it's off now. it seems to me that my feeling is that maybe fred di is trying to raise figures like it's looking like they are helping people who need help by refinancing mortgages like ours and then in the meantime, people like my contractor who really should be being helped are not getting the help they need. >> i say that the treasury's program, the hamp program is a disaster. from the very outset, it was badly conceived and really was almost the worst possible combination of kind of people coming up with an idea of how to not help people is how it ended up working. ..

someone at the bank of america was actually in collusion with a lawyer. >> unfortunately again we don't have a housing problem or a holistic housing system, and to not making excuses for one or the other i don't know who the basis in the background on your

equity in, but the other side as freddie mac subsidizing not necessarily in your case some borrowers who will ultimately be able to stay in their home getting them the cash into a house where they haven't done the appraisal as you said or income verification so that is back to the other practices. there's a big difference on top of that between the two comparing apples and oranges. fannie and freddie our government guarantee. they own the credit for us already. bank of america the likelihood is your contractors mortgages not even held by bank of america. it's held by mortgage-backed and those investors have to be considered. bank of america is a surface or who also owns the largest portfolio of second liens and home-equity lines and so there's risks to them on that depending with the door on the first

mortgage and so you're right that this is a problematic situation and the government isn't interested in dealing with it but one of the things they are not willing to deal with is before you can have in the example bank of america treat the borrowers well, they need to be armed conflict in the relationship between the second liens they hold on the balance sheet and first liens have a service for people like the contractor. >> thank you. >> i have a couple questions. right now what looks like fannie and freddie might be profitable by the industry to of going into 2013 setting aside the 10% dividend they might own to the treasury, and at that point i'm sure there would be pressure to bring them out of the conservatorship but there you have patented most of the mortgage business over 40 patents so everything from the

mortgage application process all the way to the securitization and a lot of technology can and information on homeowners in the country. i'm not sure the patent should have been granted but what they be put in the public domain along with information technology and what you think will happen going back to business as usual? >> there's a great divide in washington between those who are afraid that if we wait too long to address at and wait until after the next presidential election there's going to be a push because they are profitable let's put them back out there and bring them back to the public market. we will take up regulation around the edge, and then you've got those saying let's get rid of them.

i actually am agnostic. there is value to the franchise, greater value in the portfolio and information that they have, which i think you could use if you could figure out a way to make not a government sponsored enterprises, but enterprises that were fully private. i think there's value in that because there's value in the information or you could offer its to the entire market, open it up, and the debate right now unfortunately is we have feeney and friday as fannie and freddie or the mortgage banks as x fannie and freddie, so i think the question is should either of those groups be the mechanism for social policy delivery or nothing more than a mortgage market structure, financial market intermediaries to the finance system, and the likelihood is fannie and freddie at this point are going to come out of the other side not with

the same names or the same structure but i think some of the franchise value will be retained. >> thank you very much, gretchen and josh. [applause] the author of schools for misrule in which he argues poor policy ideas born in law schools have migrated to the status of national policy. the discussion takes place of the heritage foundation in washington, d.c. and runs about an hour. >> what is taught in the law school in one generation would be widely believed by the bar in the following generation said one great professor and he might

have added that it will also because it is widely believed by the board it would wind up being believed by much of the press and public. this was not a new story to me. i've written several books about the litigiousness of our legal system, and in more cases than not, that can be traced back to academic origins. if you have a beef with the tort system for example in the united states, you should take it up with the professor of berkeley. if you think that our system of sexual harassment law is less than ideal, and your problems with a professor kathryn mckennon, so it is with class-action law and many others and this can be traced big and small. i told the story in the excuse factor in my book about the work

place law as the sand novel idea the law we ought to combat look system and for those of you that are not familiar with looksism it's the improper bias by which employers are constantly hiding great looking people, and paying them more and promoting them in preference to the rest of us who are more homely. [laughter] yes i was there but not until around the time the harvard law review ran and 80 or 90 page student note on the need for all to come. not until then had it been fought it was much of an issue for the law, but there and i believe the year 1999 there appeared to be extremely long harvard law review student note

and they didn't take too long before looksism became an interest for what is later found for judges. indeed in the district of columbia right here has housed one ordinance banning looksism and so has a number of other municipalities leading to cases like the one reported a couple of years back of the gentleman finding it hard to keep his job at a retail outlet because the multiple tongue piercing is, which actually had inflicted on a speech impediment, and she said to the newspaper this is what got me fired and he called the lawyer and was to contest this. well, the harvard law review fought to a lot of these implications and had gone to be to the extent of proposing wider use of interviews for the new jobs and this is my favorite

part, interviews behind screens. and we know that this is serious because the author of the harvard law review piece went on to write the editorials for "the new york times" and leader years. he's now left that and is teaching at yale so help me. so the original title for my book was ten bad ideas from all schools and how the change the world. at least that's how i started out what became schools for misrule and as you can tell, i abandoned the that title and indeed abandoned as the framework for it because i couldn't answer the question really come only ten where are you going to stop, how long is this going to become any way? and so i realized i needed to turn in part why we get so many of these bad ideas and why the law schools keep turning out

certain bad ideas and it's not just that they are randomly generated bad ideas, and some of it but only some of it is ideological. todd mentioned the all schools let me understand again are not hotbeds of the conservative thinking these days. despite the best efforts of richard epstein, randy burnett, john, richard epstein, they are outnumbered and it depends which study you look at in some of his only six to one or eight to one of democrats to republicans and a mother 28 for 1 that must be exaggerated 23 for 1 of columbia. those figures must be exaggerated and yet harvard according to people did go for 40 years without hiring a single republican and this is my

favorite part, for much of that time harvard maintained a committed like of diversity while it wasn't hiring any new republicans. john mcginnis of northwestern put it this way even as the tory party's are uncertain of the anglican church in great britain has been described as the tory party of the pulpit, so the legal professoriate in most good law schools can be described as the democratic party at the lectern. that's been changed and i mentioned it's been changing at harvard, and indeed most schools these days will house a libertarian or conservative outspoken law professor they may hesitate to have more than one for the fear they will breed -- [laughter] but they do tend to have one

these days and so things are changing. this is not new. this ideological slant goes back a good long way, and if you wanted to you could trace it back about a century ago who said that it should be conceived as applied social engineering. isn't that a wonderful phrase which means the law schools might think of themselves as schools of engineering but it began picking up momentum during and after the new deal. various law professors joined fdr's administration even more notably people in fdr's administration went over to the wall school after they left and became professors and the stage was set in 1943 for the publication of the most likely decide it and most influential article letter published about

the liquification about being the legal education and public policy in the law journal and to set the stage for just a moment he was a very influential new deal official who sometimes described as the political scientist and at the time he and mcdougal, the professor, wrote this bill law itself just changed in a tectonic 9.0 richter scale way because the supreme court to give another in this which time that saves nine had decided that after all the u.s. constitution did not prevent the government from running the economy it would agree not to strike down most regulatory programs and so we launched upon a new era at least he fought in which the

much more than it ever did it and yet here we have low wall school still teaching the same old curriculum. this was the beginning of the article argument. the law schools were still teaching mostly about the so-called private law contract property and various other topics that were indeed typically thought of as necessary training for the main street private lawyers who were going to go out and began arranging business deals resulting in the disputes on main street advising affluent clients how to keep their money out of the government hands. but this was not what lawyers of tomorrow should be learning how to do. he said that instead of drilling students in the outdated matters the new curriculum should be determined, quote, social objectives, and towards the

achievement of space values. when it gets that today you are in trouble, but with specifics she said that loss will is often identified as the key author here, deemphasizing such private law, and i'm quoting here, as contract and property, which are, quote, much favorite instruments of the society. if you have to have a course in property law, the asked, why not take construction to public housing project or land use planning is the proper jumping off point for the appropriate course? worse yet, they argued, was the public law, the constitutional law, even though if the supreme court had made it clear that it was now going to change to accommodate the government. and they complained that, quote, the so-called public law courses are organized with too much difference to separation of powers, jurisdiction, due

process, the court protection, interstate commerce etc., ferre courts been there's. trust in estates, schools should recognize the inheritance would be kept to a minimum and a society. the local government law they should realize lawyers needed to be trained in the new forms of original government like the tennessee valley authority and on and on. wall school as they said should adopt the motion of conscious efficient and systematic training for policy. now this was ingenious. part of the ingenuity is the schools which stopped training you how to be a main street private lawyer, that whole segment of society would stop being so important, and yet it was so terrible let me stress how terrible it was a prediction because had he been tried to train even a policy lawyer or

practicing main street lawyer, the last game thing you would have wanted to do is to substitute tennessee valley authority organization for the local government law to india if single one of the concept they wanted to deemphasized turned out to be vitally important and remanded important to this day how lawyers protect law and the supreme court applies it. so, as a prediction of what lawyers would need to know and i can add parenthetically every time you hear someone predicting one area of law will bloom in the future so we should train more and a mother would shrink ignore them because they are approximately always wrong back in the 70's they felt the energy law was going to bloom and it didn't and no one predicted the trademark licensing law was going to boom which it did and they predicted the services would bloom which they didn't and a divorce would shrink which

it didn't i always ignore them, but it wasn't just of course a matter of prediction. oslo and mcdougal were being illogical about it and even as i will mention in a moment no one really adopted the program whole. they had a couple of influential atmospheric influences. one of them was that it got professors used to the idea that their students who were going to be out there running the world right policy sense rather than tax planning and the principles they taught might remove was up and prestige from then on and some might say there was indoctrination here they have the answer which is when you teach the students the old

curriculum york indoctrinating them in different ways securities capets just which kind and we've heard a lot of doubt. no one adopted the program whole because it was impractical to drop the old curriculum and ten years later something noteworthy happened which got a lot of people's attention which was the law school to adopt the property as the required course and it was important on the bar exam and important in all sorts of areas of the legal practice but yale students then as now were so smart and agile and they could cram a when it came to prepare for the exam and in the meantime think of a tiny would free up for the philosophical discussion truly stimulating

interesting things and then as now it was the most prestigious of all will schools and this is related to the fact yale was most in practical and philosophical of all the law school's. it came to be the would be clueless if you had a problem to solve or someone to bail out of jail or something. it was as of the professors most admired the schools were the ones most had a loss when confronted with a sick patient, and this got transmitted to law schools the competitive toughness that characterizes of the law school world and there's an irony as the top of this egalitarian game about everyone on the same

footing and there are no devotee concert cellist discuss walls azar and as full schools are with u.s. news and between the accreditation there's an enormous pressure for them to become more jeal white and by malcolm glad well in which he talked about the failings of the university ranking system and he points out with respect to the number of experienced all of the schools are under pressure to pretend to be more research oriented and tough interdisciplinary this and philosophically grounded professors and yet this is not what works for the schools. i compare it to someone who

looked at the entertainment world and noted the most successful act was lady gaga so they become more lady gaga-like. she's the only way you can get away with that stuff and highly philosophical, highly policy oriented legal instruction but it did work for yale because without as much time spent, things like the old property law, they were able to generate all sorts of a very influential new ideas. i will briefly summarize here because of the law schools like business schools and education schools every fight for ten years and some new ideas since you had charles with the new property idea that the right to welfare payments or the government job or the right to teacher tenure or some

regulatory favor from the government was a new property that you should be entitled to keep preferable to the old property. this is credited with much of the 70's which the courts began creating various new due process and sometimes substantive rights with consequences we see today in the difficulty of getting rid of that will function in employees and the other consequences to it on to the public interest law we the project marshaled through the new concept of which was believed that the u.s. constitution properly read would require the institution more or less the entire agenda of the "new york times" op-ed page and down to the identity politics

with the notion of freezing until wall and secure transactions should be thought of as charged with ressa engender into every other personal category and it's much more successful. i trace in the book both some of the successes as with the right to the revolution and failures and other areas where they were in a practical but went on to the actual course. the story culminates at least the latest episode of this is the rise of international human rights, and i believe there is no area has stirred growing them interest in the international human rights at clinics and entities and the law schools, and if you think of it as something parley meant for the

dissidents in dungeons and the newspapers, the sort of regime with a close down, newspapers are here you are much behind the times. that is part of the agenda and there is much more as you can see if you go to many of the sites or human rights watch and amnesty international you are likely to see articles about of the need for changes in domestic violence or sexual harassment law or quotas. the the right to help, the right to and among them come and collective bargaining, the right steve 30 depending on which group you go to and this has been creeping into american discourse in lot of ways through the in terms of legal academia, and some of you remember early

this year when eighth panelist criticized the united states as walking in the human rights and the laundry list went on and on. as dozens of things the u.s. was doing wrong often than not having a big enough government and they ran their response to this because the prominence in the response was its own shares for the u.n. to set the systematically violating human rights because last year we passed obamacare and to take restrike for the obligations and health care. the vessels could to the category of reassurance. the fed would have been an additional reason to vote against obamacare people argued it was required for our obligations and so the controversy in recent weeks and wisconsin i wish i had a dollar for every time someone argued

what government walker did that in repealing some of the old public union rights actually was a violation of human rights. that's been very argued and should be turned up in litigation. so there's a pattern here. much as it was preached in the 1970's that of the u.s. constitution required if properly read but enforcement of the agenda akaka sinnott it is argued the international human rights still somewhat vague as to how this will happen required of "the new york times" editorial agenda. it gives the government more to do, and in fact it is like much as the other ideas and talk about from legal academia.

it was actually not always at your's views that litigation should have a bigger role in society. it's intellectuals because they will often be listened to when we decided the result through the legal process these rather than the legislators were other ways of doing things. [applause]

>> i'm going to ask the first question and then let walter jews whose inquisitors' but i would remind you all to wait for the microphones we are reporting for the season against please state your name and identify any affiliation before you ask your question and keeping to a question to reverse of i would mention my one criticism and walter has touched upon but although i don't -- i think his titles in the best and ideas from law school i'm not thrilled with the title so i'm going to ask a very pragmatic question. it's not a screed, it doesn't deserve the title. one title that might sell but would be misleading is how the law schools are destroying america. i don't think that would have worked either would do you mind

telling with the process is to the focus group a book titled how you settle on this one may be whether i have any talent. >> i did not want to signal the screed because i did don't want to write a screed and it's not easy to come up with a title of the last week and would try to do this focus group it because it would wear off the edges. i was thinking i am afraid of in part of a school for scandal has a phrase from in part of the rule who was part of the run of the festival's to make fun of the high and mighty and i wanted to make fun of the high and mighty and how does it is destroyed and america lost all

shackle value. as a word people haven't been using in their titles that is a focused group of a way as i can think of. >> ted smith from cei. >> you make a good case the self-interest of the state is some pursued because [inaudible] >> a gain moral prestige and power in the government and private sector during a given the threat this poses more generally, the a great demand over the council and so forth faced with the same as others

into this business and so many other areas seems to be waiting. >> why his business and those interested in the entrepreneurial system what do they give attention to the wall school santa i tell them considerable length of a group mainly the foundation starting in the 1940's and 50's and later joined by the authors they were not neglecting fell law school. there were pulling in vast amounts of money and a great deal of several organizational skills and to making a law schools as they saw it more introducing various activist seems sometimes highly successful we have sometimes not so, but they were working more or less on their own and i

suppose if more conservative libertarian donors have been making a similar effort you would have seen whether the university administrations would have let it in. it should be said parenthetically for the economics movement did spring up and have considerable influence as it continues to have and that thinking in some areas it's a counterweight and mixed people can take economic initiatives in different directions and it would make sense to disagree with the directions to spend a lot more time because currently the voices are scarcely heard at all. i mentioned richard epstein. he has to be used in six or eight different areas as the only recognizable person to the right of center and he's great at doing it.

yes? >> my name is paul, and my question is i assume this isn't going to fall on its own weight. we like to think it would put in a commentary article which i read it it sounds like fox forces to perpetuate this are so, if it's not going to fall on its own weight, what can be done? can it be influenced, can graduates of law school try to use their economic weight to collaborate with others like minded alums to pressure their law school and if not, what is to be done? >> there's several different questions to disentangle. first, as the influence of the outside, we are at a moment of crisis for the economics of all schools causing a rethinking what they should do not necessarily on the logical, but it is in part rethinking of why

is there such a gap perceived by law firms and others who hire the graduates between what the contract to do and what they will actually wind up needing to know and practice, and that serves as a very significant break against the pursuit of the completely fruitless sphery and one of my things in the book is that we hit bottom years ago the law school's intending to improve not only the ideological diversity in recent years but the extent to which they are connected with real-life problems. the deconstruction as some was felt there, too, but if you can't get people to hire your graduates you better deemphasized the courses, and the -- for better and worse you see it is worse in the standpoint in this room now they are more successfully policy oriented and have a more successful influence on how the

government operates and of course a lot of that is to people like elizabeth warren and many of us in this room disagree with that but you have increasing wages through the real world oriented a scholarship much more effective liberal forms of styles than you did back in the days of the critical studies and risks. there's the second not that closely related question of where showed a student want to go for a less than lopsided type of faculty, and many people i know who are confident in their ideas would go to a place where there's relatively little support for them. there is now the george mason school of law in the d.c. suburbs here which is a growing market strategy went out and scooped up a lot of conservative and libertarian faculty who were

undervalued in the offers the racket and elsewhere has risen rapidly in the rankings here and yet by almost any standard, they've gone much acquiring beyond their weight. so, even though it is easy to get discouraged about some of the trends, some of them are also self correcting, some extent that there is club is some. alan dershowitz with whom i disagree on many other points put it this way. the diversity is getting more themselves, and high hearing is like a club in which you get hired by the people who are already in the club. that hasn't been set. there's almost no comparison but important miss between the number of young the faculty's who would agree with many of us in this room and the same had to done at 15 years ago.

no comparison there are so many more than now. yes? >> following up on that response, you noted the federalist society. do you think then that one avenue for culture to the dominance of the left is only going to come from the eletes themselves in the schools and other words in order to get hired any law school with the exception of some of the for-profit schools you have to have clerked for a federal judge and come with a degree. therefore the only opponents of the category will be other people from the elite schools. do you agree that is the only front that is open to countering this stream? >> i think it's very well put, and the problem of bad ideas of harvard or yale would be met by the scores of other ideas as has indeed been helping it.

at isn't a matter where if you french 10,000 more ordinary law schools together you will somehow balance off berkeley or other top-10 schools, and ideas have consequences. we always find different lawyers getting back to the same point which is one last have an idea qualified. having the greater organization there, and that working in the third place are all hopeful and they may help people who deserve to succeed from falling by the wayside but nothing that would substitute. yes, chris team from crc in the front row. >> hello. so i'm wondering what you think your thoughts might be whether some of these ideas and liberal

academia actually translate to the lawmakers for example state attorneys general or members of congress or state legislators, do you have an influence and become -- >> yes, i think they do, and i give examples of the votes i could have told of several books, giving excels. in areas that i know to do the work of the tobacco whether it be the proper role of the state attorneys general, the proper role of the statute of limitation, which it can on popular literature and would never have had most of the infliction and things like that. whether it ceases to be respectful to defend the missions like strict application statute of limitations and

various other limits but anyway, when a stock's the respectful, there would still be some judges who resist because there's a lot of strong minded judges especially these days on the supreme court but most in the middle and if they have possible grounds for ruling out to then it won't be attacked and thursday and in citizens united we have a strong minded bunch of justices, replaced them with ones that don't have to be at opposite points but just ones who are a little more susceptible to the editorial opinion and you release those decisions. >> and we missed another question. yes? >> george mason?

>> you pointed out that all schools have become -- some are the reverse is in the last 15 years or so since i've been teaching but that happened from history, political science, sociology, anthropology and so forth, and my fury is this is in part because we have a supreme court in the judges to this by the republican they take seriously faculty's can't just write to rauf but if you have -- if you have i would be interested in why they've had a shift at least with other disciplines being immune to any kind of ideological diversity it's an interesting question and the law school's to not be as ideological extremist the anthropology of sociology is pretty well for out. disciplines and others are even more lopsided than what it takes some doing.

the law has been the most influential of them and i think you proposed a very interesting first cut at y professors who are particularly if the intent to specialize as so many do in the issues of the constitutional law if they can't predict what the u.s. supreme court will do because the can't make themselves think even in a hypothetical way as is korea or alito then they are not really terribly good at the court doing, so indeed hit this tended to reward professors who may be of liberal promises, but at least take the time to treat seriously the idea since that deferred and indeed you have seen quite a substantial body of liberals who make an effort to understand the conservatives when they are taken on to the very institutions as well.

and, it's half of how there may be some feeding in from the fact lots of very bright people who go into the law for many of the reasons other than changing the world of politics, and they need to be catered to the views of the lawyers generally to take that out of law school are more democratic than the american average but are not nearly as of the law schools, so there are a number of influences on them because the law is inevitably going to be more moral constraint in the sociology, no offense to those but it is. >> [inaudible] >> in the back row with the federalist society. >> i was wondering what kind of reaction you been getting from people in of the law schools to the book. >> i just began a term on it a

few weeks ago, so i have been to i believe indiana, illinois and minnesota so far, and the response has been wonderful. maybe it's self selecting and the ones who hate my ghats wouldn't be seen in the same room. but the faculty very often agrees with much more than we might expect of the critique and the possible ways of improving things. many of them mistake for the general law school crisis why it's hard to find jobs but for whatever reason they are brought up in larger numbers than i had expected, and i mentioned we did at the moment economically people are making things. there's a lot of doubt how they

would be free thought and the ranking system would be shaken up because law firms that hire date. you sometimes do better from the number five school in hiring the high gear up one. possibly the fact the law schools are so expensive that some small schools appear to be able to charge much less and offer just as good as an education. one way or another, there are a lot of people who come to that in a tangible way by coming up with a better method. an issue that has particularly come up for debate is would it help to blow to the accreditation system and by complaining the books at a lot of the trends on a dislike are reinforced by the accreditation and to the clinical the education whether or not you figure would work it requires certain types of research oriented and respect the

accreditation would present as with a completely different set of policies there would be different once we can work to solving those but one way or another they are not working well. there was another one in the back row. >> brian from the heritage foundation. this week the weekly standard has an article about the declaration of principles of academic freedom. are you familiar with that document? >> not really, no. >> with the declaration does and it's been touted for others for a while it leaves of the standards and principles of the academic looks like and we give the faculties for the simple, a guidance on how they should be making decisions about the tenure and who to accept, which are close they should be promoting a and those kind of things. what do you think about some type of standards for the academic community adopt set the

standards voluntarily and then is used by faculty in the other members that point to it and say i am not being afforded the freedom whether it's in tenure de fifa would be helpful to combat this problem? >> i have considerable steps about efforts to promulgate the general principles of that sort was what about what can outsiders to and the complexity and it quickly becomes at odds with the freedoms expected incidence of the state legislature putting some although law school we know that's happened in some instances of all school clinics. in a general set of rules will be used as a certain shield they will be used by some people to say if principal is allowed. you are not to be interfered or they will be used aggressively

by the people who want to defend streams in the proper rules and so forth. i guess my general sense of the principles of economic freedom is we're better off if they don't change very rapidly and remain decentralized enough so that we have a variety of institutions and foreign academics can flourish, some of which are almost impossible from any direction and others of which are more open to some signals from public opinion that they are often going off in the wrong direction not a very useful answer but i never claimed to have one. let me mention by the way if you're interested in my things about the international human-rights law as a favor of the decade heritage as a tremendous program calling attention to the latest developments.

yes in the back row. >> thank you. i am an adjunct professor of law at georgetown law center down the street and right-wing a freak show. [laughter] my question is related to something that you've been asked and it is in three parts. how do you know that the dean ase at any of the top law schools? a recognition on their part there is an imbalance or the extent of the imbalance. a second come do they regard that as a problem and feared, is their anything like a serious plan among any of them to reject the imbalance? >> i wish i could read their mind better than i could. i read a few years ago "the new york times" today well reported in good article on this general

issue and said of debates that he was not finding genes of all schools were pictures of any other sorts who are actually defending the violence and saying not if you're going to change what we do we are going to keep going up with people like me. there was some recognition and certainly there are individual demons we all know that have, you know, don wonders to make it more diverse. good. but the weight of them is they don't agonize about anything more than they have to because time is spoken for by the meetings and fund-raising, so unless there is discontent on the outside they have to be attention to it seems easy to move on to the ten tignes they know they have to worry about instead of adding an 11th one no

one pestered them for months about and i think that's probably how a plurality actually treat the other's on the issue. >> fred smith. >> i would like to follow the earlier question. the altar apologist said the your connected to the reality check but it is very much and it in the world of economics and you see h. hermetic asymmetry between the way the private law part of the economic sphere and the federalist just got out of the cia and others respond to these issues in a way the was your trial lawyers and so on and the intellectual allies you talked about. one seems to be strategic looking for presidents and the other seems to be winning cases. is there some way of raising the

awareness of our site to recognize we are in a cultural war iraq and we are fighting it to sensibly rather than offensive late. >> the last way you're getting the office to talk about the social war as a metaphor. i prefer the cultural base, but the question is why the asymmetry because i spend a fair good of time talking about how if you move from groups like the american civil liberties union to the law school clinics and programs education areas, you find a lot of overlap, cooperation, highly qualified personnel, you find the publications and the round tables and so forth are the key

academics as to what it's been taking this week and vice versa. we have tremendous cooperation. wouldn't we want that cooperation between the groups that are at the opposite number of the aclu or would that make the law school much polarized and ideological? i have my doubts they should jump headlong into a relationship with the conservative and libertarian think tanks or much less groups that have lobbying agendas which would be disastrous, and so the question is therefore, should we tell them stop dealing with the aclu four times a month and they've been around for a true for idf groups if you see what i mean. >> why don't you stand up here or stay here for the concluding

question. since i didn't know why john who introduced me needed to mention my servers on the u.s. commission of civil rights but then you explant for the answer i see my colleagues here there is an several who have been agitating to abolish the commission on civil rights apparently because the american civil rights is passed and they want to replace it with a human rights commission. so if you wouldn't mind explaining what is it is attractive to the so-called progressives about human rights? i want to ask if there are the civil rights law we actually house some limits, but no limits to what you can dream up in the human rights world. >> i'm also highly alarmed by the effort to rename and rebalance things from the civil-rights to human rights as you hint.

we could see it as a deutsch categories having to deal with minorities or others in the group's. not a member stuttgart's probably not a civil rights issue. it's meant to encompass thoughts plus health care labour, welfare and many others. white's 3,000 it's easier to bring in the literature and the pronouncements in national groups bit. finally, one thing that patent change is if we do academia because in both of the civil rights and human rights around, basically every new idea that comes along has been a large literature and a classic event where the body of opinion represented so wildly in the country and in this room which is a genuine equality of opportunity means not discriminating by race or

gender. this has not got its large body of academics behind it. they almost all unanimously as you start going through the added one of the reasons why the civil rights law is incredibly hard to reform it becomes even worse if you respect to the human rights law. >> i would like everyone to join me in thanking walter. [applause] >> for more information, visit the web site, overlawyered.com triet we ask what are you reading this summer? here's where you had to say. ♪ ♪

♪ in 2001-2002, c-span and american writers series featured several well-known writers who created the landscape of modern american literature. in april, 2002, broadcasting live from the ernest hemingway house in key west for the american writers spent two hours looking at the life and the career of ernest hemingway. this weekend marks the 50th anniversary of