address the particular topic of this panel, but the broader question of federal authority generally in the pier on pure harassment tha

is the broad purpose of the hearing because i think we have greatly misunderstood the will of the federal government here. in fact the misunderstanding of federal authority is evident from the opening sentence of your own briefing context summary which states acts of bullying, violence and harassment are reportedly pervasive in the case through 1 schools. even if it is true and with all due respect that statement does not begin to establish the necessary price for federal intervention. federal intervention is warranted under the 14th amendment only to remedy the violation of the amendment whic seeks to the state action, not private conduct. congress lawmaking power under section five of that amendment extends only to enforcing the provisions of the 14th amendmen and when the congress seems to act proactively to prevent the to prevent the harm that must b with the conference and proportionality between the injury to prevent and and the means adopted to that end and remember under the 14th amendment what we are talking about steve action, the private

actors so federal intervention might be warranted if the assertedly pervasive acts of bullying, violence and harassment were being perpetrated were facilitated by the school district itself and the intervention was designed t remedy that unconstitutional state action. yet, even if that was the case and meter the commissions briefing summary nor the recent efforts by the department of education that led to it appear to be aimed at that concern. the prior federal intervention being appropriated by the supreme court indicates a much higher threshold for the congress itself much less on elected administrative agencies can intrude on the core state powers such as how we finished the local school districts. the voting rights act of 65 for example spoke of the violations that had been insisting for decades. they've been banished in light of those discriminations that had been in place for nearly a century. the court also approved using

strong and remedial preventativ measures when necessary to respond to the widespread deprivation of constitutional rights that was going on by though government officials itself. none of those preconditions are evident here. there's no evidence they've engaged in widespread and persistent the provision of the constitutional rights. either through their own harassment or in the manner in which they have responded to th student on student harassment. there's no on the part of schools even if it exists as long standing indeed the call the letter sent last october th department of education to the school districts across the nation demonstrates just the opposite and that what the assistant secretary priest the department of education and local school districts for the step the taken to reduce the waiting in schools, describing the efforts of the movement tha reflect schools appreciation of their important responsibility to maintain a safe environment for all students not impossible to tease out that complement a

picture, the kind of this regar of the constitutional rights by the officials themselves that i a necessary precondition of federal intervention in the 14t amendment. we are witnessing a return here but the problem of education fo their claims a number of federa statutes enacted pursuant to th spending goals fully authorized federal intervention here. power under the spending goals isn't limited by its other powers it may not use expending powers of pretext to accomplish indirectly what cannot do directly. the limits on congressional regulatory authority under the 14th amendment are therefore quite germane to the issues before us today and the contras cannot accomplish indirectly to the federal funding then it is even more clearly the case that the administrative agency canno impose new conditions on the receipt of the federal funding that are not authorized by the law. the department seems to claim such authority when it sites