police or, um, or arrested by police in terms of race. it doesn't in and of it prove that the police have acted with racially discriminatory bias. it may be that, again, because crime rates are higher in neighborhoods, in many minority neighborhoods, the natural focus of the police on high-crime neighborhoods has led to some of these disparities. and so we need to look to more comprehensive solutions as well, not in exclusion of the civil rights approach, but as a supplement. >> okay. you open this new book with the case of the genus six. can you talk about that case and why you think it sets up some of these main arguments for "rights gone wrong"? ..

gross overreaching and the part of the prosecutor. a huge overcharge, but that charge was subsequently reduced. he was also tried as an adult, and that conviction was reversed on appeal. the surrounding circumstances were such that initially it sounded like the perfect case for an old school jim-crow style racial bigotry. there was a tree that was in the school that was described as the white tree where only white students could. and when a student asked whether he could sit, the next day there was an noosing from the tree, or not the next day, but later.

racial tensions began to run high, and it looks from the outside like a little redneck town that was persecuting these six chairmen. as it turned out, the facts bryan and closer examination somewhat ambiguous. the assault was a real sold. six athletes to be when young man senseless. he was unconscious and taken to the hospital. so some criminal prosecution was appropriate. the incidents that were seen as obvious instances of racial bigotry were on further examination more ambiguous. it was not clear that the white tree was really restricted to white students. later people said, in fact, students of all races that under the tree. and so the point is that as the facts became more ambiguous it looks less and less like an obvious case of racial injustice and more and more like a complicated case that involved

prosecutorial overzealousness, racial tensions, all sides boresome plant. >> so one of the categories of "rights gone wrong" it is these complicated ambiguous stories that we want to -- people try to fit into a narrow, possibly old-fashioned sort of vision of one right side and one wrong side commanders in it's much more complicated. >> that's right. but that doesn't mean there is not an injustice. >> absolutely. now, there are other kinds of categories the talk about. for example, some of the most contentious issues that you have discussed have to do with education. can you talk about, for example, your discussion of accommodations in the public school but things like a ph.d.? >> yes. so, the story here is that we begin -- because of the legal analysis often works we operate

by analogy. begin with the case were so right solutions are relatively good fit, and we move through analogy to cases where they're pretty bad. so in the case of disabilities, the case where they're is a pretty good fit involves severe disabilities that are conspicuous, things like someone is in a wheelchair, someone is legally blind. those cases it quite clear that throughout american history there has been overt bias and discrimination. people either squeamish. harvard stereotypes says that it discriminated against them in a way that is analogous to the type of jim-crow stab discrimination the people of color, the types of discrimination that women have faced and work force and in public accommodations. remove from that. in the public schools if you don't accommodate someone with a disability you're discriminating against them.

again, you can see out if you look at someone in a wheelchair, refuse to put into ramp in order to help the person gain access to building. you might say, maybe the reason refuses because you're biased against people in wheel chairs and a lot of around. now, we moved the case is like a ph.d. and the other end of the spectrum. and mild disability that in many cases experts find hard to distinguish from what you might call on guard variety or garden variety of wandering mind. so then -- in the milder cases the experts are in agreement about that, this can be hard to distinguish. then you have a case where an accommodation, in other words, something that might take the form of something like more time on the time the exam or in the case of hyperactivity, immunity from normal school discipline. perhaps in some cases 1-of-won extra tutoring. it may be that that would help

the student, but the question is whether in the context of scarce resources, at the same type of intervention would be just as useful for the student with a garden variety wondering mind, the one that does not have the diagnosis. was it makes sense to say that the one student is entitled to extra resources for like cash strapped school, and the other student is stuck with the, in some cases, quite inadequate education that both kids did people might claim that in these circumstances we need to look to improving the educational experience for everybody, and that may well mean making quite significant changes in the curriculum, but though looking at the question of individual rights is not make sense and produces perverse results and distributable -- distributive equities the hard to defend. >> it is an interesting question because as a parent with children and the public school you also want your children's potential to be maximized.

from a social justice prospective macintosh lucia you say, oh, but what -- i'm thinking of an example that is more extreme, but if you have those premature babies in the hospital that are million dollar. we have such scarce health care resources, we can't put them all toward one person, but if you're the parent, 2 million, 3 million. during a different sort of position, so it seems like that is a -- i would really like to open up the issue in your book. you make people think about what are these larger moral issues. the same time they're balancing individuals with a best for the children. >> oh, sure. the dublin the parents of those children for pushing as hard as they can to get every advantage with their kids. that is what parents are supposed to do. the question as a matter of public policy is whether makes sense to set up a system in which people, one group of people are entitled to a claim

on scarce resources and another group of people are not entitled when in many ways the two individuals are slowly situated. of course the kid with a garden variety wandering mind, well, they have parents, too. you know, those parents want to maximize their kids' education. they're stuck with what is left. >> right. or they're not able to navigate the system as well. >> sure they're not able to navigate the system as well, so you bring in an equity that involves the resources, the welcome and the sadness of the parent. so you're dry of public resources and have a situation in which there is -- almost built-in bias in favor of the wealthy, the powerful as opposed to those without resources. >> so interesting. many of the examples in "rights gone wrong" are individuals who are using civil rights laws to get what they see as their own rights or entitlements.

you argue extremists on both the left and right have hijacked civil-rights for personal advantage. can you talk russell of the more political ones of these, something a left or right? >> sure. i have to say sometimes it can be hard to tell the left and the right apart. >> not always. >> not always. not always. i'll give you an example, and you can decide whether you think it's left to right. so we have, both in federal law and state law, in the case is about to talk about, all under state civil rights laws. the laws against sex discrimination, extremely important making sure women have access to the workplace and that women have access on an equal footing to public accommodations . like restaurants and bars and what have you. no, these laws have been used in order to overturn ladies night

at local bars and restaurants. california is one. ladies night is not a violation of civil-rights laws. it's also true in many other american states. one person even sued to overturn a mother's day promotion on the basis that it was sex discrimination. he did not win that suit, but my point is that this was a possible lawsuit tell lot of people because we have taken an extreme view of the prohibition against said discrimination. rather than looking at it according to its original purposes, according to a sensible public policy purpose, which is making sure that women have equal access to the market and equal access to public institutions, we have taken a kind of abstract you that would also sweet ladies night up under the same prohibition. that does not make sense. whether that is left to right, i'm not sure. >> well, yes. i think it's complicated. >> it's complicated. some feminists would argue

equality means equality no matter what. >> not even that simplicity. you could argue that if i found myself thinking about ladies night. because @booktv and noted seems so funny. the funny thing about it, was reading through and is thought, wait a minute. if women are getting special treatment there and its economic the women are payless. isn't it -- maybe if we get rid of these kind of customs, maybe that would be a good kind of idea. i'm thinking this command and everything that it is menu are suing to get the discounts. come on. so i was pulling back and forth when i was reading how it was planning of the court. but that seems like one that is more complicated but not a man wanting his mother's day back. could be that these things have a higher price. we don't know how to get rid of women getting paid less. we could talk about that now,

the walmart carries, class-action suit. and to let ladies live for a little bit. it seems like if we get rid of those kinds of beans that of the special treatment of women we could then see what happens. maybe there would not be this sense that they could be paid less because it will be treated all the time. >> have my doubts that the cause and effect work in that way. [laughter] and seriously, i think it is important. if we keep our eye on the appropriable, i suspect that we would have better luck but in dealing with the wage gap between men and women while leaving these kind of trivial matters or perverse suits like ladies night to the side, one, at least would not be wasting resources live beating cases that bill will amount to much, but at the same time i think it's important to zero in the back of what we're talking about a social inequity we in this case are talking about a

discriminatory treatment against women. and the idea that a gallants of friedrich ladies night is the appropriate -- >> of all -- with you there. i just think that larger, sort of, custom, would just as rather if it went away, but let's talk about the class action suit and walmart that was against walmart in more direct attempt to use the law. this shows how large these issues aren't play in that the first received a copy, the preview copy of "rights gone wrong" commended in of this says we will see. this open possibility. by the time the actual book came out it had been dismissed as a class action. can you talk about that? these things are all happening as we speak with the walmart case was a very interesting and important piece of litigation. most of the suit involved statistical evidence.

most of the evidence that the planters presented. the statistical evidence was quite compelling. there was a pattern of discrimination on the basis of sex at walmart, says that women were not getting anything close to the number of promotions that one would expect, and even handed employers to have. walmart drew its managers mainly from its hourly wage employees. although their hourly wage employees were something like 75 percent women, by the time yet to upper management the number of piano managers was more like to%. >> right. >> the problem in the warm-up litigation was that there -- it was hard to find -- it was impossible to find a policy, a single policy on the part of walmart as a corporate entity, as a national management that was responsible for all of these

various instances of sex discrimination. instead it was individual managers and individual stores. >> right. >> and so what joined all of these cases together? the supreme court decided nothing judd them except the women, the fact that the planters were women and the lawsuit. so they dismissed the class-action. the difficulty this raises is it will be very difficult in many of these cases where the individual women to prove their case individually. the statistical evidence might show that a lot of women were discriminated against. does the share the you were one of them. in addition, the promotion criteria used were subjective. things like integrity and team spirit. so it is very easy for buyers to hainan and the progress of the charity, that these kinds of terms have, these kinds of decisions have. in this stage is rare that managers blurred out a discriminatory motive.

they know better. answer ready yet discrimination is going to be pretty tough. the result is the discrimination is likely to go and remedied. and so the class action might have been equity fit. that is why it was rejected by the supreme court. wal-mart's lawyers did a great job putting out. but right now we don't have an alternative. in dealing with these subtle forms of discrimination that are now the most the most prevalent and the most serious social injustices, civil-rights are limited in their ability to make a difference. >> interesting. the and the lot of these questions. okay. the one back to educational issues, affirmative-action, which was originally intended to

be about the big picture, where are we now? >> well, that is a very big question. >> from a civil rights law standpoint. >> from a civil rights law standpoint, affirmative-action is legally and acceptable in a preliminary range of circumstances, but what we have seen is the legal debate around affirmative action has -- it has done several interesting things. one, the legal principles that were at one time understood to be in support of things like integration have now been turned against policies that are designed to integrate work forces, schools and what have you, affirmative-action policies. they begin on a relatively narrow idea that the legal injuries is discrimination, and discrimination narrowly defined, affirmative-action is discrimination nearly to find. so that is an instance of the

kind of thinking that i am describing. that is not to say that affirmative-action should be controversial, but the precise way in which the law has done with it seems to of store most of the important questions rather than eliminate them. that is what my concerns. we don't make much of a distinction, for instance, now in a popular debate as a result of the legal debate. don't make much of a distinction between the affirmative-action and higher education and affirmative action in public contracting. these are very different contexts in which very different concerns may be brought to bear. it is entirely possible that a sensible person would say the favored one opposed another, what the public debate now completely obscures' those things because we're focused on that from a relatively narrow idea of the issues of affirmative action. one other interesting thing that has happened as a result of the with the law is the work that is that much of the debate around whether or not we should have

affirmative-action and particularly in the higher educational context has been truncated as a result of legal opinions that have said there is basically only one rationale that is exceptional for firm action in higher education. so after the diversity, when diversity and almost all the diversity was described as the appropriate rationale for affirmative action, you had a narrowing of discussion. in universities to a person is the place where we would hope to have a robust debate, universities now have to say, its diversity and all the diversity. so the number of other reasons like remedying past discriminations, remitting societal discrimination, those were ruled out by the supreme court for the most part. i'm oversimplifying a tiny bit. as the result has been, a kind of constructive debate about something that we need to have a

robust debate about. and so the state of affirmative action now, of the popular conversation about it, i think july is an example of rights gone wrong side. >> is the issue that the legislation was too ambiguous term to open-ended so that the courts are then depending with a political move is, in interpreting it is the solution to go back and make different legislation that is more specific? with that remedy it? >> well, in the affirmative action context it's not with a solution that is attacking affirmative action but the constitutional principle. >> the terms the legislation. >> exactly. it is written as a very high level of generality. it is inevitable that the core will have to interpret and give

it life and substance. but what i am suggesting is precisely the courts have interpreted it has been unfortunate in that it has narrowed the debate that we can have about an important social issue. >> how much of this has to do with how there was a concerted effort on the part of conservatives to get more conservative judges on all levels of the court? >> early that is part of the story. but it's not the whole story. so a few things about that. one, the court, in the 1960's liberals had an idea. they think that many still do, that the courts are naturally the vanguard of social justice. the court's going to be a last resort in the face of a hostile political popular conversation or political profit. that has not been heavy historic role of the courts. in many ways the progressive era

, the progressive jurisprudence was a historical. for a long time the courts have not occupied devil. there were quite conservative. one could see the later courts as a returned to form. that, at most the courts are lagging the political process. and so to the extent you have a political process -- because, of course, the politicians ultimately appoint federal judges. so they lack the political process, but they're not really distinct from it. that is something that is important to note. but i would also said that it is not just the conservative effort to take over the judiciary which is, of course, a natural part of the political process, what any party in power would try to do.

>> right. >> but it is also the narrowing of ideas about social injustice, the reliance on courts, the reliance on individual rights that has left us without other options, and that is really what i want to focus on. what i tried to focus on the book. >> okay. >> these other options a policy. >> policy. >> changing hearts and minds, just the whole range, and new ways of thinking about the questions as well. rather than thinking about them primarily in terms of individual entitlements and legal entitlements, we could think about them is in terms of broad social policy questions that may not involve legal entitlements or individual rights of all. >> now, is there any argument that some of these laws should be reformed to make sure we just move on and try other things? >> i think some should be reformed. i mean, i can have a long list of potential reforms that would take a variety of forms. so civil-rights laws can be

reformed in order to address the more pressing forms of discrimination that we're facing now. some of these reforms would be back to the future because the proposals and ideas that were advanced in the 1970's and either rejected or narrowed by subsequent judicial opinion, but i think many would involve new approaches, and approaches that might trade off for lack of a better term individual entitlements in favor of social justice. let me give one example. if we go back to the walmart case, imagine that instead of a focus on individual entitlements we have a focus on was that would try to change the data day practices of business. one possibility would be to some extent we know the kinds of management practices that are vulnerable to bias and those that are less tolerable. businesses are now required, but

they could be increased. one way of encouraging them might be to say if you adopt practices that are known to reduce by as you can enjoy some immunity from certain types of individual lawsuits. so we have critical elective justice. all of those women who right now can improve their lawsuits against walmart would be better off if former were encouraged to have practices that were less likely to be vulnerable to bias. in order to encourage walmart to do that they might enjoy some kind of civil rights immunity. >> interesting. >> one possible idea. >> it's interesting that on one hand civil rights law has outlived its ability to address some of these more complicated problems you been talking about. and yet we are also in the middle of or in the beginning and middle of a gay-rights fight for civil rights legislation will read part of that. can you talk a little bit about the defense of marriage act and

how you see this plaintive these issues we have been talking about? >> sure. one thing to note is the gay-rights stroh is really basing the kind of social injustices, these overt bigotries, overt discrimination is, that certainly has not gone away with respect to racial minorities and women, but it is as small a part of the problem. for gay men and lesbians i think it is the largest part of the problem. and so something like the defense of marriage tax, something as an example of that , the conventional civil-rights approach is appropriate, and it is remarkably effective. the history of the civil rights movement is that civil rights were remarkably effective, much more than anybody expected. particularly in the area of public condemnation, a kind of whites-only lawful very quickly

and with much less resistance than people thought. so for those first-generation kind of bias, the conventional civil rights model is a good fit. that is really where we are with most of the issues that are currently facing the gay rights struggle. now, they of may will face second-generation issues as time goes on, but right now the focus is on these forms of overt. >> in a way it ties into your book in that lazar -- the judiciary committee doesn't repeal, but they built the beckham pass it to the general. they know they can't, so it is sort of in a place to go into that system. at the same time they have cases coming to the judiciary system. how do you see those two different kinds of processes and how they can help change society? which of those would be more effective? >> it is a very interesting and

complex question. on the one hand litigation can be the spark the starts, that inspires lesley change. and so, for instance, a conventional way of thinking about the relationship between brown versus board of education in 1954 or the civil rights act of 1964 is the probe sparked that change will brown made the civil rights act possible, but it's also important to note that the civil rights act was necessary, necessary in order to effectuate ground. very little happened in the south of the ten years between brown and the sole right to read to 64 of which tight federal funding to serious efforts for the desegregation ended is also important to note that changes achieved through legislation in the minds of many as three legitimacy then change it achieved record. so when social change, particularly on contentious issues, is achieved record the

argument is always available that this is an illegitimate intervention by the courts and the political process. the wars the will of the people. whereas when the changes achieved through legislation that argument is not available. in a marriage we're seeing already advocates, a gay-rights advocate thinking hard about this trade-off, thinking hard about whether it's better to win in the way they won in massachusetts, the litigation to more the way they won in new york, through legislation. in new york lawyers arguing our victory has even greater legitimacy because it came to the political process. >> right. right. that's so interesting. can you talk about class divisions among s and how these might be also affecting some of the civil rights ideas and issues? >> absolutely. this is one of the most important and most overlooked problems in questions in

thinking about contemporary civil-rights. increasingly the division between upper-middle-class and middle-class african-americans and the underclass is grown so stark that it is fair to say the kinds of injustices that the relatively privileged face are different not just in degree, but in kind, from those of the underclass face. and as a result civil-rights laws that lump them all together tend to misdiagnose both sets of problems. so for the privilege, for people like me, the kinds of racial injustice is that we face a much more likely to be settled, likely to take the form of some of, social snub, invisible impediments to career investment, serious problems, with very different in kind than the problems that the underclass, largely the result

of isolation for opportunities, isolation from the mainstream, poverty, poor public service, high crime neighborhoods. and so increasingly we need just very different solutions. .. very different problems and it is not that useful to lump them into categories of discrimination. >> we have to close

unfortunately. such a wonderful conversation. i was thinking when i was reading your book from a quote from martin luther king's letter from a birmingham jail where he talks about we are caught in an inescapable network of a single garment of destiny. whatever affects one directly affect us all in directly. and your work is so cognizant of these different levels. individuals being part of this larger whole and it is such an important conversation you are stimulating. i am thankful you of written this book and i'm looking forward to questions from the audience. thank you for joining us. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> okay. first question says would you tell us your opinion regarding the digital opinions of clarence thomas? >> i will say a little bit. clarence thomas's opinion i can only talk about as a narrow range, so many -- jurisprudence is interesting on a number of levels but particularly i talk about those involved -- the kind

of makes of strong libertarian conservatism in the same opinion. that you very often -- for instance a lot of school desegregation cases and affirmative-action cases, if someone would think the only way to get an equal education is to be in the same room with whites. and at the same time one of the most strident free-market conservatives. that mix of things for many seemed quite in congruous. i characterize most of clarence thomas's discussions about race. i don't feel -- i don't agree with his jurisprudence about race and his consistent assertion that it is impossible to tell the difference between b 9 and malign forces of discrimination, they're all

forms of racial classification that should be treated with equal contempt and suspicion. my view that are put through this book is it is possible to tell the difference between b 9 and maligned discrimination that is the job of judgment to evaluate these conflicts in the context in a new lens away. they're called judges for a reason. they're supposed to exercise judgment. judgments may be hard to exercise, if it were as simple as the people -- if it were that simple then it could be through a computer doing the job. my strongest point of disagreement, though there are -- [laughter]

>> authors -- a little hard to read the handwriting -- argue that racial discrimination is so severe that we need the longest laws, such as racial say that we should determine affirmative-action on the base of desert. what exactly is your stance? how do we -- i am sorry. i didn't realize -- how can we look -- is there an argument we need stronger laws to take out of this? >> we need stronger laws but civil-rights -- not enough at

the same time. the systemic forms of bias, we need more but they may not take the form and probably would not take the form of civil-rights laws, and what have you. on the other hand, when the laws are applied indiscriminately, it says too much. many of the cases that are designed to illustrate we don't need to say a law against sex discrimination -- it is both which is one of the vexing things about the contemporary moment. >> comment on the story -- you see that as a civil-rights issue. >> it was --

[talking over each other] >> you had a chance to talk -- think about it. >> i am aware of the controversy. this resonates because in so many instances historically african-americans have been exploited and had their contributions taken without getting do acknowledgment or do credit. there is a sense in which the story seems like the e epitome of that kind of history that equipped everything from artistic contributions to the contributions of labor which is one of the reason this book resonates. so much. so it is a civil rights issue but it does fall into this category of the kind of civil rights issue that doesn't directly involve discrimination but instead evolves a social structure in which a particular class of people are subject or

vulnerable to exploitation of a variety of time. a more complex story. >> a wonderful book. another hard one. talk more about how to change hearts and minds. >> well. >> solve all problems. >> one of the points i wanted to ask of this book is we need to think about the struggle from a wide range of perspectives as many of which might not involve individual entitlements, law, court and things like that. if it comes into that category of thinking and right now in many ways, the advocates for social justice are using the fight for hearts and minds because of the perceived need to shoehorn everything into a civil-rights style narrative. it is a good example of this.

you start -- if seems perfect. a bigoted town in the old south. the perfect instance. it is ambiguous and a lot of people have legitimate objections to the idea that it is a straightforward civil-rights issue and by the end you probably bought the people you might have convinced. you are preaching to the choir. that seems to me a consistent pattern with much of the civil-rights education and activism of today. we lost the battle of hearts and minds and those that burn already convinced. how to fix that is a complicated question because those social injustices are not susceptible to a dramatic narrative. they're not accessible to the narrative of an individual who we know has been done wrong.

they are complicated legal analyses and statistics and things like that. that is the challenge and i don't have a straightforward answer how to address that challenge but that is the challenge of today to make these more subtle and systemic and systematic and come alive and fuel people without -- and there's an individual victim which often times the appleby a hard narrative to maintain. >> have devised and conquer strategy is the economic elites perpich with a climate -- oh. that was my time call. have divide and conquer strategy is of the economic elite helped perpetuate a climate. and racial characteristics and identification take on

exaggerated importance by members of the general population? >> that is a very interesting question. i am not sure about strategies by eachs. but i would say there are many instances in which the way of civil-rights policies have played out have exacerbated divisions between the working class additional example involves school desegregation. one of the things that happened with school desegregation was relatively early on it was decided by the supreme court that busing could not reach suburban school districts unless the school district in question could be found to have engaged in age discrimination. involved the troika. detour it couldn't be

desegregated in the city of detroit because by the time the case got to the federal court the city was 85% black. and the courts held you couldn't reach a suburban school district that might contribute to desegregation. one of the results of that was the places -- in most americans metropolitan areas then. from desegregation -- was the inner cities, the old city's that engaged in segregation -- it was intensified with in those cities but also made it appear to many that desegregation was reserved for the relatively less well off. that kind of sentiment played a role in resistance to desegregation so the story of south boston with some of the resistance to desegregation was strongest was the story of

racial bigotry but also a story of resentment in the feeling that the white working-class was abandoned and so there are instances and i could tell other stories were that kind of antagonism has been the result. the intended result of the abdication of civil-rights laws and had poisonous consequences for political dynamics jefferson's. >> do we have time for one more? >> what is your opinion of the statement? we fought long and hard for integration but i tell you i have come on a realization that really troubles me. it is a quote from something.

martin luther king to harry belafonte. this is a great sort of last question and one that i am not totally sure we can address but do you consider the abuse of children by adults to be a violation of child civil-rights? >> sure. but those are not the kind of civil-rights we are talking about. >> that is on another -- on another -- >> the definition of civil rights can be quite broad and doesn't include that. >> this will be the last question. what advice would you have for individuals to exercise their power or positions in society on a day to day basis despite the more subtle forms of violence? an individual moral -- what can people do to make a difference?

>> i would say focus on the local issues that are closest to you and look for ways subtle biases may be affecting the decision of the institutions you are part of and the difficult part with this is very often the practices that are vulnerable to bias or give rise to bias are considered justified for other reasons. in the walmart case, letting individual managers have broad discretion to make decisions based on objective criteria, that might be a good business strategy. a good way for business to conduct its affairs but it is also one that is likely to be vulnerable to buy as. on the basis of conflict are you willing to do what it takes to route bias out of your institution even at some cost? even when there may be good perfectly neutral reasons to go

on and do what you're doing now? most institutions face these questions where there are good institutional reasons not to try to address the problem and there may be cost or upheaval in trying to address those questions but being willing to do that to take a hard look at your own institution, your own practices and ask whether they may be contributing to social injustice is what people do on a day-to-day basis. >> one thing related to that, when i was reading through your book, where individuals might fight for entitlement. a legitimate thing that was tied to that was individual and small and that is problematic. to choose their battle. to make sure it is something that is a larger issue.

we talked about oprah winfrey. i was thinking she was denied entry but the store was closed. what about the story that opened? would that be a good case that she should have fought but is it getting into stores the larger issue right now that are really serious? reading a book really opens up a lot of questions. one thing you should do is buy the book and read it because it makes you think about a lot of things you may already have opinions on and opens up the kinds of ways that you might connect as an individual. thank you so much for coming tonight. [applause] >> for more information visit the author's website,

richardtford.4.edu. >> you written about obama. a very admiring book. the administration has disagreed. some comments about you. what is it like to be a political firefight? not used to being in the middle of it. what do you think of what is happening? >> it is a little change. i have been covering the obamas for five years. it started with the long run. it is about trying to capture the lives of the candidates. especially because candidates are so restrictive now. so hard to get access. one way we learn about them is through their biographies. we go deeply into their paths and characters and we look at the whole thing. this is an outgrowth of those stories i have been doing for years and years. the goal of this book was to

really write about what i call the big change. i was covering barack and michele obama and they really were barack and michele. the extraordinary scene i was watching happening was watching two regular people become president and first lady of the united states. wasn't a process that happened on inauguration day. when somebody takes an oath. is accused learning curve made more dramatic in the obama story because of their -- national political life and also because of the fact that there the first african-american president and first lady. we see a couple things happening in this book. we see two people learning to take their partnership which used to be this private thing and turn it into a white house partnership. a really tough landing initially in the white house. the third thing the book is

about is the most fascinating thing that i find about barack obama which is his problem with politics. after all these years i can't get over the fact that the top politician in the country has a complicated relationship with the business that he is in. i worked on this book for two years. white house cooperated. i have been working with all these folks for years. lots of people in the obama inner circle gave interviews. they knew what they were getting into. never misrepresents what i was doing and fact checked the book for publication and we published an excerpt in the times on saturday and two really interesting things happened. the first thing is people started discussing the book without having read the thing. that never happened to me before

because -- the other thing is the white house started pushing back in interesting ways. they haven't really challenged the reporting in the book. haven't gotten a phone call from david axelrod say you got all wrong. it is on the record close in the book. something that really surprised me happened yesterday which was michele obama went on tv and she said i am really tired of depictions of myself as an angry black woman and she also protested portrayals of her fighting directly with rahm emanuel. that was fascinating to me because the book definitely does not portray her in a stereotypical way and high, very clear dimension of the clashes between her and rahm emanuel were philosophical in nature. maybe i shouldn't undercut my own reporting and talk about their differences in an approach

to political life but that is what they were. she did acknowledge she didn't read the books are have to imagine that she is responding may be to the coverage of the book instead of the book itself. part of the reason i am excited to be here is to talk about the actual stain with you and with all of you. >> host: let's go to the political thing because that is one of the themes running through the book. when the roosevelt went into politics everyone around him said you don't want to do politics. that is beneath people like us. is that sort of the attitude -- what is it about politics -- >> guest: part of the reason their qualms are important and not to be dismissed is there similar to be called a lot of us have about politics. we all see what is wrong with a political system. what is ugly about it, whether it can really address -- and what not.

this is one of the many things about obama that was a big asset in the campaign that ends of being inhibiting in the presidency time and time again in my reporting. a simple way and complicated way. i found he had trouble acting like a politician. a small store in the book is about the first super bowl party in the white house and he is kind to everybody and greets everybody but doesn't want to watch the room. he has a principled objection. doesn't want to be the guy spending the entire super bowl schmoozing and he wants to still hang on to a normal life in the presidency. in my reporting i just watch the idea get tested again and again. >> there is another story in the book where he is having dinner every night at 6:30 meaning he can't schmooze with washington power brokers and that is an

admirable thing. is that a constant theme of preserving domestic life? >> guest: wanting to preserve domestic life. barack obama gets to washington, not only does he have not so much managerial or executive or national security or economic experience, but he is also never lived in the same house as his family full time and that house is the white house which is not in any way, shape or form like a normal life. the 6:30 will -- she is obviously willing to miss dinner with his family for important situations and willing to miss the two nights a week. i be fine in my reporting that the obamas are constantly seeking ways to limits and protect themselves from political life. >> host: why do you fake he ran?

>> guest: i think it was a rushed decision and i think it was a hard decision. his aides say that the summer of 2006 he was really this missive of it and it was only -- the began to test the waters than but when you think about their decisionmaking process only one from a summer of 2006 through the fall and what people kept telling him was your time is now. if you miss this window of opportunity may never get it again and part of the drama of the situation is michele obama is initially very opposed in part because of family issues but in part because she is wary about a tax -- she thinks a couple years may benefit him and with the chief of staff said is how the decision weighed on her. i find her situation at the time

so dramatic because of the way people describe it is she thought her husband would be an exceptional president and yet she wasn't really sure it was the best thing for her family so how do you choose what might be good for the country and what might be good for you? >> mitch daniels did run for president. his wife had veto power. do they have this in a discussion? >> guest: the president and first lady talked about it. the physical white house is almost a character in the book. i spend a lot of time describing what it is actually like to live there and what structure is like an old restrictions that come with that life. i will admit that that is fun to report on and read and there is a little bit of exploratory pleasure in getting inside the house but there are also two very substantive things about

it. that to me is the argument of the book which is the consignment and isolation of the presidency has two really important effects on our system. one is it limits the number of people who are willing to run for office along with all the other factors. but the number of people who are willing to go for a presidential campaign and live this incredibly restrictive life is pretty solid and the other thing is we consistently sees these presidents get cut off in the white house and they all say it won't happen to them and it happens to all of them. >> host: michel obama is generally the youngest person to have served as first lady since the sexual revolution. did she because of the generation she is from have a more difficult time than other first ladies being second fiddle? >> guest: it is funny because she is such a pupil of hillary

clinton in that way. in my reporting i found again and again that she and everybody else in the white house had one eye on hillary clinton's situation and also the attacks she went through in the 2008 campaign were really pretty painful for her and everybody around her to be that new to public life and watch herself caricatured that way to is really hard. the twist to it is what her aides talked about was the traditional nature of first lady was so confining at first and protecting her a little bit because political life is so scattered and so difficult that it is another way of limiting. another way of saying i don't do policy. i don't have to be