hobbled on stage and said yes, massuh, and that sort of thing. and the whipping of uncle tom during that era, unfortunately, if some pruk -- in some pruks became a really violent act. and this was a time when thousands of, hundreds and sometimes thousands of people would show up to see an african-american person lynched in the south. and so there was a kind of vicarious pleasure in seeing uncle tom whipped to death. even though he was portrayed as old and frail. and, also, there arose the so-called new negro movement, an angrier kind of militant african-american writing with richard wright who wrote "uncle tom's children" in the 1930s.

and there was a kind of backlash against the misconception -- because it really was a misconception of uncle tom -- there was a backlash against that on the part of these naturalistic writers who had a darker view and an angrier view, a more militant view of what african-american, and the way african-americans should rebel against culture. ..

denies humanity and does exactly the opposite. it doesn't deny humanity at all. to me, it affirms humanity. and life, very, very angry. james baldwin because of that. but by that time ago tom had entered the vocabulary of people. that is how he came to be. [inaudible question] >> where harriet beecher stowe and roche "uncle tom's cabin," i believe, there is a store on route one called uncle tom's market. if you're ever going through maine is there. i'm sure a lot of people are very surprised and they see it. that is because that is where she wrote the book. >> well, john and i and a whole

bunch of others, the 200th anniversary in june. we will stop by there. this. -- yes. >> i wonder if you could give a time line so we have more of a context when she wrote the book. the fugitive since act, the dread scott decision, john brown was causing havoc and so forth. >> rudd, what happened in 1850, the fugitive slave law, a fugitive slaves from the come to the north, if you don't capture them and help return them to the south you go sale and pay a

thousand dollars fine which was a lot of money back then. really, really mad about that. her sister-in-law said, you know how to write. why don't you go back and write a novel. she said don't you know, i'm going to. and she did. but then what happens, however, is that there are a series of other laws after that. the kansas-nebraska act which opens up the western territory to slavery. the dread scott decision. african americans can never be citizens of the united states. they have no rights whatsoever. and she got really, really, not just angry, but have very, very bitter. when she writes her novel that appears a little bit later it is a much more better novel.

it is about a slave rubble who is the son of mark casey who led the state's rebellion. even though he dies before he can launch the slave rebellion he still expresses this growing bitterness about what was happening. what was happening is that slavery was becoming more and more deeply entrenched. britain couple tom's cabin to try to prevent that. unfortunately in effect it made slavery more entrenched because it made this out very defensive about slavery, even as it turned the north toward antislavery. so it had this effect. it startled her. some became more better. petitions to politicians.

she was mentioned in political speeches. it was really a growing division so finally win don brown comes along, even though she had created it gentle on "tom she calls john brown in 1869 the greatest american that ever lived. like a former pacifist, henry david thoreau who rick -- who wrote his entire essay in his earlier years which influences more nitpicking and gondi. but henry david thoreau is greater than any of the founding fathers. there is no man who has ever lived to has done more for the honor of the american name. she knew about his violence in kansas and is violence.

but by that time she knew the very sad truth that only violence was going to end slavery. it took the death of more than 620,000 americans to end slavery. that is how deeply entrenched slavery had become in america. sadly she realize that. serialize said the a botox approach as attractive as it was soft and as effective for people like martin luther king, rosa parks, she did not predict that. that at that moment unfortunately violence was needed to get to slavery. she came to admit that. >> a little while before you had said that about tom's cabin was

primarily affirming humanity. then you mentioned the novel to read which was a more violent aspect. you could say that, you know, over the long run it was the affirming humanity that one out even if it took the violence, you know, the catalyst or create the immediate change. but i think for me and particularly in reading about tom's cabin it is the affirmative parts of it may you know, the humanization of the slaves, of all tom, and of evita crossing the river -- >> elisa. personalize a. then it compounded the injustice

with the affirmative parts of their personalities that creates the real power of it. so, you know, i give your flight about her coming to realize that it might take violence. when you can step back over 100 years and look back at it you realize the star power of the affirmative affirmation of humanity. >> well, i am an eternal optimist. i happen to be a pacifist myself. what is unusual about of a tom's cabin, there aren't too many novels a you can read that are both powerful and very, very dramatic and sometimes very exciting and even very sensational.

and yet there are affirmative. they are farmers. there are so many characters. basically even a few of the slave holders of fundamentally good people. i think that is what is great about the novel. she doesn't demonize even all the slaveholders. there is this something, she just try to look for the good, as i say, an optimist that happens to believe in human business -- goodness and basic human goodness. maybe i have read too much. i don't know. i was raised as a christian scientist. maybe that's it. i just don't know. i like to see the gittin people.

to me, that is another thing. very, very few characters. some of them, simon legree, sort of a perverse character. there are certain characters that are definitely bad guys. but what i love about the novel is that you can read it and feel uplifted. you feel uplifted. and i like -- it's kind of like i don't like or movies or bloody movies. i like uplifting the police. i liked uncle tom's cabin because to me is uplifting. i think ultimately someone like rosa parks and someone like martin luther king does wind. i think those people do when.

so i guess i stand on the side. maybe i am the blight that optimist. i stand on this side hope, hope and goodness. what can i say? there isn't really too much. by the time she wrote dread in 1866, you know, she was a little more better. real difficulty creating that kind of mold goodness in any single character. i love dread. i think it is a great novel. i think it's wonderful. it doesn't really moved me, and it doesn't inspire me with the kind of hope the way uncle tom's cabin best. it so thank you for bringing that up.

>> adds a swanson no, i don't know how far your biography goes, if you encountered this stage play, i need your uncle. i guess we had the good fortune of having it. it's been about 15 years. its critiques uncle tom's cabin very provocative. i thought more. actually is should have been targeted at this stage play rather than those novels. that was kind of might ultimate idea. but they were, the brochure listed all of the stage productions and things. i wondered if you had encountered it and what you thought of it. >> well, i've seen i ain't your uncle which i think comes out first in 1990 or late 1980's, one of those.

is the 1990's. yap. it's really great. you know, you can say all kinds of things about that. all these transformations and answers to of pathans cabin over time, that is kind of a radical, not radical, but just very forceful critique of the stereotype. i believe top seed becomes a subversive character in that play interesting sub. i think that the evolution of thomas's character. in a way top seed becomes todaye modern rap singer or rebellious rock grow urban street smart girl who is rebelling in

conventional culture. there were so many characters in the coffin at become entrenched over time and their things that bounced off. to me that's one of the more interesting things, responses, responses very much responding to some of the distortions along the way, which is very understandable. >> that was a play by robert alexander. >> yes. >> 1995, i think. >> one of the most interesting things about uncle tom's cabin for me is how it continues to be a touchdown from modern life. i got a notice the other day for a bull * gavin and zombies.

[laughter] i've been waiting for this. someone has written this and it will be read the play. a reading in washington d.c. we'll see what happens. always another opportunity. >> in my book i have a lot of things about 20th-century. in the 20th-century unlce tom's cabin, it goes everywhere. walt disney cartoons. so many advertising, advertisements. if you read my book you will hear about that. >> going back to the cuts in that you mentioned, what was the date where there was a cartoon? was that the language of the time? >> well, that was a political

cartoon from the mid 1850's. reproduced in my book. it really allows us to show the hell that ogle tom's cabin was going to create. people took it seriously. but i love black people. that was the deal of the south. >> that was the language said they used? we love black people? >> yes. yes. i think it's i love blacks.

>> yes. hi. first of all, the true self of every human being is to be good. i don't think it is an unreasonable expectation. i'd like to revisit this to common we questioned earlier about on baton. portrays on in a negative way. it happens today. we are sensitive. we do rushed to judgment about research and a lot of instances because we adjust human beings. i would say that it reminds me of, for example, when there was a vermont pier company made of deer that had a straitjacket on for valentine one year. i ordered one. and the controversy was the people that work, you know, bipolar or what have you felt it was an insult to. you know, i felt differently. i just felt differently.

but they stopped producing them because of that. i really feel like the better example is malcolm x. many people doing research are studying his life still think that he was a radical, crazy person and that he hated all white people in that he actually wanted to change that. similarly the fact that being ogled tom, because i used to hear that in college, it was negative. it wasn't based on this book. you had to have violence and death to change and stop slavery because i think that human beings, as we were saying earlier, republican opinion --

public opinion changes. people are capable of human revolution at some points. you know, we should not expect that there has to be violence. we shouldn't expect that. you know, we shouldn't. and the truth is slavery has not ended. it has gone underground with human trafficking and so many different things that you can put into that box. i would hope that if harriet were here today she would be working on these other issues of how, you know, what's going on under the current -- and talking in public, voting. thank you. >> talked about uncle tom's cabin. we also talked about the book

they read. i was wondering what other writings she had lots and issues that we have. >> she didn't return to the slavery issue after dread too much except see petitions and tries to help the republican party won because there was a little bit of response to uncle tom's cabin. she even received the enslaved person cut off opened by her husband in the mail from a southern air. such a violent reaction against it. she did write dread.

slavery. but after that, you know, she writes 30 novels. many of them are very, very good novels, great novels. but they emily about new england history, local color, and children's stories. most of them, however, shy away. some controversial issues. she tried in her own way to help black people by moving. when she moved to florida power parts of the winter she helped ted found a school that was semi integrated, close to being

integrated, but could become and that table one for white children and one for blacks. she really remains a hero among african-americans. she takes a practical steps, but really shies away. she tries to focus on new england history and matters. she does a marvelous job. her first book. her first novel. she had written magazine pieces before that. so yes. >> thank you. , wanted thank you all for coming tonight. i want to recognize that we are joined by john hendrick, says biographer. thank you for being here tonight.

other friends and colleagues and scholars and historians. thank you all for being here. be sure and spend a few minutes and get your copy of david reynolds wonderful new book, mightier than the sword. every read "uncle tom's cabin" or read it for the first time and find out why it is a book that still resonates in the united states of america today. thank you very much. we appreciate having you. [applause] [applause] >> for more affirmation about this book search mightier than the sword. >> sunday on book tv in depth linda hogan, books focusing on native american and women's issues in the environment.

the woman who watches over the world controling, spiritual history, and her latest come around in the human corners. join our conversation taking phone calls, e-mails command tweets sunday at noon eastern on c-span2. >> what are you reading this summer? book tv wants to know. >> well, what i have read recently is a wonderful book that i wrote called the speech. you know what, it's a good book, and it deals with the filibustering days in december talking about a very, very bad agreement on extending bush tax breaks for the very wealthy and also goes into the details of why the noblesse in this country is collapsing and also talks about the growing inequality of america in what this means the future of our country. self advertising. it's my butt.

i did read it. another book that i have read recently which i like very much. that is called third world america by arianna huffington. a very readable book. see is a good writer. she touches on the trends that we have been seeing for a number of years in terms of our physical. frankly, if we do not reverse, and this is our point, or going to end up looking like a third country. fluent to the notice states. but he was waiting for a plan backed he happened to be sitting on the floor, crowded. he was wondering which was that their world country, the united states to china. a lot of ominous trends in this country are moving as in the wrong direction.

did the act together and reverse those trends. another book that i'm reading right now is a book about the life of somebody i have known for a number of years. that is willie nelson. the book is called willie nelson and life. that is by joe neck but does he. that's the most readable book in the world because with so does is give us the name of everybody in the world that had anything to do with who nelson, but given the fact that willie nelson is one of the more, clearly one of the great entertainers of our

time and is really an icon and a unique type of individual because of who he is and his intimate qualities, and vermont where i have seen of a number of times all over this country he brings a huge range of people. most singers appeal to this group of people or that group of people as a human being, his gentleness, a very gentle man. he is a very great supporter of rural america. people are interested about the life of the guy who migrated. he worked in the cotton fields. he grew up very, very poor. he has a unique type, i think,

to working americans sedate. he really is, you know, a big separatist. this is a book with stocks about his life. the last book, which is, you know, pretty interesting naturally. the topic might be considered to be boring. it's a book called the financial practice. that was put together by the commission that congress established to look at the causes of the financial crisis of ronald street and how they ended up bring us to the place where we are right now which is the worst recession this country has experienced since the great depression. it is tough reading because what you are seeing is the incredible recklessness from these people on wall street's. you know, producing worthless financial instruments. something that has been leading

us to where we are now and talking about the power of wall street and their business models and so forth and so on. wall street's economically and politically. this book actually does a pretty good job. >> tell us what you are reading this summer. send us the to reach. >> now on book tv, walter olson. migrating to the status of national policy. it takes place at the heritage foundation and runs about an hour. >> what is taught in law schools in one generation will be widely believed by the bar in the

following generation. one great law professor. he might have added that it will also because it is widely believed by the bar it will wind up being believed by one of the public. this was not a new story. i have written several books about the litigiousness of our legal system. in more cases than not that can be traced back to academic origins. if you have a beef with the tort system, for example, and the united states you should take it up with the berkeley. if you think it is less than ideal your problem is with professor catherine mackinnon, so it is with class action law the civil procedure, employment law, and many others. and this can be traced big and

small but telling a story and the excuse factory, workplace law of the then novel idea that the law ought to come back. for those of you who are not, it is the tight of improper bias by which employers are constantly hiring really great looking people and paying them more and promoting them for other in preference to the rest of us are more homely. yes, it's unfair. estimates unfair, but not until around the time the harvard law review, and interminable i should not say that. adr 90 pasted note, the need for the law to come about, not until a round them had it been thought that it was much of an issue for the long. but they are in the year 1999.

there appeared to be. law review student notes. and it did not take too long before it became an interest for legislators and for judges. indeed, the district of columbia right here has asked one ordinance banning lookism and so have a number of other municipalities leading to cases like the one reported a couple of years back of the gentleman who was finding it hard to keep his job at every tell al that because of the multiple tongue piercing is which actually had inflicted on in a speech impediment. he said, this is what got me fired. he called a lawyer, i believe, and was proceeding to contest this. well, the harvard law few article has thought through a lot of these implications and gone to the extent of imposing

wider use of applicants in jobs. this is my favorite part. we know that this is serious because the author of that harvard law review piece went on in new york times in later years. so the original title of my book was skin bad ideas from law schools and how they change the world. at least that's how i started out what became the school from his rule. as you can tell, i abandoned that someone jaunty title. indeed, i abandoned the framework for it because i could not answer the question. really only ten. where you going to stop? how long is this book going to be anyway. so i realize that i needed to

turn in part to why we got so many of these bad this, why law schools keep turning out certain kinds of bad ideas. it's not just that they're randomly generated bad diaz. some of it tamales of it. todd mentioned that the law school's -- let me and the state again, not exactly hotbeds. despite the best efforts of richard epstein, randy bird at, john mcginnis, richard epstein, richard epstein. they are outnumbered. it depends on which steady you look at. in some studies it is the ratio. another one found 28 at stanford. that must be exaggerated according to people he should

know harvard went for 30 years without hiring a single republican. this is my favorite part. over much of that time harvard maintained a committee over its lack of diversity while it was not hiring any republicans. tom mcguinness of northwestern put it this way. even as the party or the anglican church in great britain has been described as the toy party at the pulpit so these law schools can be described as a democratic party. now, that has been changed. i mention detains at harvard. in the most schools that have any self-respect these days will house a libertarian or conservative outspoken law professor. they may hesitate to have more

than one in fear that they will breed. but they do tend to have one these days. so things are changing. this is not new. this ideological flak goes back a good long way. if you wanted to you could trace it back to a century ago. it was said that law should be conceived as social engineering. isn't that a wonderful phrase? that means that law schools might think of themselves as schools of engineering. but it really began picking up momentum during and after the new deal. various law professors joined the administration. even more notably people in fdr's administration went over to law schools after they left and became professors. and the stage was set in 1943 for the publication of the most

widely cited and i believe most influential article ever published about legal education. that being carol boswell's legal education in public policy. and that me set the stage for just a moment. a very influential new deal official. sometimes described as the father of modern public in a political scientists. the time he and mcdougal, the young professor, wrote this, the law itself had just changed in a tectonic nine. zero richter scale way because the supreme court had given him and decided that after all the u.s. constant -- constitution did not prevent the government from learning that the economy. it would agree to not strike down most regulatory programs.

and so we were fairly launched upon a very new era of logical thought. the government doing much more than it ever did. yet here we have the law school's still teaching the same old curriculum. this was the beginning of the articles argument one. in particular the law schools are still teaching about so-called private law contracts and property and various other topics that were, indeed, typically thought of as necessary for mr. in ways it were going to go up and began arranging business deals that resulted in disputes on affluent crimes. this was not what lawyers of to martian the learning how to do. he said instead of drilling students in such outdated

matters the new curriculum should be determined to in reference to social objectives and toward achievement of democratic values. what gets you in trouble. he went on with some specifics. he said that -- often identified as the key author here. he emphasized in such best tunes of the private law, and i'm quoting, as contacting property which are much favorite instruments of society. if you had to have a course in law why not pick construction of public housing project or land use as a proper jumping off point. worse yet, they argued, was the public law, the constitutional law. even the supreme court had made clear that it was not going to change to accommodate government. baidu complained that the so-called public what courses are still organized but to much

difference to separation of powers, jurisdiction, due process, equal protection, in a state commerce, etc. trust in the states. schools should recognize that private inheritance was going to come to a minimum in the new society. local government law, they should realize that lawyers ready to be trained in new forms of regional governments. the authority and how it had been set up. and on and on. law schools were interested in adopting the mission of conscious, efficient, and training for policy-making. now, this was ingenious. part of the ingenuity was that schools would stop trading you. that whole segment of society would stop being so important. and yet it was so terrible. it was terrible on a number of local waste. but let me stress how terrible it was.

had you been trying to train even a policy lawyer let alone the main street lawyer the last thing you would have wanted to do was to substitute the tennessee valley authority to, indeed, if you put the book on these, every single one of these concepts they wanted to emphasize turned out to be vitally important and has remained fairly important to this date in her lawyer's practice law and how the supreme court applies it. so as a prediction of what lawyers would need to know. i could ask parenthetically. every time you hear someone from ossicles predicting that one area of law will boom in the future. it is north. they are approximately always. back in the 70's they thought that an energy law was going to boom, which it didn't. no one predicted trademark licensing law would boom, which it did.

it predicted that the group's services would boom, which they didn't and divorce would shrink, which it didn't. on and on. always ignore them. but it wasn't just, of course, mater a prediction. there were being kind of ideological about it. and even though, as i will mention in a moment, no one really adopted the program, they had a couple of influential atmospheric influences. one of them was that it up professors used to the idea. their students were going to be out their running the world and a policy sense instead of just doing business deals and text planning. and that the principles they themselves taught might add one move be shaping the world. law as it is was down in prestige from then on. law as it should be was up in prestige. and although some might say that there was a possible problem of

indoctrination here roscoe and mcdougal had the answer to that. which is when you teach students the old curriculum in a different way, it's just what kind of indoctrination. well, as i say, no one adopted the program because it was just too impractical to drop the old curriculum entirely. yet about ten years later something very noteworthy happened which got a lot of attention. that is the yale law school dropped a required course. this was almost unheard of because in the first place it's terribly important on the bar exam. it is terribly important in all sorts of areas of real life legal practice. but yeltsin's then as now for so smart and agile in their minds that they could when it came time to actually prepare for the

bar exam. in the meantime think of the time you a free up for philosophical discussions. either chilly stimulating and interesting things. and this, as then now, yet was the most prestigious of all law schools. this was intimately relating to the fact that yell was the most impractical and philosophical of all law schools. yeah professors, it came to be that there would be adorably clueless. if you had a legal problem he needed someone to solve, you need to bail them out of jail a something. it was as if the professors admired medical schools and the ones who worked most of the loss. this got transmitted. there was an irony. they touch this.

target -- egalitarian been above everyone being on the same footing. there are no debutantes. your have as jealous as each other as law school. none who are as obsessed as pecking orders at law schools are. between that and accreditation there is an enormous pressure for them to become more. there is an interesting article by mark malcolm glad well in one of last month's new yorkers in which he talks about the many failings of the university ranking system. he points out with respect to the undergraduate experience that all schools are under pressure to pretend to be more research oriented and interdisciplinary this one. philosophically grounded

professors in every area. yet this is not what actually works for most goals. i compare it to someone he noted the most successful single act was lady guy and therefore recommended all other entertainment likes become more like kirk. see is the only one who can get away with that stuff. so it is with yell and it's highly philosophical, highly policy oriented way of legal instruction. did work for yell because without as much time spent on boring old things like the old property law there were able to generate all sorts of a very influential new ideas. i will briefly summarize here because law schools like business schools and education schools, every five or ten years some new ideas squeaks through. so you had charles rice with the new property and that the is

that the right to welfare payments and the right to a government job or the right to teacher tenure with the right tough some regulatory favors from government was really a new property if you should be entitled to keep. much preferable to the old property. this is credited with touching off much of the revolution of the 70's in which reports began creating various new due process and sometimes substantive rights with consequences that we see today in the difficulty of getting rid of bodily function in public employees and any other consequences. on through the public interest laws, 1970's, very much project marshall leading law schools through the new conceptions of constitutional law in which it was believed that the u.s. constitution properly read would require the institution of more or less the entire urgent of the new york times.

down through identity politics with its mission that pretty much everything in the law, even secured transactions should really be thought of as charged with race and gender and every other personal category. some of these were much more than others. i trace in the book the successes as with the rights of revolution and other areas where the ideas were so impractical that they fell flat on their face when they got out in the actual courts. but the story culminates, the latest episode of it is the rise of international human rights. i believe that there is no area as fast growing in the law school's an interest in international human rights. dozens of new centers and projects and litigation clinics and entities and law schools.

and if you're still thinking of international human rights as something that is primarily meant to four dissidents running away in dungeons and against newspapers, the regime's where they closed down the opposition newspapers, i fear that you're much behind the times. that is still part of the agenda. yet, there is much, much, much more as you see if you go to many of the university sites. you're just as likely to seek articles about the need for changes in domestic violence or sexual harassment law, the need for quotas and the right to health care, the right to minimum and come, the right to collective bargaining, the right to be free, the right of free speech, the right to be free of hate speech depending on which croupier to. and this has been creeping into american discourse in a variety

of wace, primarily to the influence of legal academia. some of you remember earlier this year when the panel criticized the united states has been lacking in international rights. the laundry list went on and on. the u.s. was doing wrong, often by not having a big enough government. the obama administration response to this i thought was fascinating. a prominent response, so unfair for the u.n. to say that the u.s. is systematically violating u.s. rights because last year we passed obama care and took a giant stride toward recognizing our international human rights obligations in health care. this falls into the category of reassurances that leave me less reassured. i find it bothersome. i think that would have been an additional reason to vote against it. people that are you publicly it it was required for international human rights

obligations. and similarly in the controversy in recent weeks and wisconsin i wish i had a dollar for every time that someone has argued that what governor walker did in repealing some of the old publication rights actually was a violation of international human rights. vary widely argued in litigation. so there is a pattern here. much as it was a priest in the 1970's. the u.s. constitution required to properly read court enforcement. now it is argued that international human rights still applied. required the same new york times editorial page agenda. it gives the government more to do. it is very much like most of the other ideas i talk about your legal academia. after that point it sounded much

like the idea of giving the government more to do. specifically lawyers and judges more to do, which was not always fdr's few that litigation should have a bigger role in society. it in particular gives legal intellectuals more to do because their the ones who often when we decide to resolve it. we can do litigation and legal processes rather than legislatures or other ways of doing things. so friedrich would have understood the power of yet another genre of intellectuals who have arrange things in such a way as to make their own more influential and important. certainly good news for the graduates of the law schools. it is, perhaps, even better news for the faculty. i am not so sure that it is good news for the rest of us. thanks. [applause] [applause]

>> thank you. i am going to ask the first question and then we will level to choose his own depositors. i will remind you all to wait for the microphone especially since we have -- recording is posed for heritage and for our c-span guests. please state the name and identify any affiliation before you ask your question and keep it to a question. i said i would mention my one criticism. walter has actually touch upon it. although i don't, i think that his original idea for the title may be was not the best. ten bad ideas. i am not thrilled with the title that he chose. and going to ask it very pragmatic question. it is not as screed. it does a disservice three title. for one title that might sell but be misleading. how law schools are destroying

america. i don't think that would have 40 there. to you mind telling us what the processes to focus group, but tell, how you settle on this one, but i have any talent? >> well, first, you are absolutely right. i did not want to write one. and it is not easy to come up with the title. the last where i would try to do it is focus group because it would wear off all the edges. i was thinking in part of the school for scandal as a phrase in part of the lord of misrule who was carted around a public festivals to make fun of the high and mighty. and i wanted to make fun of a high and mighty. i was looking for words that have not been overused.

has lost all shock value. still a word that people haven't been using. that is doesn't focus away a second ago. fred smith from see eye. >> walter, the whole elephant there. you make a very good case. the intellectual self interest. they pursue it quite well because of their ability to be borrowing the prestige over the greedy capitalist. also power in governments. given the aggressive pose to the business plan generally, why.

they have great command. general counsel and so forth. faced with things like the acts of others. yet businesses in this area and some of the other areas seem to be passively waiting. >> well, that is a good question. why has business and those are interested in the thriving of an entrepreneurial capitalists system, why have they paid so much attention. and you could ask it even more pointedly after reading the book because ito at considerable length how very different group, namely the ford foundation in particular study in a 1940's and 50's and later joined by other liberal philanthropist's, they were not neglecting the law schools. there were ploughing in vast amounts and a great deal of organizational skill into making the law school's more socially conscious, introducing various active schemes, sometimes highly

successfully, sometimes not so. but they were working more or less on their own. i suppose that if more conservative libertarian donors had been making a similar effort you would have seen whether university administrations would have landed in. it should be said parenthetically for one economic movement did spring up and have very considerable influence as it continues to have as kind of a counterweight to some of the bad thinking in some areas. that hasn't been said. it is only a partial counterweight. that's appropriate. the economic sentiment in many different directions. at think it would make sense for people to disagree with the directions and spend a lot more time. currently the forces. ament should -- mentioned it richard epstein. he had to be used as the only recognizable person to the right of the center.

there isn't anyone else. he is traded doing it. >> my question is i send this isn't going to fall. it's not going to fall on its own weight, was to be done. kennedy influenced, graduates of law school tried to collaborate. pressure their law school but is to be done. >> several different questions. first, as far as the influence of the outside, we are at a moment of crisis for the