>> one, not the other. >> that's correct. the second jail had a slightly different search pravachol and which the testimony is he was required to bend over and cough and expose his anus for inspection and the respondents themselves regard that as a more significant intrusion into the apply a reasonable suspicion standard themselves to that.

nobody thought it was unconstitutional. >> we don't believe that the premise is correct. if you read the history differently than the i will be able to persuade you, but our understanding is the history is that the closest they can come to is two things. first that people were strip searched upon arrest, and that is certainly not the rule on the fourth amendment. in certain sales at the time of the founding other inmates in a process of evolution whether it's almost a ritual cleansing would strip search new inmates that have nothing to do with the or try to intercept contraband. >> that is somehow less of an intrusion? >> -on to all bunch of inmates. >> well, first, it wasn't -- deep nearly uniform practice that i think your question assumes, and it is just a different kettle of fish entirely. we don't believe, obviously, that historical lesson obtains today that the prisoners construct search new inmates to maneuver arrestees as the command. i do agree with the basic

premise. i have reasonable rule. under the terms of bell verses wolfish, attorney versus affleck, a status of this is an exaggerated spots. much more, but surely more that is necessary to accomplish their goals. >> less intrusive than the ones in the search which involved pretrial detainees. >> no. justice ginsburg, we disagree with that, at least to the second. we think there is no difference between the degree of intrusion here and in bell, but there is another significant reason that not just in the nature of the search, but a big difference between this case and bell is that the inmates in that case made a voluntary choice. they decided to have a contact visits. >> to we know if the pretrial detainees in bell were also inspecting on entry into the facility? >> we do not. i tried everything i could to check the record of that case,

and there was no record of an admission strip search. >> is there -- there is a distinction between the simple strip search and the visual body cavity search? they say that they apply reasonable suspicion standards to the visual body cavity search. so the visual bosnia to the body cavity search of the table? >> no, it is not. we contend that the fourth amendment prohibited the visual body cavity search at the essex facility. >> you would say that they had to have a reasonable or executable suspension. >> we say under their written policy they should have, but they didn't. the burlington county in tech officer filiform saying there is no reasonable suspicion here. i don't believe essex contends that there was reasonable suspicion to engage in a visual body cavity search.

they deny as a matter of fact. >> you see a distinction between what they actually do and the written policy. >> i do with respect to the essex. well, i apologize. no, what happened here is that essex after this search occurred in, and this is described in the brief in opposition in case you want to look a bit later, essex after the search in this case changed its policy. we were denied an injection going forward under the l.a. verses lines, so it is just a question of damages for the search that occurred the time under their old policy. >> i am confused about your position. suppose the jurisdiction has a policy of requiring every inmate who is arrested and is going to be held in custody. disrobe and take a shower and apply medication for the prevention of the spread of lice and is observed while this is taking place from some distance by a corrections officer, let's say 10 feet away.

does that require reasonable suspicion? >> it does not. >> are only concerned is search is that go further than that? >> that's exactly right. the individuals genitals, which can occur absolutely so long as there is some minimal level of suspicion that is created. i do want to return to the justice kennedy's concern about whether -- >> can i just follow up, is there a disputed facts as to whether anything beyond that occurred in broad to county? >> there is a dispute about the so-called sin left who, whether he was required to lift his genitals are not. there is no dispute that he was required directly in front of an officer to strip naked, despite the officer having made a finding which is in page 390, that there was there a reasonable suspicion. that is the only factual dispute. >> could you clarify two points. was he admitted into the general

population? >> the record is not entirely clear. for the first few days, remember, he inexplicably was kept for six days, but the for several days he was kept in a cell with only one other and make or possibly two and one time he had lunch with other people. in essex he was admitted to the general population. >> the prior charge against her client was involving the use of a deadly weapon. assuming the prison near this, wouldn't that provide reasonable suspicion that you argue was missing? >> no. because of the breath of a phrase possession of a deadly weapon that this case illustrates, the record shows that the possession of the deadly weapon, and that's what this charge was not pursued by the state was that he was pulled over. >> you're feeding into your adversaries arguments.

investigate in fine detail. you can even look at the rap sheet? >> it does not contain that charge. the rat she says we had a single charge. he pled guilty, got a term of probation. there is nothing but the gelatin and they have permission suggesting that he had some charge involving the deadly weapon. that is what they themselves certified. >> is the rap sheet always available immediately? i thought it was rather common, correct me if i'm wrong, back some years ago, that it would take maybe 24 hours, 48 hours for the wiretap for the wire services and internet to report that he was wanted for questioning for some very

serious crime and other states. i mean, in my practice at least county jails were much more dangerous than penitentiaries because you don't know who these people are. you arrest them for traffic and then maybe some serial killer. you do not know. >> first, that is not the view of the jails. they apply reasonable suspicion. they did not find any concern in their own policies. neither does the marshal service. the prospect of some prior offense. whether this was in practice, the jail here did looking up in the new jersey criminal-justice have permission system in the record. they are required by new jersey law to do that. it took every single one of these jails that has computer access to the end jaycee a. is in the nci. the taipan his identifying information. there were able to pull him up without any difficulty. they did not complain that it did not have enough information about an. they filled out a form saying there is no reasonable

suspicion. and remember, our rule only operates in a system, justive kennedy, in which the gel does have a misinformation. if the jail has the facts as it did here to a firm of lee determined that there is a reasonable suspicion, which is what they decided about. then it is an extraordinary intrusion on dignity and autonomy to strip him naked when they have no reason to do so. >> council, my understanding of the statistics, and correct me if i'm wrong, is they get about 70 new people going through this process the date. is there anything in the record about how much additional time it would require to look at each one, to look at the record, to determine which category they should fall into that the strip search or not. >> there is. they do this already. they apply our rule today. when he arrived at the burlington county jail they did

in the assessment of him and determined that there was no reasonable suspicion. the jails in this case did pull up his prior criminal history and have no problem doing that. they apply our standard today. it is not a difficult one. >> you have acknowledged that we have held that when you have visitors you may be stripped -- strip searched after the visit and the same kind of close examination that you object to hear. your explanation why that is okay is that that is voluntary. >> i have to explanations. >> you don't have to have visitors. can you really condition your having visitors on your waiver of your fourth amendment rights? >> yes. you have no right whatsoever to have contact visits, and so of course you can say i'm voluntarily relinquish my fourth amendment right in exchange for this privilege, but have a second.

>> are you sure about that? you can condition certain privileges upon the waiver of constitutional privilege? >> i believe that is a fair statement of a lot. underlying the issues, holding that the searches were reasonable is that it was essential to deter smuggling. that deterrence rationale has much more of an attenuated relationship. remember that the inmate in that case was having a planned meeting with someone, and the representation of the government is our problem is if you plan to have somebody come visit you and will have a contact visit you can plan for them to try and speaks of the tube. this court is set. >> they're beauregard there were watching the visits. as i understand that case, there was really no empirical evidence that smuggling came about as a result of these visits. question every tea with the court said about that?

the court did have a slightly different take. the court's opinion. there has been only one instance where an mcc made was discovered attempted to smuggle contraband into the institution. maybe more is testament to the effectiveness of the search technique as a deterrent. secrete and report such items, when you have an unexpected arrest, remember, said the paperwork that he was not wanted for arrest, and that will be generally true in all kinds of stock -- traffic stops, imagine i thought always reasonable. the person would be arrested coming into the general prison population. there is a warrant out against him for second-degree murder, and the policemen stopping him for a traffic offense arrests and because he knows he is wanted on the war in another place. the jail has a policy that says when you are coming here because

of second-degree murder we strip search you. okay. can they do that under a rule are not? >> yes. >> then you are not saying he always has to be reasonable suspicion. >> just a debate. we think that is reasonable suspicion. >> that is not helping me. what helps me is to know what the category of things is that the jail in your opinion is going to have to look into common characteristics of these individual persons. they talk about minor arrests. when i look to some of the cases, there is a long list like violence, drugs, and so forth. we don't have to, you can just use general facts that he was arrested. other ones to minor ones where you do. what is your rule? >> our rules that we would except is that with respect to a minor offenders that is when you -- >> then the next question, who is a minor offender and how do

you administer that will? >> that is the rule. you have to have -- >> you are trying to state the constitutional rule, and you keep talking about there will. we are trying to find out the limits of the rule. i think you have already qualified what you said. opening you said reasonable suspicion is the rule for everyone. the fallon as well as the minor offenders. now you seem to be saying well, this case involves only minor offenders. so let's limit it. that is what i thought they were saying. >> yes. that's right. because this case only involves a minor offenders we have articulated a rule. >> that is what i -- unfortunately i'm asking you. is the same question. how do you want us to write this off so that jail personnel all over the country have to be able

to follow with and know exactly what they're supposed to do? >> the rule that was articulated by the federal courts is one that says for minor offenses. when that was a pride in practice, basically done at a felony verses misdemeanor line. the court accepted that if you are suspected of a more serious offense than for administrative reasons and because we just think you might be engaged in more criminality, then we don't have to have any individualized inquiry whatsoever. >> i can understand that for cavity searches, but why for the search to see if a person has any fleas or cooties or, you know, any other communicable disease before he is put into the general population? are felons more likely to have those than non felons? >> that makes no sense for that aspect of research which is, we want to make sure we have a clean prison.

>> with the testimony establishes is the jail guards allowed any sort of medical rationale for the surge to be conducted by medical personnel, not by the guards themselves. all these inmates are examined by medical person, nurse or the like, and they are responsible for -- >> that is where the fourth amendment invasion of privacy line is to be drawn. if you are examined close-up by someone who has a medical degree it's okay. on the other hand it to someone who does not have a medical degree it's not okay. >> that is -- >> that can't be the line as to whether your privacy is invaded. >> it can be aligned, and it is the line that has been accepted for decades. >> you have to keep the person in custody. twenty-four, 48 hours until a medical person could come. twenty-four hour medical personnel for an takes that to do in the morning? >> yes. the intake process, the testimony as -- >> you're telling us that every county jail in the united states

has medical personnel on duty 24 hours a day. >> i apologize. i am telling you what is in the record in this case, and that is -- >> 2 feet is too close. 5 feet is okay. you're sticking with that. >> i am saying a close inspection which is intended to examine the person's individual generals and whether it is to feed or 4 feet, if i could make one point and then reserve the remainder of my time. >> your medical personnel, children in school expected. you don't need a doctor to do that. >> that's right. but what happens is that medical professionals are the people who are assigned to have responsibilities. that is the testimony in this case. the only last point i want to make -- >> that's not constitutionally required. >> i agree. >> so that's another thing that you don't need that they can

inspect for body lice. and that's okay. >> if that is what they're doing, i think that is okay. the courts have said that is not itself bought because of the prospect of handling that prospect, that is not a sufficient justification to require the person to strip naked. the only other point i did want to make is that this is the rule, not just at burlington and essex, but also u.s. marshals service, which has the intake of 220,000 in its every year and also the bureau of emigration, customs enforcement which interest 380 -- >> the government tells us that is true only if they don't put the arrest the in the jail population. >> does not correct. that is only the policy of the u.s. bureau of prisons which has in and take a minor offenders only a few thousand people a year. for the marshals service and ice which have a combined 600,000 people every year, they do not

have the separate house rule. >> we would give your rebuttal time. maybe just to be clear, but do you or do you not have an objection to the superseding the ccf policy? >> we do. they still have to stand naked directly in front of the correctional officer under the superseding policy. the superseding policy, which has grown since policies are throughout this is that they will not such a person for contraband, which is their supposed interest. contraband in the absence of reasonable suspicion. both tales at the time of this search and also now will still require the person to strip naked, supposedly for contraband, even though their own policies as we will search -- we will engage in the depth of search that is required, let the anise, the person's mouth in the absence of risible suspicion. >> that is the current policy. >> that is the current policy. >> and you have no problem with that.

>> we do -- >> you have no problem with the reasonable to curable suspicion aspect of the body cavity search but that's correct. and with respect to the simple strip quick to fester researcher only objection is that the guard is to close for the inmate? >> that's right. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. may it please the court, i appreciate the clarification that your questions brought to this case. i think there is a bit of confusion that i would like to try to clear up all my colleagues movement in terms of answering some of the questions let me a little bit perplexed as to exactly what the nature of their plans are. the first question that the court should focus on is what policy is an issue here. obviously sensed the class certification deals with one set of issues and appointed claim still with another set of issues , i think you have to be careful. you have to focus on the

policies that existed in 2005, the basis on which she was, in fact, searched under these circumstances. the policy in burlington was primarily and, frankly, at health and tattoos. the policy at essex was aimed primarily at contraband and then secondarily at tattoos and health. and the policy of burlington was largely you come into prison, give appear close, they look through your clothes, you take a shower, they examine new, fairly cursorily, but look at you and then give you prison garb and move along. >> i'm sorry, shower and then look at you cursorily air separate things. >> before or during. >> the place a lot of significance of how close the examination is to be under that policy how close was the examination. >> it would have been about an arm's length because the problem is if you are exchanging blows with somebody, handing them

close, it's hard to be longer than arm's length and actually get the clothes into his hands. >> but he could reach out. >> that's not right. that's not right. you could take the clothes off, put them in a bed. >> and that sex with what they do. essex, in fact, does have -- the problem is terminal logical. burlington is basically a body visual observation. and the district court says that is unconstitutional. just observing and all is unconstitutional. to some extent it says, my friend here has given up that part of the district court decision, which clearly the court of appeals have reversed the part of to be affirmed. >> for more than 2 feet or less than 2 feet. >> right. that was not the district court. the district court did not say what happened.

>> to feed are now within 2 feet. >> it depends on whose version. you have to remember the district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff in this case. he would have to interpret -- give up the benefit of the interpretation, which was more than 2 feet. the court of appeals reversed without regard to that because the court of appeals said, look, if you apply this court's decision it does not matter because you can engage in a much more interested to body cavity search which, frankly, is more interested and even what ethics county does in this case. he was and asked to bend over and to have a body cavity in a search, but he was asked to scott and cough in the event because ordinarily that will cause the contraband the fallout, and you can catch it under those circumstances. that is one of the concepts. >> if i could understand your position. you think there is no reasonable suspicion, even for that more interested body cavity search?

is that right? >> that's correct. >> does it matter whether the person is being introduced into the general prison population, but would you also say that if a person is not being introduced to the extent of the general prison population, do you still think there is no reasonable suspicion requirement? >> from my perspective i think even if there were calling to be admitted into the general prison population because the risks remain to substantial, but the truth is that all have to defend that argument. both of these jails have meant the inmates into the general population. as a line which off. >> would you say that regardless? there has been something of the cities that have taken to arresting people for traffic citations. so suppose someone is just arrested because they have a lot of tickets for being caught on

speed cameras. that person can be subjected to the search is that you're describing? >> yes. i think the basic principle we are asking for is that that deference to the jail's and city administrators of the jails requires that this board, you know, respect their judgment that you can make a distinction based on the specific individual , that whether somebody is a minor offenders or major offender is never all that clear. and the first place. two, the basis on which to distinguish the risks it poses. >> the aba. the aba is a minor offense, not drugs, not violence, and there you have to have reasonable suspicion. i read through the briefs, and i can't find a lot of contractors that were caught in that category. in fact, my law clerk thinks

it's one of 64,000. so what is the justification for greuel to avoid reasonable suspicion in that category? >> if you look at the expert testimony that was before the court and the district court in this case, but the expert testimony of the plaintiff and the expert testimony of the defendant, this is a 348. it says a greater presence of contraband the monks those individuals that have minor offenses, such as that is their experts characterization that minor offenders bring in more contraband the major offenders. our experts said misdemeanors can be more dangerous and more likely to bring in contraband. >> we have a lot of experience. different states have different roles. san francisco came in with the toughest on your side. looking through that, it's very hard to find somebody who really was in his minor offenders

category who really was found to have contraband. so what should i look at to show that my initial reaction from the kukri is wrong? >> well, we go back. this course says that the fact that there is not a lot of contraband being found maybe a testament to the effectiveness of the deterrence. >> what it retains the policy? >> we found that the policy was successful, even though there were searches. contraband still got in. so virtually every search in practice of the federal system have been following this reasonable suspicion for minor crimes, and they had been fairly successful. why do we change the constitutional will to let them do more? >> well, i think, first of all, anybody who thinks that the problems of contraband of less serious today than they were in

1978. >> i understand contraband serious, but most of the studies pointed not be an unpaid but coming in through guards, coming in through contact visits. the great cause today is that for correct -- corrupt correction officials. >> we can debate that, but it seems to me that the fundamental principle that ought to undergird the inter the, out of turner versus ashley in that line. >> and i ask you something just in terms of your will, i think it says your rule is you are not entitled constitutionally to any right to privacy in prison. that is the case, are you saying that if the president decides on a manual search, every prisoner comes in, correction officers can manually check the cavity? >> no. there is some privacy.

>> i can be clear about this. it seems to me in hudson versus polymer in the history of the fourth amendment clearly suggest that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy being too negative in a prison. there for the ordinary burlington approach of having somebody take a shower and looked at him or her naked for tattoos and health and incidental contraband clearly constitutional, clearly does not even raise a fourth amendment issue. beyond that point and start to begin what essex does which is not a troop in a cavity search but simply an anal focused engine of a focused search, i think that is subject to the turner versus nathalie. >> do we go back to back is one of the factors that we look at under the fourth amendment reasonableness? and should we be thinking about the fact that not many at --

many of these people who are now being arrested are being put into general population's or into jails sometimes not just overnight but for longer periods of time like this tournament for six days before he sees a magistrate, should we be considering a rule that basically says your right to search someone depends on whether that individual has, in fact come been arrested for crimes that is going to lead to jail time and not? whether that person has been presented to a magistrate to see whether there is, in fact, a possible cause for the rest and detention of this individual? there is something unsettling than permitting the police to arrest people for things like kids for staying out after curfew.

>> justice, i think what is disturbing about this case is, in fact, the -- that he was arrested under circumstances under which he should not have been arrested. i understand that. but i think the change, the constitutional rule and to change the turner versus tacitly endorses will standards and ignore what the underlying inquiry should be here, which is these policies which apply across the board impinge constitutional protections but nevertheless represent our jailers. >> what do we do with the presumption of innocence? that is also a constitutional right. so shouldn't the degree to which a search is permitted deconditioned in some way, there are not this person has been presented to a magistrate? >> i would, if you want to adopt a different set of standards about who ought to be arrested and you ought to be taken to

jail, that's fine. i think once are talking about actually bringing someone into the jail to be admitted into the general population and what is without question one of the most dangerous, most risky environments, i would hope that this court rather than asking individual jailers to make decisions on the basis of where they clearly will not have the kind of a commission you're asking them to make. >> itouch your friends said that is exactly what you do with respect to the visual body cavity search? reasonable arctic you will suspicion under the new policy. >> that's what we do with a true a no body cavity search. i mean, we change the policy. which is the policy because of litigation concerns. >> well, as i understand it with respect to -- with respect to a

visual body cavity searches you require a particular individual reason. >> yes. >> okay. and you don't require that with respect to simple strip search. so you agree with your friend that the only thing at issue here is how close the guard is going to be to the individual who you have no reasonable suspicion to think is different than anybody else during a simple strip search. he says to fee is too close, 5 feet or ever is okay. you want to get to 2 feet. you don't want to have to stand back. that's all the case comes down to. >> well, you can characterize it that way. i think it's a better way to think about it. what essex wants, you know, what policy permitted it to do is to examine. >> not interested in what l. -- as its policy permitted. i'm looking at new policy.

under the new policy you have reasonable our ticket will suspicion for everything except a simple strip search and observation. >> the language is different. the line that the new policy draws his between what i think bill verses will fish was describing where you ask the inmate to bend over and expose his or her anus for a cab research. on that score that is -- we don't do that. we do, in fact -- >> i'm sorry, could i finish and find out what you do? do so we don't do that. we do -- >> what we do is ask the individual to lift his genitals and twos, and cough. >> okay. so you do more than the simple strip search. >> right. >> there is still an issue in the case beyond the ordinary visual inspection.

that is this, even though you have change your policy now the question remains whether that change in policy was constitutionally required. so when you treated the plaintiff in a different fashion under the old policy that was a violation of the constitution. doesn't that question remain? >> that question clearly remains >> so we have to consider both. the pure visual and also the inspection for contraband. >> and all i -- the only point i've been trying to make is that if you look at the way the district court analyze the case the district court's split up, and as the basis of a class distinction. >> the record, and experience justify an argument that if you have the person who stopped just for a traffic ticket but that person is going to be in custody for fiber six days, that person might well deserve an

institution where everyone has the answers to a four he/she is put into the population within. >> there actually is testimony in the record from the wharton saying that in order to ensure everybody safety we are better off with a blanket policy that says we're going to engage in some form of the search. essex says this let me more intrusive, but it's all designed to accomplish the same thing. is not just designed to insure against contraband. it is designed to insure that there is not somebody like mr. flores who is going to end up being pope or otherwise -- >> i concept -- i count seven or eight states to have some variation for reasonable suspicion rule, like what they want. is there any evidence at all that in those seven or eight states there is more contraband being smuggled in? >> there is the testimony in the record from their experts that said that in kentucky there yesterday the single biggest

problem in kentucky prisons and the biggest cause of death is a drug overdose which suggests their is a serious contract issue. kentucky is one of those -- inside one of the circuits that have a reasonable suspicion requirement. so i would say yes. there is some evidence from which you could infer that it is worse now than it was, but i would also ask the court to rely on its common sense and what it essentially said judicial notice of. this is a serious problem, and it is no less a serious problem today than it was more than 30 years ago. >> are there any constitutional limits in your view? needed an attempt to kind of service there was done and. is there any constitutional amendment to you doing so? >> i don't believe. my position would be, no, there is not. the balance would tip in favor of the institution under those

circumstances. i do think, there is a limit between the manuel physical body cavity search. that seems to me, yes, that would be a very different balance in the equation, and i suspect that would be very hard-pressed to convince five members of this court. >> you want us to write an opinion that applies only to squatting and coughing, is that it? >> you may want to write a slightly differently. >> yes. [laughter] >> but what i would really like is an opinion that recognizes deference to the present and to their judgment is what is appropriate under these circumstances, and that extends all the way to the bill verses will fishline. the only difference is i would like them to analyze it. which the analysis, you know, a logical nexus between the rule that the presence have and presenting a problem and the answer is yes.

reasonable alternatives, and there the answer is no. >> u.s.a. that they can do, as long as the constitution is concerned all of these searches are permissible. >> clearly all of our searches are permissible. that is exactly the holding. bill verses will fish was not tied in its opinion itself to the fact -- >> but they did. they did stress that there was a visitor who could -- who could give the inmates contraband does not ask whether we know that that detainee's in new york, asserts that way on entry. nothing that shows will lead the other. >> i think that is correct. we don't know part of the empirical problem and that is that the facility will open for four months anyway.

it will be difficult if you're going to adopt a policy that they adopted to insist on some sort of empirical proof. >> the one significant difference between bell in this case, there is a real opportunity for people to plan to conspire together to bring in contraband. here you're talking about somebody who was arrested on the spot, no opportunity for planning, conspiracy with respect to contraband, is the? >> no, but the policy itself is and that all people, not just that mr. florence, and if you amen and all people, there are people who suffer port to obviously an opportunity to bring in contraband and a lot of people would just get arrested and happen to have charges something on them. rather than show those with there being stopped it will likely stick it in their pocket or put it somewhere else. thank you. >> thank you, counsel.

>> mr. chief justice, may it please the court the search is at issue were very similar to the search is at issue in this case and should be upheld. i want to start. it is true that contact visits are different from a person coming into the jail for the first time and that there might be a greater up jenifer planning. as one of the justices' pointed out, there was less than opportunity to actually get contraband. a person coming in this going to be searched. the inmate was wearing a one piece set up jumper, and he wants the entire time. it does it, the contraband situation in this case at intake, the person does have an opportunity, even if they are not self reporting, knowing that they're going to be arrested, protesters, for example, decide deliberately to get arrested might be stopped by the police. they might have a gun or contraband in their car and think, hey, i'm going to put that on my person. i need to get it somewhere. it will be found during a pat down certain potentially they

have it with them. also, the process of going from the arrest of a point of rest of the general jail population is not a quick one. the person typically goes, for example, for metropolitan police department as happens here, and the person would make potentially there in a holding cell with other offenders. if this court adopted a rule saying that minor offenders would not be searched in the way that other offenders would, i have no doubt that there are some offenders and those circumstances on the bus to get to go to the general jail population who would give the stuff to the minors. >> that is not the federal rule. and by the way, very confusing. when i read page one, page one tells me that the real policy requires all incoming detainees to be subject to visual body cavity inspection. and it isn't until page 30 that i learned there is an exception for the various categories of

arrestees that we're talking about here. they are not subject to body cavity inspections unless there is reasonable suspicion that they are concealing contraband. the misdemeanor or simple contempt offender is not subject . >> i'm sorry if that was confusing. the bureau of prisons' policy is that a person will not be put in the general population being allowed to mix with other offenders unless he or she has undergone the strip search. >> yes. but i want to know how people in this category are treated in the federal system? they -- those people are not subject to this visual body cavity search. >> those people when they get into the jail would be asked whether they're willing to consent to this type of search. in most cases they do. if they don't consent and there is not reasonable suspicion they are not placed in the general

jail population. they're kept separate from the other offenders. it is the case the rule that the third circuit identified which is a blanket policy than anyone that would go into the general jail population and mix with everyone else has to be strip searched. that is the federal bureau of prisons' policy. >> i'm sure i missed something. when you go when you asked if he will consent to be more interested body cavity search and be put into the general population or if you don't you don't have to be search and we put you someplace else. who consents to that? >> well, the general tell population has facilities, computer facilities and others you don't get when you're in a sell by yourself as a practical matter that arises very infrequently. fewer than 1 percent of offenders. the question before the court, you have before you up like a policy. many to strip search everyone. but with the court has considered its normal difference

, and i just -- >> i understand most of the general proposition that you are advancing. i have to say, i was somewhat surprised that the evidence, the amount of contraband that was discovered and the amount of weapons that were discovered in the literature and the citation was someone skimpy. i thought there would be a stronger showing them what i found in the brief. >> well, they are not empirical studies of this type of affirmation. typically it arises when there are incidents at a facility, it's the reports are written up, not published regularly. not some kind of laboratory study that you can do. facilities have an instance. they try to deal with it and sometimes it makes the news. i would hate for the court to think that there is not evidence of people who commit minor offenders in the record preen in very serious things into prisons and jails. footnote 15 in the government's brief which talks about people being arrested for traffic offenses and smuggling crack pipes in body cavities.

the point the court to both experts. i . the court to the record. the sentences could case. >> the issue has to be certainly some misdemeanor, some people charged with misdemeanor crimes will try to smuggle things and. the issue is how many of them would not have been found on a reasonable suspicion standard. i think justice breyer said in the san francisco study it appears only once. >> i think that is a very hazardous bang for the course to do. the course look back individual offenders. >> we don't have 2020. we have how many years? fifteen years. present and planned a reasonable suspicion standard. the most you can muster under that standard is one example of a case where someone has entered at some point empirical evidence has to mean something in terms of us judging the question of

reasonableness. >> i agree with you, but the individuals were doing the search is at issue have very limited information about people. this is when you have people coming into the system for the first time, have had the most contact with the outside world, the least amount of affirmation. >> i have a question about that today face your judgments on your own personal experiences. when i was a prosecutor but it took sometimes days to get a rap sheet. at a stand that is no longer the case today. they're virtually almost always accessible by computers today. >> that may be true, but it is not the information that the people who do and pay. they do not have that permission at their fingertips. they have a name, date of birth, and the offense the person was charged with spirited out of anything else. the question before the court if i may is whether there are reasons for a blanket rule that this course defer to, and i would say there are several. you cannot say that there is

some minor offenders that don't pose a contraband risk. documented in the record. second you have individuals making very quick determinations'. they have a large number of people to get through into the general prison population. very little time, and if they guess wrong does mistakes can be deadly. >> supposedly accepted the petition misconception that it is permissible to require everybody who is arrested to disrobe and shower under the observation that the corrections officer from a certain distance. now the question becomes how many people who do that will still be able to smuggle in contraband? >> well, there would be contraband that would be in body cavities, and we have documented in this record and other records that there are folks to do that and that contraband is not found until they do these. >> that is my problem. i overstated the strength of your evidence. i was trying to drive out.

understated it. san francisco's point is really the 30 to 60% or so very high percentage of people who come in for minor crimes are high and trucks. a few examples. they are there. it would be helpful if you it included in the estes park people who were high on drugs. so we give you 900 people. it is the drug offense. is there a way of drawing this rule? >> the fundamental question is who should be doing this line drawing. you will refer to the people who are seeing this stuff. >> the simplest thing is they do it for everybody. so the fact that they do it for everybody in don't try to make some exclusion for traffic violators is something might be consistent with little or no

evidence. that's why keep looking. >> there are many good reasons. it is easy to the minister to be lots of people, done for the protection. >> why isn't it federal policy? there aren't that many offenders. if there were more, would there be -- with the federal policy changed so that even people who are in on a contempt charge or a minor crime -- >> yes. the federal government thinks that blanket policy is a good one. it made one modification when the weight of the circus was against it. again, this is a policy that is done for everyone's protection. the point was made earlier. >> and sorry, you think it's a good policy to inspect every one? >> just got to respect everyone who would be put in the general jail population. that is the third circuit

holding in what we are defending in this case. when you have a rule that treats everyone the same, you don't have folks that are singled out, and a security from the judgment of the court below. >> thank you, counsel. four minutes. >> thank you. i have three points to make. my friend from the united states is deferred to the experts, but the point that the united states consistently a mets is that there are 600,000 offenders that go into the federal system every year. understand the claim that only involves 1%. the marshal service and ice admit 600,000 offenders every year under our standard. they are not kept in separate housing. these are cited in our brief. 600,000 people is their expert defense expert judgment. the second point about numbers, there is a significant empirical study, and that is the county of orange, the district judge did an unbelievably detailed job going through the record of

26,000 admissions into the system and was able to identify only a single instance where contraband would have gotten in under a reasonable suspicion standard. there is also evidence in this case, and the evidence to my surprise that my friends keep pointing to, there is a memorandum from the essex jail system that says page 78-71a of the joint appendix and tells you to really relevant things. every year they admit 25,175 people into this gel. they only found 14 instances of contraband and don't even make the claim that those 14 instances out of 25,000 would not have been found under a reasonable suspicion standard, so you have evidence in this record about this particular case. third a couple of points have been made about whether justice prior you asked whether someone who is high on drugs, the uniform rules, and this is not just the aba, with extra standard of the american correctional association, what they say is essentially almost

anything will do. what will not is when you have a minor offenders, and we do have them. 700,000 people in jail in the united states every year for misdemeanor offenses. a lot of people who are having a very significant intrusion on privacy, and the experts standard, a liberal that was applied is that when you have people who come in on a minor offense, they don't have any drug history. there are not high on drugs. there was no opportunity dial-up it. but shredded think again will be hidden that it will show up in the very close manuel pack down that they do with every one of these people. >> i don't think you are really arguing for an individualized reasonable suspicion standard. at the pure argument for a rule that draws a distinction based on categories. they correspond only very roughly to reasonable suspicion. >> first, there are real categories that are over inclusive in favor of the jails. a serious offense or they have

drug history, and then on top of that if there is any individualized basis that the jails and articulate, that will do as well. in announcing categorically people will be excluded. we are saying that their entire categories will automatically be searchable the redressing don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. when somebody is pulled over and it is laugh out loud funny to think he is mulling something into this gel, it's too much of an intrusion to put him under the direct 2 feet away i'm going to look your genitals as opposed to the ordinary intrusion of saying we will oversee the showers. there is no evidence when it comes to that a people. anything like material threat, and this is a very significant intrusion. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> our week-long presentation of supreme court oral arguments

wrapped up tomorrow that united states the jobs which considers whether are not complete -- police can put gps device is on your vehicle without a warrant. oral arguments of this week. beginning at 5:00 p.m. eastern camauro to the white house coverage continues later with mitt romney. he will be at a rally for voters and supporters in ames, iowa. was that live at 6:45 p.m. eastern on our companion network, to c-span. >> with the iowa caucuses tuesday, january 3rd c-span cameras are following the candid and events throughout the state and every morning live from the iowa political guess a taking your calls on the washington channel program. you can also stay up-to-date with c-span campaign to c-span website with new features, including candid it's on the campaign trail with bio information and videos from campaign stops see what the kendis said on issues important to you and as

social media buzz. read what the kansas political reporters and people like you are saying on sites like facebook and twitter. all at c-span.org / campaign 2012. >> here is a look at prime-time programming across the c-span network. join us at 10:00 p.m. eastern for more from our series the contenders. tonight the focus is you rick humphrey on c-span. here on c-span2, our book tv program in picks up at 8:00 p.m. eastern which does about computers and technology. i'm on c-span three at 8:00 lectures in american history. >> this week on q&a author naomi schiffer riley discusses her latest book the faculty lounges. a critique of ten year and its negative impact on college costs.

>> naomi schiffer riley on page 11 you say it is a con game made to see the interest of that two new faculty who would prefer to ride obscured tones rather than teach broad introductory class is to freshmen. >> well, it occurred to me in researching this book that the professors have very different interests and the students and parents to in higher education. what gets rewarded if you are a professor is publication, publication command more publication. it is not your publication. it's supposed to be restored. you have to basically blaze new trails. you have to always be saying something new. for instance last year there were 100 new academic books

published on shakespeare. now, love shakespeare, studied him in college, but have to wonder whether there is actually worth the professor's time to be writing new kinds of, you know, too radical twists as opposed to teaching the brought into retreat class on how much? >> where did this all start? >> well, it started really with the progressives in the 1920's. there was this whole idea of a research university which came over from germany and planted itself on our shores in the early part of the 20th-century. and it was really sort of two things. one was with the scientific research, especially in the physical and biological sciences, people really were blazing new trails. there was a lot of new ground broken. the whole idea was that nobody really could judge the quality of the work unless there were barely truly familiar with this sort of new complex scientific system that was being employed. and i think i get back on some

level. but what happened was the standards for the physical sciences has shifted over to the social sciences and humanities. and suddenly those professors always had to be saying something new, and those professors can only be judged, again, by people inside their field. there was also another progressive ideals which was that the purpose, it was supposed to form the experts and society, supposed to be but we now call the public intellectuals and supposed to be adding to society's store of knowledge. and, again, i think this is what one result that uc of this today is, professors kind of spin apart, and we are not supposed to, you know, in the broader society really question what it is that they're doing when they are engaged in their research. >> the title of your book is the faculty lounges. other reasons why he won't get the college education. where did you get the idea? why is this necessary now? ..

>> guest: we have to build more accountability into the system, and for students and parents paying those tuition bills, we have to have a good sense of what kind of undergraduate education they are getting. c-span: how many schools are there in the united states that grant four year degrees? >> guest: there's about 5,000 or 6,000 accredited colleges, and so, you know, it's hard to write a broad book that covers what all are doing because they

are engaged in many activities, some of them considering themselves vocational, others consider themselves liberal arts, others research universities, but are some things they have in common, and one is a drive to research. i was very surprised to find that even at community colleges in so-called teaching universities, you know, not research universities, the drive to publish is what is always rewarded at these schools. c-span: what kind of a home did you grow up in? >> guest: an academic one, of course. c-span: where? >> guest: in massachusetts. my parents met getting their ph.d.'s at the university of chicago, and now my sister has one, and i'm the last member of the family without one, and maybe that tells you something, but i grew up with a deep sense that higher education can be worthwhile and change your character, your life, change

your career, and it can change everything if it's done right, but what i worry about is that the -- many of the faculty, and it's not just, you know, the faculty individually making decisions, but the incentives put in place in the system are what are underminding the under graduate education. c-span: where did you get your degree? >> guest: from harvard. c-span: in what? >> guest: english and government. c-span: was it worth the money? >> guest: ask my parents. it was their money, but, no, i think it was. i had an advantage. i mean, i had parents who actually were insiders and who were able to advise me about what classes to take and which professors were interested in teaching, and, you know, i knew what to look for, and i really think so few people have that going into college, and, you know, their parents are just thinking, well, this is the next logical step. i want junior to be a member of

the upper middle class and have a good job, and i want them to, you know, get something out of college educationally, so let's send him here because this is what the world report says. c-span: where do your parents teach? >> guest: my father teaches at holy cross, and my mother doesn't teach anymore. she taught at a number of colleges before sounding her own think tank that tells the city what it does wrong. c-span: what do they think of the book? >> guest: well, you know, i joke that the subtitle could have been confessions of an ungrateful child, but i think he takes the criticisms of the book seriously, and i think he feels as if, you know, being at a small liberal art college, some of the criticisms are not as applicable, but, you know, in a great deal of ways, you know, small liberal arts colleges are not representative of what most americans experience in higher

education, but i emphasize to him that the finding, i think one of the most important things i learned in researching the book, is every additional hour in the classroom, he or she gets paid less. that was true not only at the big state universities, but liberal arts college. c-span: let's go back. what are you saying? i mean, if you're a teacher, and you're in the classroom, the more you spend in there, the less you make? >> guest: basically, any time spent any classroom is time not spent writing. depending how you divide your time determines what level you reach. c-span: who are they writing for? >> guest: each other. i mean, i don't know when the last time, you know, you picked up an academic publication, but even harvard university press i think recently said the average circulation of one of their, you know, one of their academic

publication is 250 books, so when you consider that a lot of those books are just purchased automatically by libraries, and, you know, that's harvard university press. when you think about the smaller university presses out there with a circulation smaller than that, and, by the way, the expense of the book, and academic librarians complain, but students complain too. to me, somebody wrote a paper recently where they said the academic publication industry was driven buy the producers and not the consumers, and i think that that says it all. c-span: was this book your idea or the publisher's idea? >> guest: my idea. c-span: it's owned 3weu roman and -- by middlefield? >> guest: yeah. c-span: define the word -- well, not define it, but how does one get tenure, and what is it? >> guest: so when you to a

university, you can be offered something called a tenure track position. about, i don't know, maybe 40%-50% of academic positions out there are tenure track now. what happens is when you arrive at the university, they start a clock, and the clock goes for seven years, although, at some universities, it's lengthened, and at the university of michigan, it's been lengthened to ten years, and during that time, you have to show why the university should keep you on permanently, and what you do during that time, the university -- most universities claim that three things matter. what matters is your publication record, your teaching record, and your service to the universities, so serving on a variety of committees. they call this the three legged stool of academia. this coincides with other things going on in your life. people pointed out this is sort

of between 30 and 40 say when women are wanting to have children, start families and do other things, this is when the most intensive part of your career is going on when it's an all or nothing. at the end of that clock, a committee usually basically of your own department members looks at that, at your record and says up or down. c-span: your fellow professors are doing that? >> guest: exactly. most of them in your own discipline, not another professor from another department who does not know you. it's the people you've been with every day for the last seven or eight years will be sitting in secret judgment of you to decide whether or not you get to stay or leave. c-span: secret judgment? >> guest: absolutely. the committees of tenure committees are not made public. there's an interesting piece by a professor now who talks about how he did not get tenure at the university of chicago a number of years ago, and he was talking about -- his wife contributed to the piece too about how it feels to sort of be judged in this way

by the people you thought were closest to you and who you worked with, and then they sort of go into a back room and decide about your future. what happens at that vote, the tenure vote is you either get to stay on permanently or you get out. c-span: immediately? >> guest: there's no -- or, you know, by the next following academic year. there's no in between. it's not like, oh, well, another couple years and see if your publication record improves or stay on part time or temporary basis, it's, you're done. c-span: what's the percentage of professors teaching on the tenure track that get tenure? >> guest: i'm not sure. i mean, i think, you know, if you're on a tenure track, that means that they have a tenured position available at some point in the future, so some universities have started to cut down on the number of tenure track, that is when somebody are tires, they say, okay, that's

going to be an adjunct position that we'll get to in a minute, but, you know, getting turned down for ten year is -- tenure is a having common thing, and people feel they have been led on, like they do a certain number of years at a university, and once you're turned down, it's hard to start over at a new university. c-span: do you get a warning in the seven years or ten years that you're not doing well? >> guest: some universities give you updates along the way, but, again, i mean, it's a very -- it's a very personality driven process, and some schools, you know, grade you on collegiality which, you know, that's how well you play with others which i think is kind of insulting to a professional, but they also, you know, they'll give you some sense, you know, in terms of how big your stack of publications is, how they think you're doing relative to other candidates, but from what

i read, and a lot of people find it to be a surprise if they don't get tenure. c-span: is there an appeal process if you do not get tenure? >> guest: some schools have them, and, again, there's a lot of -- there's not a lot of transparency in the process, and i think that that should bother more people than it does, particularly at universities, but so some schools have this kind of back alley way of finding your way into, you know, maybe the president's office or the provost office saying you want to be reconsidered and then maybe the provost reconsiders, and some schools have formal procedures, but it's hard to discern. c-span: the professors don't have a transparent process, but if you listen to what comes out of a professor over years, they are demanding all the time of openness. >> guest: yeah, well, that is -- it's not the self-reflective bodies in my opinion in this country, and

there's there's not a lot of examinations of what goes on. they want to talk about bioethics, government ethics, but there's not a lot of talk about what goes on in the academy and the ethics of that. i think the lack of transparency in the tenure process is one of the biggest problems that i see this. c-span: if you were to point out a person you know that hates the book the most, who would it be? >> guest: boy, let's see -- well, i think the head of the american association of university of professors was asked to comoant on my book by inside higher education a few weeks ago, and i think he said it left him speechless. i was happy to take create for that, but -- credit for that, but i think he was angry, and particularly what most disagree with is the argument about tenures connection to academic freedom. that sort of the first thing that comes out of professor's

mouths when you say why you need tenure, and they say to protect academic freedom. i have a chapter in there, the first chapter, and i talk about, you know, what is academic freedom and why does it need protecting? one of the arts i make is about the rise of vocational education. tenure was originally the idea that professors should be protected when they go out on a limb and say something controversial about their discipline. you know, i say, okay, well maybe on the margins you can see how, you know, this would be important in the case of a couple of humanities, professor, maybe a couple cutting edge physical science professors, but, you know, professors of business administration, and then i sort of also talk about some of the new disciplines that came up, security studies, you know, there are basically professors of cooking who now have, you know, professors of nutritional studies, who have

tenure now, and, you know, when press, you know, someone at the aup or a professor who is, you know, toeing the party line, and someone to have tenure in security studies so they can talk about immigration, even though it's controversial, and someone in nutritional studies has to say something controversial about obesity. this could go on indefinitely. there's no limit to the number of things that need protection, but in my opinion, you know, the bounds of academic freedom have just been pushed too far. c-span: you wrote in the first chapter that the american people themselves are directly responsible for what she sees as the oppressive at atmosphere on campus referring back to a woman named bernstein. why are the american people responsible? >> guest: so elizabeth bernstein is a president at the

american ford foundation, and i heard her speak, and the ford foundation gives so much money to higher education that the audience was enthralled to here elizabeth bernstein talk, and she began to list the threats she saw in the american academy to academic freedom, and she listed, oh, you know, conservative religious group the. she listed anti-evolution groups. she listed republicans. it went on and on, but at the end she said one of the biggest problems she saw were cable networks like fox, for instance, that were telling the american people about professors like the man of columbia who wished upon america a million or telling people the outrages of american universities, and to her, you know, what the problem was not the outrage. the problem was that now the american public was interested

in the outrageous, and the idea, again, we get back to the question about, you know, you think that university professors and the people who are interested in higher education want transparency. you'd think that's sort of one of their buzz words, but no. they look at transparency as oh, now all these sort of -- the little people are now looking over my shoulder, and they couldn't possibly understand the scholarship i'm engaged in. c-span: in the next paragraph you say, to be clear, here's a representative of the ford foundation, the sugar daddy of modern liberalism complaining about 24/7 news networks. is that what they are? a liberal foundation? >> guest: oh, sure. the ford foundation was responsible for funding the great society before it was funded by the government. i mean, and even now, if you look on campus, i mean, what are the programs that the ford foundation fund? they fund the difficult dialogues program where as a college, they will give you -- if you're a college

administration, they give you $100,000 to promote dialogues on your campus about race, about sexual orientation, about all of these things, but for ford, you know, the answers were already clear. i mean, you know, the problem with race is that, you know, you know, minorities are oppressed, and they are still oppressed to this day, still suffering from the legacies of slavery. sexual orientations are all good, it's just a matter of choice. they are not dialogues. they are just, you know, sort of one-sided propaganda campaigns. c-span: where do you come from on the political scale? >> guest: i'm on the right. c-span: how did you get there? >> guest: i came by it honestly. i think my parents are both qualified themselves as conservatives, although, you know, i think that i've thought about it enough too. i used to work for the "wall street journal" editorial page, and i largely agree with that sort of philosophy on free

markets, you know, economically, but i'm also something of a social conservative too. c-span: your father teaches at holy cross, and how does a conservative -- the implication is there's not many conservative in academia. >> guest: there are not. one of the things people like to say about tenure, and i interviewed a lot of conservatives who defended tenure because they said they'd lose their job tomorrow if they didn't have tenure, but the idea that tenure has really protected the dissent on campus is one that i think we have had enough experience with to examine more carefully. you know, just to give an example, you know, when president obama was running in the last election, american professors gave eight times as much money to him as to john mccain. now, obviously, john mccain lost, but it was not by that margin. you know, but it's not just

politically that i talked to people inics department, and if you have the wrong view of a theory, you're also pushed out. it's nonat environment that -- not an environment that tolerates dissent of any sort very well. there was a story recently about a professor at ohio university who actually got tenure. he was a journalist before, and he got tenure, and then he wrote a piece for the chronicle how he resolved to act from now on with tenure, and he said i'm done. i'm not going to rock the boat or stand up anymore. it was just like someone who was beaten down, and i think, you know, that process we talked about that, that seven to ten year process, you're with these people every day, and yoir -- you're trying so hard to please

them because you want that job for life, but it promotes an atmosphere where everyone keeps their head down and mouth shut. c-span: have you ran into a conservative in the at atmosphere and keeps their head down on politics until they get tenure? >> guest: i hear the stories, but this was sort of the famous line of my former professor, harvey mansfield who jokingly advises people who ask his advice to get tenure, and then hoist the jolly roger. c-span: he was one of six professors in harvard who was a conservative. >> guest: let's see, i'd come to a similar tally, so, yeah, i mean, i think -- it is a rare person, i think who can control themselves for that long and then suddenly at the age of 40 basically wake up and speak

their mind. if you can do it, if you can sneak under the radar for that long, fool people into thinking this is somebody who gets along well with the liberal at moc fear -- atmosphere and they say, i have tenure, good for you, but i don't know how many of us keep it to ourselves for that long or once we have really want to offend all the people we befriended. c-span: you went to harvard, you're a conservative, and there's no many conservative teaching at harvard, but they didn't change your mind? >> guest: no. look, i mean, harvey talked about political conservatives. i took a number of a-political classes at harvard. like i said, i was majoring in english and government, so, you know, i took government classes with harvey mansfield, a number of other professors who, i

think, would classify themselves as conservatives, but what i really liked about the professors that i had was that they left politics at the door. i took classes on plato and shakespeare, and we didn't discuss republican talking points or something like that. in fact, i remember he, you know, his last sort of popular book was on manliness, and i took a graduate seminar with him my senior year, and a number of kind of -- let's call them radical feminists showed up. i think they really wanted to disrupt the class and, you know, get their views heard and protest, you know, the idea that we would have such a class, and, you know, harvey mansfield sits down, a mild mannered guy, and he starts talking about plato and courage, and i think these

women were just like, well, where do we go from here? i thought we were going to talk about glorious dineam or sexist pigs to harass. my point is that, you know, so many of the professors that i had when i -- i appreciated the fact that their politics were not part of the curriculum. c-span: you say that in 1994 that there was -- they could not restrict the age at -- well, which you had to retire. it used to be 65. it was passed back in the 80s, but schools got to 1994 when -- what has that done to the universities? >> guest: well, it's exacerbated the problem. what you have on campus now is a lot of aging baby boomer professors who are doing well,

57b they are waiting for their 401(k) to get big enough to retire, and they just stick it out until then. it's hard to see how it could resolve that, but i'm reluctant to go that way. i had great professors who were 70 years old. i shouldn't say, but harvey mansfield is over 70 now, and many of my professors at the time were well over 65. they had great experience teaching, and they happened to be good teachers after that, so why should we arbitrarily kick them out because people at that age decide they are not going to do their job anymore? c-span: if i had teen euro, that does -- tenure, does that really mean they couldn't fire me? >> guest: it's technically not supposed to mean that, but i talked to so many administrators who just said it's almost never

worth it to fight that battle. i mean, we mentioned church hill, and when i started this book, i resolve, okay, i'm not going to mention warren churchhill on every page, and by the time the book comes out, he'll be old news, and by the week the book was plushed, the colorado state court decided to hear his case. six years after being fired, he's still fighting this battle. i mean, hank brown has to think, oh, god, this man -- he will not give up. it cost the university so much money to get rid of these people, and scrn when they have a great -- and even when they have a great case. play --

plagarism, and sketchy scholarships, and they periodically run advice about how administers can gently push the people out, and one of them, i was sort of shocked to read, was how an administer can stay -- say to a professor, well, you can still teach one class, okay? one guy wrote in saying that they had tried this at his school, they hired a new young professor, a dynamic professor to take the place of the aging professor that everyone agreed with in competence, and then they had a fight over who would teach this one class, and the professor was like, you promised i could stay. the compromise was they could each teach a section of the class. it was called you'll pry this course from my cold dead hands, and there was a fight over who was going to teach the class, and they each teach half of it. there's no mention how the fact now half the students taking the

class get somebody who is incompetent. to me, it demonstrated that tenure was just -- it has nothing to do with the students. i mean, the teaching is the last thing on these administers and faculties' minds. c-span: define a state school versus a private school. what's different if you go to one or the other? >> guest: as a student -- c-span: yeah, i mean, what are the overall differences about unions and tenure and costs? >> guest: right. the tenure system is not much different. you know, people go back and forth, you know, between public and private universities, and they have the same system, still over seven years, and there's some different rules about what is protected speech and different senses of academic freedom because with the public schools, the courts are more involved because it's taxpayer funded, so the tenure system is

not much different. pensions are somewhat difference, so what happened was in 1990, i think, there was a ruling by the supreme court that said if private universities did not want to recognize faculty unions, they did not have to. the rules was called nlrb versus the university, and what it said was that faculty are like management, and so they cannot be -- they need not be recognized as a union. public university campuses, unionization, public university campuses, is one of the fastest growing areas of organized labor now in the country. you have a situation where unions have recognized that obviously the manufacturing base is shrinking, and the private yiewn your base is shrinking, so public sector white collar jobs are where the growth is going to happen. you see this, and i think people were surprised in the fight with wisconsin a few months ago to

hear that there were unions of professors at the university of wisconsin. i mean, unions are generally something we think of as, you know, for people who are, you know, in jobs where they can be exploited, where maybe people are not as educated, and yet, it's really growing in higher education, so that's -- that's one big difference, and i think you're seeing, you know, the effects of that. i mean, unions at the bargaining table will mean, you know, less distinctions in terms of merit pay. pay will be based more on, you know, your level of seniority, and a lot of professors and administers i talked to say that, you know, unions have been a force for mediocrity on university campuses. c-span: so i go to -- i guess i have to have a ph.d. if i'm going to get a tenure? >> guest: yes. c-span: which takes me how many years? >> guest: well, that's lengthening too. you know, used to be fivics --

five, six, or seven years, but now it's 11 years. c-span: for just the ph.d. time? do you teach too? >> guest: you do, but that's not -- it's not because you're working on your ph.d. part time that it takes 11 years. in fact, there was a piece in "harvard magazine" months ago speculating one of the reasons it's taking people so long in the humanities to get their ph.d. is a mandate to find a few new twist on things people wrote about on so many thousands of times that you'll find the topic and then you realize that someone else wrote that five years ago in an obscure journal, and you have to start from scratch. c-span: characterize how much money people make that are professors. >> guest: not a lot. you know, this is, you know, a full professor, you know, --

c-span: full professor means at the top of your game? >> guest: yes. you have tenure, and you can't be promoted anymore. you're probably, by the time you're a full professor, let's say you're in the late 40s, maybe, and you, you know, you could be making, depending on the university and the area, $60,000-$80,000. the salaries of professors don't outrage me. i don't think that's theú

the assumption is that you'll be spending approximately half of your time doing research so if u.s. the state legislature for instant oh how much you subsidizing research at your state university they will say well it's not that much. the answer is a lot because you are paying people a full salary to only be teaching half the time. c-span: to you by chance know who gets the most amount of money of all the universities for research? >> guest: of all of the universities? c-span: federal grants? >> guest: no, don't. their 100 universities that make up something, part of a club called the american association of universities and the only way you get into that prestigious club is by having, by getting a lot of federal grant money. actually a couple of schools recently got kicked out of it.

syracuse decided it was about to get kicked out but they left voluntarily and i think the university of nebraska left too. what was interesting to me about the syracuse case was they were actually getting private money for some of the research they were doing but that doesn't count for the aa you. you have to be getting federal money so the prestige is all wrapped up in, this must be public government funds, so at a time when we are trying to figure out how to cut back and how to reduce the cost of higher education they are thinking, how can we get war out of the federal dollars? c-span: can they make money outside the classroom, outside the university when they are tenured professors may keep $70,000 a year in teaching two classes a semester? >> guest: sure. c-span: in other words who holds them accountable for research? >> guest: you mean could they be making money doing research for private companies? royko in other words, again i have been a school for 15 years,

have a full professorship in teaching my two classes but i really find myself typical of making lots of money over here and i don't want to do research for the school. can you just below the school off? >> guest: it would be hard to just blow the school off. usually what happens with research, with research grants is the application has to come from a university so you are applying as part of a university program. it's hard for one single professor to go and say i want to get research from the national science, funding for the national science foundation by myself but it would be a different story for instance if you had like a drug company and this is where some of the controversy has happened recently. where you have professors who have kind of reach their own private agreement either with biotech companies or drug companies where they are making money and it's possible that their research is actually in some ways coming into conflict with their job.

the private companies obviously have particular ideas about you know the domain that they are in and who owns this information, whereas the university again, this comes back a little bit to the transparency position, the university is supposed to be the freest exchange of ideas and everything is out me up and we are supposed to understand what's going on in these labs. so a professor, actually there was recently a story about i think in "the wall street journal" about a student who had turned in a paper maybe that had to do with biotech or computer coding or something like that, and the student was actually working for a company so he couldn't complete this assignment without you know somehow violating his contract with the southside company so there is a lot of, i think, conflict of interest going on. c-span: what is an adjunct professor? >> guest: an adjunct professor

is right definition a temporary position. now there are adjuncts who could be teaching for 25 years in the same place, but their contract renewal generally happens on a year-to-year or even a semester to semester basis. they don't get tenure and they are not on the tenure track so they will nevercome up for tenure. c-span: they don't have to have a ph.d.? >> guest: they don't have to have a ph.d. although many of them do so what happens is adjuncts actually do the bulk of the teaching. c-span: in all the schools? >> guest: not in all the schools but in large universities, where you have a senior tenured professor who kind of office out of it after certain point except for graduate seminars or perhaps upper-level undergraduate seminar so they adjuncts are basically sort of brought into kind of teach political science 101. c-span: pay, how much do they

pay? >> guest: very little. in some cases significantly less than minimum wage. they are working conditions are -- there was a film that i watched that compared them to migrant workers and i have to say, i think the paired -- comparative might have gone a little too far. they find out the week before the semester begins whether they have a job at all. they get paid next to nothing. c-span: give me an idea of what they get paid. >> guest: there is a precedent -- repressor that i talk to a cal state fullerton that i think was getting paid maybe $1000 a month or $1200 a month. c-span: you had one in here that was getting $549 a month. is that over a certain period? in other words the class is 14 weeks, term, three hours a week, 42 hours. >> guest: right, but so it's

not just, what do you have to consider is not just the teaching that they are doing but they are also responsible for the grading of papers and things like that so there definitely activities outside of the classroom and one woman who i talk to just said will you know i can have 200 kids in a class. they assigned me one graduate student who would use me two or three hours a week so what do you do with that? you are going to personally grade 200 papers three times a semester? a friend of mine actually teaches at a large university in pennsylvania and she has been told by her department to stop assigning papers altogether or even exams that involve essays. everything should be multiple choice now. c-span: why? >> guest: because it takes so much work. they don't have a labor available they say in order to grade those papers so just do multiple choice. c-span: on a percentage basis nationwide at state universities what is the present of people that are adjunct professors in the classroom?

what added -- what about a place like harvard? >> guest: it's not a private public thing. has a lot to do with the size of the university and to what extent they expect the senior people to do senior research and not teaching so i'm not sure what the percentage is at harvard. c-span: what does your dad teach? >> guest: political science. c-span: how many courses the year does he teach? >> guest: i think he teaches six courses a year, three in the fall and three at three in the spring. c-span: wayzata holy cross jesuit school? if he was at harvard he might only have one? >> guest: because harvard is a research university. c-span: and holy cross is not? >> guest: right, holy cross is considered a teaching college. c-span: you mentioned earlier you were at the "wall street journal" editorial page. when did you work there? >> guest: i was left a year and a half ago and i worked there for five years. c-span: what did you do? >> guest: i edited the culture

column and religion column and i wrote -- peco how did you get that job? >> guest: let's see, i first had other magazines but i think i worked as commentary and an intern at the journal right out of college and i wrote another book prior to joining the journal which was about. c-span: why did you do that? where did you get the interest on god on the quad? >> guest: i visited two schools that had just opened up, one called off a maria law school and one was patrick henry and i wrote a piece in a magazine about the two of them and wanted to look into why the schools were growing so rapidly. c-span: patrick henry's right here in virginia. wears off a? is it in florida? >> guest: when i visited it was in ann arbor michigan. c-span: what did you find about those two schools most interesting? >> guest: they were attracting some extremely smart kids even

though at the time neither one of them were credit -- accredited yet and they were attracting kids who did not want the kind of religious ghetto but bring their ideas to bear in a world of public policy or law or any number of other fields. c-span: at commentary how how long were you there? >> guest: three years. c-span: norman podhoretz? what did you take away from that experience? >> guest: well i was in charge of editing the letters there, which i don't know if you are familiar with commentary but an extension of letters section and i kind of became familiar with the intricacies of a lot of the base about foreign policy and politics and i also you know kind of became more familiar with the way the magazine works and how it actually gets printed. c-span: going back to this book, "the faculty lounges" and other reasons why you won't get the college education you paid for, who thought of that title?

>> guest: that was me. c-span: where did you get the interest? was it at the journal when you started and what triggered the idea that you said ivan r. dee will publish this? >> guest: i try to sell it to other publishers too. c-span: who did you start with? >> guest: it was about three years ago but i have been covering higher education for a long time and i think what was the driving force behind this book again was the sense that i had this advantage that other people did not. i kind of understood what was going on behind the scenes in higher education vote because of my background in terms of my own family but also just because of all the reporting i had done on higher education and you know what happens when a student walks on a campus today, you know you were an 18-year-old and a walk onto a college campus and someone hands you a guide to this thick of it says pick anything. see what you like and administrators kind of tout it as this choose your own

adventure game and it's not. 18-year-olds the bottom line is 18-year-olds don't know what they don't know and to me pretending that they are going to be able to craft for themselves really an education when often many of our general education requirements are dropped, people like to talk about how, they think that you know people who are wrapped up in the idea of a core curriculum just want the great books of western civilization and their attachment to western civilization and that is why i want a core curriculum because people need basic foundations. the education and an 18-year-old will craft for himself is completely haphazard. you will have animal behavior for one hour and monday commented action to psychology on tuesday, french literature from 1800 to 1850 on wednesday and at the end of four years of this can you really say what is the education you were supposed to have, what it turned into?

and you know professors are doing a too because professors want to spend their time researching their own little narrow subjects. they would also be perfectly happy to teach a class in their own narrow subject and no one is saying to them no, no, no, no you may teach a time a seminar on a obscure topic of what these kids really need is a broad introduction to your subject. c-span: you say there are no jobs or for tenured professors out there but you say your sister has a ph.d.? is she teaching? >> guest: yeah. c-span: where she teaching? >> guest: new england conservatory where they do not offer tenure. break or did she do that on purpose? >> guest: no. c-span: so you also write for just the reason that larson elucidates higher education is so broken right now that it's time to change the pitching mound and the distance to the base, not to mention the strike zone and the number of players

on each team. it's so broken? how come? why are all these schools list listed given much bigger than the spots in their to bring the students and? >> guest: well you know there are a couple of ways in which people try to measure the quality of higher education. one is we are the envy of the world and people come here for our colleges and universities into that i say first of all you're talking about small percentage of kids. you are talking about generally graduate students who are coming here for our science so it's not all of american higher education but the second thing that i think people seem to forget is that higher education has a monopoly at this point. colleges have a monopoly on credentials. people want to get into college because college right now is the ticket to the middle class and i don't begrudge people of that. i don't say well you know you should find another way it is

right now we really don't have much in the way of another way. we really don't have a lot of apprenticeships and college has become kind of a catchall for every different kind of career you want to pursue. but to me, i think we could do better. i mean, there was a story a few weeks ago, maybe a couple of months ago about the founder of paypal, who offered kids i think $100,000 if they would drop out of college and calm work in silicon valley or create their own kind of start up instead. a lot of these kids always had credentials in the sense that they were already working for ibm at the age of 13 or something like that so if they would have trouble getting a job that his point that he was trying to make was that there is a price for this and you could spend four years and this amount of money on something but you had better understand what the value of it is and for some

people it doesn't have much value. for some people you know you can get a job out there without it. but the other question is, can't employers find a way of measuring you know someone's qualification for a job without just using the college degree? i think we need to think more creatively about that. c-span: who have you listened to in your professional life that talks the best about tenure, the most convincing? >> guest: the most convincing? c-span: that the thing to do is right. >> guest: let's see. that's an interesting question. you now, i guess there are a number of conservative professors i have talked to about it. i mean john silver for instance, i don't think he is in favor of getting rid of tenure but i think he thinks it's in need of serious reform. c-span: he is the president of boston university, president

emeritus, 85 years old. >> guest: he is very strong opinions about the reform of higher education but things we do need to keep tenure and look, i think tenure has protected very smart people who have said some dissenting things that needed to be said and on i understand my argument is frozen under a bus. a former assistant secretary of education, who now works on education reform issues, he sort of summed up what i sort of eventually took as my position which was saving the jobs of 400 conservatives is not worth saving the jobs of 400,000 liberals. he says the situation is so completely unbalanced now that the idea that we are just going to keep the system because of the few conservative professors that are out there just seems silly to him. c-span: what is the cherry award? >> guest: the cherry award is a teaching award and i think you

get maybe $200,000 for being basically the best professor in america so a couple of years ago when i was at the journal i did a story about the three finalists given out by baylor university and you can nominate, student can nominate and other professors can nominate you and basically there is a committee that eventually sort of judges the finalists and decides you know who will win this award based on their ability to convey information to students. c-span: by the way, again sorry to interrupt that ken starr the president of baylor university now is in waco texas in case people didn't know where it is and you wrote about the three that were the contestants, roger rosenblatt to who people would know from public television and two other gentlemen. do you remember their names? i'm trying to find them. mr. berger, edward herger. >> guest: he was actually the

eventual winner. c-span: and elliott was. c-span: at the university of -- i went to see berger and west in person and they are different kind of styles of teaching. less is, he is not dry but he sort of is telling a story and telling the story about american history for many years. there and a lot of you know prior shenanigans going on in his classroom but i was sitting in an audience of two other people in the only visual aids he was putting up her sort of slides of historical photos. everyone was just sitting and listening to him because he kind of knew how to tell a story in there was a lot of information. he wasn't reading off of notes and just sort of staring down like this. he really was engaging with the audience, trying to see our people away? are you listening to me? amberg or was much more dynamic, kind of doing a little more jumping around but again, there weren't a lot of fireworks and

he really, he did a speech at parents weekend at william williams out with parents and students but he is a math teacher. now, and this sort of struck me because the best professor in america is a math professor. i mean, you have to not only convey these ideas but you really have to engage people, who you know, lots of people have to take his class because it's a requirement. he is teaching kids who are not necessarily interested in the subject and he is making them interested. c-span: let me ask about, you said the best teacher in america according to who? >> guest: the cherry award. they are judged by their faculty. c-span: at baylor? and the winner gets $200,000? >> guest: and this semester in waco too. they have to come to baylor to teach for semester two but the reason i highlighted this was when people are talking about

why we judge professors by their publications and not i teaching, the first response is well you can't really measure teaching. teacher in is all subjective. do no good teaching when you see it. i don't think that's true. i think that's a total copout. these are professors who you know there are ways of measuring. everything from the lecturing style to grading. when someone gives you back a paper, it has a great job! mcafee and and and arras at all marked up? are your grammatical mistakes corrected? is there a sense that the professors engaged in the process with you or are they just going through the motions? c-span: how old are your kids? >> guest: 214. c-span: do you think by the time they are old enough to go to college you will think it's a good idea to go to college? based on the fact right now one school in the country is $60,000 a year tuition.

>> guest: i think if you pick and choose very wisely it is possible to get a decent college education but you have to be really careful and it begins with obviously choosing the college. i can can't tell you the number of people, they go to visit colleges with their high school juniors in the middle of the summer. why? what are you doing there in the middle of summer? you are just were just looking at the scenery? at you just look at the view book they sent you? go, sit in the classroom and don't just sit in on the classrooms that they take. you can visit the upper-level constitutional law center. you won't be getting there until you are senior if then. visit an intro class in the subject you are interested in. c-span: did you do that before you went to harvard? >> guest: no actually i spent a freshman year at middlebury and my parents gave me three choices of colleges i could go to. c-span: why did they do that? >> guest: because they knew

those were the places i would get a good education and harvard was not one of them by the way. c-span: why did you switch from middlebury? >> guest: was a little little too isolated for me. is in the middle of beaumont and i just -- i also felt like the students weren't as engaged as i found that to be at harvard. c-span: where did you meet your husband, jason? >> guest: . [inaudible] c-span: youtube live where now? >> guest: in new rochelle. he is an editorial member. c-span: do you have another book in mind already? when did you finish this? >> guest: the book came out in jim. c-span: when did you finish? >> guest: i finished it last fall. c-span: you are on your way to the next book? >> guest: yes, on a different topic. c-span: is that what your situation is? >> guest: not quite. my husband is -- so it's a subject.

my other, the thing that i write about most it is religion. c-span: and when do you plan to have is when completed? >> guest: it is due in june 2 oxford university press so if the editors are listening, june. c-span: a big hook? is the next one bigger than this one? >> guest: i think it will be. the next book is a lot of, got funding to do a national survey on interfaith marriage and i spent about four months sort of doing, traveling to do interviews with people across the country so this is sort of more kind of a summary of a lot of things that i have learned about higher education over the last number of years as a reporter. c-span: the name of the book again is "the faculty lounges" and other reasons why you won't get a college education you paid for by subeleven and we thank you very much. >> guest: thank you.

for a dvd copy of this program call 1-877-662-7726. for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q&a.org. q&a programs are also available at c-span podcast.

>> this week on q&a, author cary nelson discusses his latest book, no university is an island, at defensive academic freedom. is the present of the american association of university professors. c-span: professor kerry nelson what is the american association of university professors? >> guest: well it's a very distinguished and not quite ancient but organization that was established in 1968 and we are coming up on our 100th anniversary which is a big thing for us. it was established to articulate

principles for the professoriat and to monitor conduct at universities around the country. we are the organization that defines tenure in the united states. we are the organization decades late that -- decades later they wrote the best statement on student rights in the united states and we represent all academic disciplines. it's a very serious enterprise that is really only possible by bringing together people from all fields across the country. c-span: how long have you been as president of how did you get there? >> guest: i am in the beginning of my sixth year. and term limited so i won't be president anymore though i might be pestering folks one way or another and i came here, i'm an english professor by training, modern poetry actually but in part out of experience. beginning in 1970, higher education began to be under a lot of financial stress and i realized that many of my students were not getting jobs, not getting good jobs and there

was a lot of stress in the profession. i began to feel that just being a poetry specialist wasn't enough and i had to begin to address issues that affect of higher education generally so i began to write about higher education and began to publish books on it, still publishing about poetry but not just poetry. some people who had been active in the adp for a long time said maybe want to come around to see what this organization can do. and i have been very impressed by the quality of the work that we produce. we are relentlessly devoted to perfection. it's been a place where i could be active, a much broader seen. just to give you an example last year, when british petroleum began to issue contracts to faculty members and graduate students around the country after the gulf oil spill, we were very concerned that they were issuing contracts that said

that the results of research had -- could be kept secret by the company for three years. the federal standards for a company keeping research secret is two months, so two months versus three years, we felt that was a serious abridgment of academic freedom. i issued some statements about it in those statements were backed up picked up by 30,000 different media outlets around the world. they turned it into russian, finnish, chinese. chinese, parenthesis cary nelson, university professor so this has been an opportunity to reach out to people across the country and around the world about issues that i think are important. c-span: how long have you been at the university of illinois? >> guest: i sometimes they just after the civil war but actually is since the fall of 1970. c-span: where did you go to undergrad? >> guest: antioch college in ohio, a wonderful school and not only was it a very progressive

school but it had really do need programs where you went to school half the year and you worked half the year. so in ohio i spent six months as an assistant teacher at a fifth grade -- rate school in harlem and i worked in an office in new york. i worked in a hospital for three months here in washington d.c. and bethesda actually. the store where you got great academic training but also were sent out to the world to discover what work is. one of the things i discovered, couldn't take orders from anybody and i couldn't show up from 9:00 to 5:00. i had to be and my own control and basically that left me with being a professor. c-span: where did you get your ph.d.? >> guest: rochester and english and live. c-span: are your name came up up and are less q&a. it was a book which we have here, naomi schaefer riley wrote and the name then a boat is they faculty lounges and other reasons why you can't get the college education you paid for.

i want to run a clip from her interview and get you to respond to it. >> ahead of the american association of the university professors was asked to comment on my book by inside higher ed a few weeks ago and they think he said that it left him speechless, so i was happy to take credit for that but i think he was very very angry and in particularly i think what most professors didn't agree with in that and that book is my argument about tenured connection to academic freedom. c-span: talking about you, professor. >> guest: perhaps misidentification of my difficult standard. i wasn't angry. i must admit that i was somewhat -- in response to the book. for one thing, tenure has to be understood as part of the system. in my own most recent book, i call it a three-legged stool,

tenure, academic freedom and shared governance. you can't understand tenure which is partial job security and less to see how it relates to other things. i mean, naomi makes the argument that in many things that faculty members teach, they don't need academic freedom. you can teach calculus without saying anything controversial. well i won't judge that they do know that tenure creates an atmosphere on campus where people can speak freely, not just in their teachings but also in terms of university governance. if you don't like a proposal that the board of trustees or the president makes you have to be able to speak freely about it. administer should be able to do that as well so that shared government speech was part of what academic freedom protects. without that you really don't have the expertise and the faculty available to you. you don't have people speaking courageously and forthrightly about their convictions and you don't have what mix american higher education great.

tenure of course is in many institutions disappearing. the most significant facts about tenure is one thing the aa upu revealed in 2005, we pointed out that in 1975, two-thirds of americans faculty and members in colleges and universities were either tenured or eligible for tenure. 30 years later in 2005, those figures had exactly flips. two-thirds were no longer eligible for tenure and only one third were. now at our best schools, harvard is not about to give up tenure. the university of illinois is not about to give up tenure but many schools across the country are hiring part-time faculty who don't have tenure and so tenure is not disappearing across the country, but the percentage of faculty members who have tenure is vastly reduced and that begins to change higher education. c-span: i want to run another clip from naomi schaefer riley

where she talks about your position, the a aup, and get you to respond to it. >> guest: sure. >> they're basically professors of cooking who now have, professors of nutritional studies, who have tenure now, and you know when pressed someone at the aau pr professor who is toeing the party line will say oh well we need someone that has tenure and security studies so that they can talk about immigration even though it's controversial. someone in nutritional studies needs to be of as a something controversial about obesity. this could go on indefinitely. there is no limit to the number of controversial things that need protection but in my opinion, you think that you know that downs of academic freedom have just been pushed too far. >> guest: that does leave me close to speechless because nutritional studies seems to be a perfect example of why tenure

is necessary. how many programs in nutritional studies are supported by grants from food producing companies? and how many faculty members if they speak out against the practices of those companies are going to have their jobs leave if their departments and universities are getting a lot of money from that company. nutritional studies is an area that involves the whole corporate enterprise in the united united states. large companies make food products. some of those food products are not terribly healthy for people. we have looked at you know, at food products sold to children that cause obesity and end up causing diabetes later in life. these are political matters and they require forthright speech from faculty members. there are many many corporations that invest in higher education and not all of them are ideal corporations. obviously you know, the most striking example is the tobacco

companies that have paid for faculty research and supported research at universities were many many decades, and you know i think i have to be pretty much convinced that tobacco is injurious to your health. university faculty members cannot have their job security threatened if they are honest about the dangers of products they represent. c-span: how often do you see a member of the academic professoriat played to the money? in other words the research money is there if you write the right things and draw the right conclusions? >> guest: well i think most human beings rationalize what they do and when i look back at the 50s and 60s, when faculty members were testifying in congress that tobacco wasn't harmful to your health, i suppose it's possible they believed it. it's difficult to imagine it but perhaps they did. there is a deeper way though that faculty members are dow

pressed to speak for the money and to sort of go for the money and that is because many administrators and want to see faculty members bring in as much funding to a university as they can so faculty members are encouraged to do this kind of research are that kind of research which is more profitable and my own feeling is that academic freedom means that a faculty member should be able to pursue the research that he or she believes is the most important, that will do the most good for the country whether it's the research that a given corporation wants to fund or not. so money has become more and more powerful in higher education. certainly in public higher education, state allocation to public higher education of over 30 years gradually has been inouye. c-span: how does the tenure process work for you? >> guest: well, it was perhaps a little more elaborate for me

than most. i came up for tenure three times before i got it. the second time my department had said that i should be fired and his reasoning was for insubordination and i said the claim was correct but the punishment was incorrect. so i got tenured the following year, and what it meant for me was that i could speak freely. that has been my tendency anyway. i have often taken issue with things at my own institution has done. some administration -- administrators don't like me very much as a result and others think what i'd disagree with my constant -- institution it is because i care about it. the tenure has given me the freedom to speak freely and given me the freedom to challenge my students, which is really essential. i teach some courses that

students find upsetting but i have to work carefully with them to be able to enable them to deal with the material. i teach a course on the holocaust regularly and it places a lot of strain on students and tenure has let me work hard to bring out the best in those students and to challenge them. it gives me the job protection i need to do that. c-span: do you think he was still have a job at the university of illinois if you didn't have tenure? >> guest: well i gave it up a few years ago. c-span: gave up what? >> guest: tenure. c-span: you did? how does that work? >> guest: partly i wanted to teach lessons but i could do more national work like the aau p. and it has enabled me to do a lot of traveling here and abroad, visit a lot of campuses,

speak to a lot of people. this semester for example i was scheduled to teach but i just want. my travel schedule has passed the point, alpha and get home one day and leave the next so i decided to give it up so i would have to teach less. it has introduced me unhappily to the world in which you ask for your job at the end of every year and then you find out whether you are going to get it and i can't say that i enjoy that part of it. i think i would have done the same thing all over again but it's not been without the unpleasant issues. you become more vulnerable and i have experienced some of that vulnerability. there's no question about it. c-span: in your book, no universities in ireland, you take on the aaup, american association of university professions and you take on the university of illinois. where you make your living. you take on corporatists.

you take on academic, the administrators. why? where does it come from in you that you have this approach to take on folks like this? >> guest: well, i mean taking on the aaup comes out of a tremendous love for the organization. i've been in its leadership are 16 years actually and its national council firsts -- years and i stress without the book -- throughout the book that i think the aaup is central to the future of higher education but i wanted to be everything that can be it can be and sometimes it fails. it failed most dramatically actually during world war i just after its historic statement when it supported the notion that criticizing the draft during world war i was unacceptable and faculty member should have that kind of freedom. i mean, and i think some of us, i wasn't around then but some of

us are still haunted by that failure. we failed again during the mccarthy period until the mid-fifties. we didn't do investigation of unjust firing a faculty members. i think the leadership of the organization was afraid to fight senator mccarthy but then eventually, we decided to go back into those investigations. so we have, your organization has not missed a step over time and part of what i think is important is to admit that and then figure out how you can do better. so at the same time as i feel it's the organization's fault i have tried to say how i can do better. in terms of my own campus, you know the world of higher education has changed. there is more pressure on faculty members as i said, to bring money in and but like so many campuses across the united states, for many years, i think

key administrators had the approach that every discipline should be as good as it could be, that we have wanted excellence across the board and i do believe in that and in fact work closely with many administrators who are absolutely terrific but we are not seeing across the united states that same commitment to all academic disciplines. the humanities are threatened. they bring in money in one form, student tuition but they don't bring in grants, they don't bring in corporate contract so we are seeing some humanities programs close around the country. the aaup gets basically a complaint about a humanities or social science department being closed once a week. that is about the rate at which they are coming in so we are very worried about that trend and i have seen it in my own institution, less support for some key humanity disciplines and i guess i am nostalgic for the days when we wanted to do

everything terrifically well. c-span: what do you think of the billions of dollars that goes from the president, the taxpayer to the federal government to all these research universities in the united states? >> guest: well, first of all, there are certainly a lot of press, including riley herself, who decries the amount of research that universities do. the cold reality is that the overwhelming majority of faculty members in the united states are devoted almost exclusively to teaching. perhaps 10% of the universities in the united states have major research commitments. some of those are large institutions but in terms of numbers of institutions it's only about 10%. many faculty members teach full time and that is really all that they do, but the system as a whole depends upon the research that a limited number of people do that keep disciplines current, that correct historical errors. i have seen so many historical

errors corrected in my own discipline, literary studies, that you know i know that i will never know the field completely because the field gets reborn and rediscovered and documents are discovered in archives that no one knew about. i have found you know literary texts in people's attics, in people studies, you know, in file cabinets of writers who have died. history gets rewritten all the time even in the humanities and you need that research to keep fields current so everyone benefits from them. so a small number of people who do research help the work that everyone does. i think a federal investment in it is part of what makes this country a leading force in so many areas of life. michael. c-span: blair in the united states did you grow up? >> guest: actually in philadelphia, in the center of philadelphia at first and then we moved out to bucks county to

a suburb. where i grew up there were sheep and horses and a field behind my house. the last time i return to that area that was a parking lot for a supermarket. but it was a great place to go. i had a terrific high school education. a huge high school, 5000 students, but the college prep classes have very high standards. i had to 230 to 50 typed page papers and you are allowed -- i might have to buckle the enforcing that rule now. c-span: what did your parents do? right -- >> guest: my father was a salesman but also was an activist. he was very active in the antinuclear movement in the 1950's and a little bit in the civil rights movement so my last year in high school i actually was on the mall here in washington to hear martin luther king's i have a dream speech so part of the nuclear --

antinuclear movement i heard speeches by the famous socialist, huge gangly man in his 80s that seemed as though his body was hung together with bailing wire but kind of staggered up to the podium and then this incredibly powerful voice came out. so i think i was inspired by the anti-nuclear speakers but i heard the civil rights speakers and i heard byard rustin early on in my life and i think you know, that was a strong part of my upbringing. c-span: you know the knockoff professors come from the left side of the political spectrum. what is your reaction to that? >> guest: well, if you go to the university of illinois and you visit the business college or you visit the college of engineering, a fair percentage of them do vote democratic, but to call them on the left eye

think would be a stretch. even in my own department of english, there certainly have been colleagues that voted for ronald reagan and voted for george bush and made no secret of it, so even in what is probably touted the most progressive discipline around, it's not universally on the left and in any case, you know what people need to understand is that people's political identification, faculty members identification with say the democratic or republican party doesn't necessarily say much about what they do in the classroom. i meanmean, that engineer votes democratic or republican, does it matter to his classroom behavior? right to let me ask you this. if you're a tenured professor like you were, tenured professor to go in the classroom should that professor have a right to say anything they want to say and proselytize for any cause they want to proselytize for? >> guest: if a faculty member

keeps interrupting a class with political statements that are not appropriate as a subject he or she shouldn't do it. the key is are they appropriate? aaup did a wonderful statement that i worked on called freedom in the classroom 2007 and what we try to argue there is that when someone is in a classroom, they should be able to make any connections that come up, any comparisons, any contrast that are related to the subject matter cannot just faculty members, but students need to be able to think creatively, make connections, draw comparisons and those connections and comparisons can be in different historical periods. they can be different subject matters and they can also be political. if they are relevant to what you're talking about. i would also make one exception. there are times in american life where things happened that

faculty members and students have to talk about. the morning after september 11, late in that morning classes were canceled all across the united states but if you were teaching an 8:00 a.m. class for september 11 it might still be -- and a lot of those classes neither the students or faculty members were willing to talk about chemistry or biology or english or anything else. something at happened of a political nature and a disastrous nature that they just had to talk about. the same thing happens when martin luther king died. i know people in the sciences who said the next day, i'm not going to talk about chemistry today. i can't talk about anything else except the assassination of martin luther king, so i think really when catastrophic events happen in the world, a faculty member or a student needs to be able to set aside the official course subject matter and

confront something that has affected them so deeply. i did actually meet a faculty member, very overly faculty member who said the day after pearl harbor, my philosophy class talked about philosophy and we didn't mention pearl harbor and i'm proud of it. i said well, that is academic freedom. you chose not to mention pearl harbor the day after the japanese attack. i suspect that there were a lot of classes, before my time, a specific there were a lot of classes to set aside their subject and talked about the event that was overwhelming. so i think those are the two things. interruptions by historical events that basically force all of us to confront them and classroom thinking that makes connections and comparisons, sometimes with very different subjects, sometimes with very different periods.

c-span: naomi riley, i asked her about this whole business of academics in publishing. let's watch a short clip and get your reaction to this. via mean i don't know when was the last time you picked up kind of an academic publication was that even harvard university press, i think recently has said that the average circulation of one of their you know, one of their academic publications is 250 book so when you consider that a lot of those books are actually just purchased automatically by libraries, and you know that is harvard university press. when you think about all of the smaller university presses out there having a circulation even smaller than that and by the way the expense of those books, i mean academic librarians complained about this to me but students complain too. so to me, somebody wrote a paper recently where they said that the academic publication industry was driven by the producers and not the consumers,

and you know i think that says it all. >> guest: academic bob -- that but publishing is in a crisis. when i published my first book in 1973, i was an unknown faculty member. i could count on it selling 2000 copies to libraries in the united states. i can now only count on, i sell a few more but i can only guarantee that it will sell 250, as she says. one of the things that is happening as a result is that more marginal publishing are moving on line. i almost never look at an academic journal anymore. i access them on line. i do that right from my own house. kind of convenience so i think history is responding to those reduce sales but mind you, those reduce sales reflect lower budgets for libraries. some of it necessitated by technology. my library has astonishing

resources on line. i can search hundreds of thousands of 19th century newspapers on line. it would have taken me a lifetime to look through them but i just dial them up. they are part part of searchable databases. i can access books from all over the world on line, so you know for libraries have had to put a lot of money into those on line resources because they are extraordinary. they could take a it possible to do research that would be inconceivable even 10 years ago. that has meant less money to put into buying books so libraries are sharing books more. our library, 10,000 books, a lot of libraries around the country so 250 copies doesn't mean only 250 people see them or that only 250 library see them. the library alone is now the law lava land and of course many

small libraries simply survive that way. but you know, the economics of publishing is threatened by those reduce sales, but the fact that the sales are reduced doesn't mean that none of the books are being read. c-span: the knock on academia, higher education from her book, "the faculty lounges," you are paying entirely too much for what you are getting, that professors published to a very narrow audience and don't teach in the classroom, that tenure means no matter how bad you are you get to keep your job and that most professors are liberals. i guess i would ask you, why do you think the conservatives almost universally think this way? you hear it all the side. is there nothing they are in this argument? >> guest: well i've seen a lot of tenured faculty members lose their jobs for a variety of reasons and i have seen quite a few tenured faculty members be taken out of the classroom and

assigned to administrative duties. if your students complain about your teaching and you are tenured, you are in danger. if your students are satisfied with your teaching, tenure does protect you but the most dangerous thing that could happen to a tenured faculty members to have a series of student complaints and even in my own institution a number of faculty members have to receive due process with tenure. a faculty committee has to review the case. it takes some time but in the end if they receive due process and they are judged not to be performing they end up doing something else. c-span: who determines whether or not a professor is pulled out of a university? i mean percentages aren't very high on tenure are they? do people lose their job? >> guest: percentages aren't high but i can come up with the years i've been at illinois a dozen people in my own department. i can see their faces.

the percentages may not be high but the human reality is real. some of them were removed for offenses, and the standard model is that a committee of their peers, judges the evidence. they have another chance to respond. they have to be able to confront their accusers but in a process like that, it may take six to nine months. it may take some period of months like that to be really thorough and fair the tenured faculty members do lose their jobs. i mean, the other thing i think, you know this is the kind of not widely acknowledge that. in the 1950's and 1960s, there were enough candidates for faculty jobs. there were more jobs than there were faculty members, so hiring could hardly be selective. as we got to 1969 and 1970, there began to be vastly more candidates for a job then there

were jobs. i mean i have been on searches where we had 1000 or more candidates for one job, so for 40 years, hiring has been able to be very selective. i would say when i arrived at illinois in 1970, 25% of my colleagues were not first rate, and we had a merit system for salaries and frankly i benefited from the merit system. i took money from sally and joe and fill us in bob because they didn't qualify for merit but i did. ..

has really increased over my time in the profession and i hate to say it, but it has increased because the competition for a few jobs could hardly be more intense. >> host: how many professors are there in the united states? >> guest: about 300,000. >> host: how many blonde -- to the university professors? >> guest: a lot fewer than we want. c-span: a year ago some hundred thousand. >> guest: about 1970 as 100,000. c-span: would have been? >> guest: will never be certain. the nature of the faculty identity and commitment changed. those people who used to join

the aap joined up with this broad commitment to profession. people became much more strongly committed to their academic discipline and profession as a whole, so they paid their dues to the academic discipline and that seems like enough. it wasn't enough. they should have joined us as well. you know, we've remained an organization with a great deal of influence despite the smaller numbers. i think we'll push from our membership developing now. c-span: what does it cost a year to belong? >> guest: we have a progressive to system based on salary. if you're earning 60,000 by last, you're not going to pay more than 50 or $60 a year to be a member. if you are earning close to $200,000 a year, then you're going to get paid $200 a year

for. they gradually progresses this time. c-span: what do you say is the average salary for a college professor that has been in it for 20 years? >> guest: well, it is an almost meaningless figure. we do those calculations, the first of all you have to distinguish between whether it's a research one institution. you have to look at the fields. starting salary for an english professor around the country is probably under $60,000 just under 60,000 or in some places unfortunately 50,000 or 40,000. starting salary for beginning professor maybe $125 maybe maybe twice as much. so the average salary doesn't tell us much. first of all you need to differentiate between institutions and then look at different disciplines to see how the salaries play themselves out. mind you, two thirds of american

faculty members are now contingent. i've been interviewing those faculty members for 25 years. reiko what does that mean, contingent? >> guest: they are hired semester by semester or year-by-year, that they have no way of knowing whether they will have a job next year. and many have been in my view are earning less than minimum wage. so really, two thirds of the professoriate is earning less than $60,000 a year. many of them less than $30,000 a year on those part-time or nonlinear jointed appointments. so a lot of the professor professoriate is not exactly comfortable. amy faculty members who teach you have no health care, who have no investment in a retirement system. they live pretty rough lives and that is more the story of higher

education these days than i paid faculty remember with corporate grants and corporate consultant ships. that is a really small percentage of the professoriate is doing that well. c-span: by his tuition gone up so much ahead of inflation? >> guest: well, first of october more than half of the undergraduates in the united states are at community colleges and pain about dirty dollars a credit. there are some families, first-generation families for whom even on his face kitchen need help. but you have to admit that more than half the undergraduates in the united states are paying pretty low tuition. many state institutions, although tuition is certainly reason, many state institution tuition is still $5000 a year or less. but that is another group of institutions where tuition isn't high. tuition is insanely high at the

elite schools. i mean, if harvard university were to charge no tuition, and simply take the money out of its endowment, its endowment would still grow. free tuition they would still have more money in the bank at the end of the air than year before. why is tuition at the school so i? in part because they can and in part because there is an identification of excellence with paying for it. this is a culture of people believe they pay a lot for something is valuable. most students do not overpay for tuition, but certainly a significant subset of paid far more than they should. part of it is i think that a lot of schools spend money on things they shouldn't be spend money on. they build the things they don't need. hire more administrators than they need.

the growth in the number of the administrators, the percentage growth is vastly exceeded the growth in the number of teachers. i think institutions, colleges and universities should put their money into teaching and some money to research, not into administration and not into unnecessary building. those two things, unnecessary growth and administrators an unnecessary capital projects have affected the growth of two ways in at those institutions that succumb to that. now there are some wonderful liberal arts colleges, where administrators don't run half a million dollars or a million dollars or more. in the football coach doesn't earn for $5 million. a lot of liberal arts colleges for the president or $200,000 or $250,000. so there are places that are committed to not overpaying people. and i admire that rather than letting salaries rise to an

unacceptable point. but it is by and large -- administrative salaries, and those things have played a really unfair rule in tuition prices in many institutions. c-span: so, when you act as president or you are president of yale university professor, do they pay you? >> guest: now. they pay me for the courses that would ordinarily teach. it's an elected a volunteer position. >> host: c-span: what have you learned? you've been president since 2006. what if you learned you didn't know before? a surprise to this experience? >> guest: more than anything else, and the huge diversity of colleges and universities in the united states. i mean, i visited quite a few before he became president. but when you are visiting

dirtier or more a year and you are going all across the country, i have been too small religious schools, where the character of campus life is just wildly different. i have been to historically black colleges and universities, where the campus life and campus concerns are very different. i visited commuter colleges across the country. private colleges, public institutions. the diversity of higher education in america is its great strength and he don't find in other countries in the world, but it also means that, you know, that some faculty members work under conditions that they really shouldn't suffer. so you know, i have seen campuses where -- where governance is not good, academic freedom is in jeopardy. and obviously i teach at a

school where academic freedom is really not jeopardize except in certain very narrow ways. i have been to many institutions were free speech really does not obtain. c-span: can you give us an example? >> guest: i usually don't name them. c-span: you get into the middle of the controversy sometimes. >> guest: yes, some of that is coming up. c-span: you say you got arrested at new york university when you first started. how did that happen? >> guest: yes come a great day. that's because a graduate student at new york university have filed for union representation and they were represented by the united auto workers. they negotiated a contract and then the national labor relations board, which covers private institutions, but not public institutions, its political character changed

under republican administrations and may change their position, said the graduates to answer not -- could not be guaranteed the right to vote for a union. the nyu president withdrew union recognition. and that is pretty unusual when you recognize the union, you've negotiated a contract to many withdraw it. so that was a protest on washington square in new york and i was taken to a paddy wagon by a couple of new york policemen had been set into the paddy wagon and said to everyone, keep up the good work. of course they are policemen are also organized by the union, said they applauded what we have done, which i thought was a part of the experience that matter to me. graduates demands on a play fake and and why you can't negotiate working individually. faculties can go in a bargain with the department, bargain at

15. of graduate students feel that they are not earning a living wage, that they feel very dangerous working conditions in the lab, all they can really do is have a union negotiate better working conditions for them. so it is important for them to be able to organize if they want to. i've been involved in the graduate student union movement for 25 years because i believe in the cause. i believe they should earn the office they are teaching to be able to get by. a graduate student have the same teaching of the faculty members do. but whatever the living wages in the area and in some places in the country they just don't. i think graduate students who work on the lab be to have a third party be able to negotiate grievances about ours and be able to negotiate so the lab conditions are safe.

and the union can really do that for graduate students. >> let's go back to the perception on the part of some parents. they spend lots and lots of money to send a kid to college and the kids kids there come a student gets there and they are taught, in some cases by teaching assistant. in some cases come a teaching assistant that doesn't teach very good english because they are an international student and they get their phd and all of that. and so come the parent gets rather it are exercised. how often does that happen and is that a fair criticism of the university coming of the prices gone up in the education is not being taught by phd professors? >> guest: well, i have audited a lot of classes that graduate teaching assistants are teaching. in our department has a good training for graduate students. the first year they teach their

classes or visit a lot. they get a life you do. and i've seen some really traffic teaching. one of my graduate students just got a job in wisconsin for this fall. every time i lead town on a trip i asked him to take over the class. i know she's going to teach it better than i do. she's awfully good. i think there is a lot of very committed, very passionate teaching that graduate students. they were teaching introductory math for your teaching composition, there are a lot of faculty members that cannot do that with enthusiasm for 30 years. the graduate students who hasn't taught can often teach those beginning courses with great passion and commitment. you know, they struggle with their teaching philosophy. they think hard about their assignments. so i think there is good teaching done by graduate students. i have more problem with the kind of teaching that it's

almost impossible to do well. and none of teaching my part-time faculty who teach three or four or five or six courses in different universities all across the city. they have no office space. they meet their students back to their car. there's plenty of that right here in washington d.c. people go from campus to campus and don't have enough time to meet with their students. they may be teaching so much they don't have enough time to keep up with their field. that is teaching that i have a problem with. but what happens there is that the circumstances of their work prevent them from doing a first-rate job. in order to earn enough to live and there's part-time faculty members in the united states like that with phd's, earning $1500 a course. my interview is people in new york who are earning $1500 a

course. a reporter -- i asked a reporter from "the new york times," how much does it take to live in manhattan. he says well you really can't get by less than 40,000 or $50,000 a year. how many courses just to teach to her and not? and if you go from campus to campus all day long, what are the odds you can do that job well. so i think the lack, the reduction in the number of full-time faculty members is something that american parents should be angry about. if their teachers are exploited, they may not be getting their numbers were. >> a quick question about tenure and talking about these adjunct continuing teachers. can you get tenure that a phd? >> you can't get tenure typically without a terminal degree. if you're an artist it might be an m.a.

anfield for the phd is the standard terminal degree, the answer would be particularly now. a creative writer could get tenure that a phd because that is not expected. c-span: we talked about transparency or lack thereof in the tenure process. >> the process rate is not among the self reflect the bodies in my opinion in this country and i think there's not a lot of examination. they want to talk about bioethics. they want to talk about government not fix, but there's not a lot of talk about what goes on in the academy and the ethics of that. the lack of transparency in the tenure process is one of the biggest problems that i see there. >> i think the academy needs more transparency. the first thing is the financing. you know, faculty members and students and staff member should know how every dollar campus is

stand. budgets should be not be secret. >> at every school? >> guest: every school. higher education is a community in every campus is a community and everyone should be part of the process of decision-making. i've seen schools facing budget cuts that lets demands, cafeteria workers, faculty members and administrators all have input into how to deal with financial problems and they become unified communities where everyone has an investment in what goes on on campus. so that is the first point of transparency. i don't know the faculty members or any last inclined to reflect on their lies and on their work than any other americans. faculty members pretty excessively reflect on what their students are doing and evaluate student success. i evaluate my students for

years. the best evaluations they do in a phd students to be tenuous after i graduate -- after they graduate. i look on the work they've done, careers they've had them ask myself what influence have i had? how can i see my entries have helped shape tears and help bring down the best they can do. faculty members teach freshman courses. when they see the students, they look at senior projects in take, how much did the chorus they got at the very start of their time enable them to do well for years later. i think faculty members reflect on their own success and failure a great deal. what they don't do is reflect on their institutions, missions and goals as much as they should. they need to also think more about the overall purpose of the institution. are they on board with the institution? that is the kind of reflection i think we need a lot more of.

c-span: so a few of the sudden funders often the president's office at the university, how would you feel about tenure than? >> for me just add a few more things. just like you did the aup come you what to make a difference. you have a whole chapter in here, we want to clean out all the deadwood. they ought to do the same thing with 10% of the professors here that are worthless. >> guest: well, i don't find a lot of dead wood anymore. i mean, i did in the 1970s. whether it was deadwood are people who are not excellent. they pretty much disappeared. i just don't think it's a serious problem anymore. what i do now, what i would know as a president is one of the things tenure does is give

people the possibility of devoting themselves for their whole life. not many people so thoroughly dedicated to the life of an institution that is almost a calling on a cause beyond an occupation. without tenure, he just wouldn't see that kind of commitment. so i think if i were university president, i would want people who could give 110% and 120% and 150%. i see a lot of that. without job security, without some guaranteed lifetime appointment after a probationary period, i don't think people would commit themselves as wholeheartedly after they do. i think tenure is what makes american campuses, places where passionate, controversial debate

goes on. c-span: should the same rule apply to other facets of our society like a corporation? >> guest: well, there's some other types of work that deserve greater job security. if i had to pick one example of another kind of job that i think deserves greater job security, it would be investigative reporting. you know, american newspapers are losing large numbers of investigative reporters. they have to do work that can be very critical of powerful interests in the country and i would like to feel more comfortable that they can be fired because they paste somebody off. that would be one example. not necessarily tenure, but something tenure like would benefit the country. c-span: how much of the investigative reporters taking

kicking off their bosses is the reason for investigative reporters. >> guest: if large-scale advertisers are angry at the kinds of stories to reporters doing, i think it puts them at risk. c-span: tell them they have to report on something else. >> guest: there's other fat tears. what priorities the newspapers that. obviously perper murdoch has also had an influence on the care of your american news and reporting and that is not the lack of interest in investigative reporting. it is interest in putting the stories of hollywood stars another thing is front and center, rather than what is happening in the world. there are multiple influences of course, movements online publication, but i still

think -- i don't count myself an expert in reporting. but if i had to come up with an occupation beyond teaching, or some kind of job security might be helpful, that's one i would pick because free press is just essential to a democracy. you know, what i can say is that that -- when i -- we are not in california, are we? when they meet faculty members who have no job security, i often meet faculty members who are afraid of being frank. any faculty members who say to me, i was going to teach this book, but i thought some of my unit might get angry about it. i thought their parents might get angry about it. i am on a semester by semester appointment. i don't know if i'll have a job next semester. i'm not going to teach that to.

c-span: professor nelson, it's necessary to explain to the audience at the last couple minutes are a little unusual. on the date this was recorded, august 23rd, we had an earthquake and that's why you referred -- heard them removing around and we vacated the studio and all the buildings in washington. now we are back in only three minutes to go in this interview. have you ever been to an earthquake before? >> guest: no. they're a seismic changes, but i've never been there when they actually physically took place. that's entirely possible. c-span: we've been talking about your book and also the only writers spoke on tenure and academic freedom. your book is no university is an island. at this stage in her career and

after you have been ahead of the american university professors, since 2006, where do you think it's all going to go based on watching your career up until now? what is ahead? >> guest: well, i am worried that the trans-that we can see and are unmistakable in education are not good. given that, you know, i said in 2005, two thirds of faculty members were contingent and insecure with their job. it's now a little over 70%. that trend seems to be continuing. the trend of state legislatures defunding higher education, gradually shifting costs from taxpayers to students, that is now a 25 year trend. translate that don't always come

to an end quickly. so i think the future for state funding of public higher education is not great. both of those things do not dwell for maintaining higher education. i think i'd recommend the federal government pay for public higher education and make it free for all children of all americans. $60 billion a year, coupled battleships left. you could actually make public higher education a genuine public good. i think without some fundamental change, its quality is going to erode. it's not a good thing to have scientists over the country having to choose the basic research that will bring in the most dollars. rather they choose the research that will do the most good for the people in the united states and across the world.

this is a system come in the american higher education system that has thrived on freedom and its thrived on people being able to follow their imaginations and what is most vital and most interesting. that is made up for half a century, great system of higher education. i think we need to preserve it. >> guest: knowing what you know about what's gone on in the past and what will go on in the future, would you become a professor he can? >> guest: i can't imagine doing anything else. i mean, there are moments in my classes that are sometimes the best moments of the week. when my students and i struggle with questions we really can't answer, but are vitally important. we spent a couple of hours doing that, i feel i've had the best hours of my week. and the freedom to pursue the intellectual questions that matter to me most, that has really been just thrilling.

i wouldn't take a different career. c-span: train to come cary nelson, professor university of illinois. when is your turn as president? >> guest: june 2012. >> guest: title of the book is no university is an island. in spite of the earthquake. >> guest: that's what made it memorable. >> for a dvd copy, call 1-877-662-7726. for free transcripts or give us your comments about this program, visit us at q&a.org. q&a programs are available at c-span podcasts.