>> good evening everyone. i am dan atkinson the director of -- university of san diego california extension and it's my pleasure to welcome you here for the opening event in our

2011/2012 series of forums. i want to begin by thanking the narrow sciences institute. they are very gracious hosts for this series and provided the use of this beautiful hall to us and other groups at no fee so he we tangled them for that. also i want to mention the la jolla -- he provides media sponsorship for this series and as you have all noticed tonight we have two film crews here to document the program. as is their custom we have ucs g. filming and they will be filming the event for teacher broadcast broadcasts and broadcast and web streaming and tonight we are pleased to welcome a crew from c-span's booktv and they will be filming this for broadcast on c-span. our program tonight will be an intergroup format and will be followed by 15 to 20 minutes for questions from the audience and

we will be taking your questions in written form on the index cards that were passed out as you came in. our interviewer, dr. jennifer bergen will select the questions and read them for mr. ford's response. been at the conclusion of the question and answer period we will have a book signing and the book signing table is here at the foot of the stage to my left. as you have probably noticed mr. ford's book is available for purchase at the entrance of the auditorium. finally please note no video recording, audio recording or photography is permitted during two nights event and please also take a moment to turn off phones and other electronic devices. it is my pleasure now to introduce jennifer bergen who will introduce tonight's speaker. dr. bergen is a visiting scholar at the university of california san diego and she has also taught at the university of san diego and at harvard university

where she earned her ph.d. in english and american literature. she is active as an author and editor in a wide variety of genre's end is also a producer of independent films. her latest book titled call and response, the key debates and african-american studies, was co-edited with henry louis gates jr. and published in 2010. please join me now and welcoming dr. bergen. [applause] >> thank you. it is my pleasure to welcome richard thompson to the foreign. he is that george diaz professor of law at stanford law school and is a regular contributor to slate and has printed for numerous newspapers including "the new york times" and "washington post." his first book, racial culture, published in 2005 critiques racial identity politics including multiculturalism while

also strongly arguing for racial justice. in his second book, the race card, published in 2008 in selected as a "new york times" notable book professor ford argues that ubiquitous claims of discrimination or playing the race card are extracting attention away from racial injustice. he concludes that we need to quote began by looking at racial injustice as a social problem to be solved collectively rather than discrete wrongs perpetuated by bad people. this year he has two books coming out. universal rights down to earth which analyzes human rights struggles around the world and argues for the need to shift to the universal principles and engage locally with local institutions, laws and social relationships in order to bring about meaningful change and "right gone wrong" how law corrupts the struggle for

equality that we are focusing on today. and which is called a crisp analysis of our civil rights laws and a prescription for how to move beyond that. i work on african-american history as dan said and sedin recently reviewed the history of african-american debate with henry louis in our book, called and response in from my wrist perspective one of the -- his ability to pull back and look at long-running debate from a fresh vantage point. this is particularly important in our time of polarized politics when so many debates are reduced to little more than alternating talking points. and while he grapples with conservatives and liberal ideas he maintains an eye on the greater social good. he also has a strong business history which comes clear in his discussions of the powerful and important role that civil rights legislation has played in eliminating legal discrimination in america and also in his

critique the cases that have moved us away from the historical legislation at the roots of the laminating group discrimination. many of you have seen the senate review of "right gone wrong" in yesterday's "new york times." jeff rosen writes ford should not -- offers a middle-of-the-road critique of civil rights law. his book is sharp and surprising and caps the discrimination debate at clarifying new light. will you join me in welcoming richard thompson ford. [applause] in "the new york times" review of your last book, the race card, orlando patterson praised her work writing, the end result is a vigorous and long overdue shakeup of the nations failed discourse on race.

in this new book, is it motivated by the ideas being think need needs shaking up? >> in a sense, yes. i want to attack the idea that every social injustice is a civil rights issue and they think since the 1960s in particular there is a very powerful movement almost exclusively in terms of civil rights. the result has been fed a wide range of disparate issues with different causes that are in many ways incommensurable are shoehorned into a single approach, an approach that tends to focus on bias, on discrimination as the central evil, and i think that is bad and another consequence has been an over reliance on courts and legal as an akin is -- mechanism

and lack of attention to other forms everything from public persuasion changing hearts and minds and also the legislative process, the popular branches of government. and so, the result has been a narrowing of imagination about how to think about social injustice and a narrowing of imagination and thinking about potential solutions and those are the kinds of ideas that i do think our ideas that are important and play an important role but have been kind of occupied or crowded out by other ways of thinking. >> how interesting. that ties into something you write about in the race card, something called racism without racist. can you talk about that little bit? >> absolutely. the idea of racism without braces as i see it is most of

the social injustices particularly in the area of race but also many other areas addressed by civil rights type legislation don't involve races or they don't prove bigots and racists and bias animus. instead what we have a problem that is much more complex in nature that are the result of the legacy of past discriminatory practices but perhaps not contemporary racists and bigots cases in which there is bigotry it's very difficult to detect. in some cases it may be unconscious. in cases where their range of other social institution of day-to-day practices that may since the innocent or at least dennison in terms of intent, in terms of the mental state of people engaging in those practices but nevertheless perpetuate injustices and it's this kind of second-generation

of racial injustice and social injustice that we most desperately call for a new approach. >> gives us this is the -- specific example on something we need a different approach to confront. >> the high incarceration rates of african-american men. there is a great deal of data about this. to my mind it is one of the most severe remaining legacies of america's long, sad history of overt racial discrimination and yet, now i don't want to suggest that there are no racist beliefs and no racist prosecutors. there certainly are, but the disparity can't be explained by old-school jim crow digga tree. instead you have a collection of

factors including neighborhood segregation such that racial minority groups particularly african-americans are more likely to reside in neighborhoods where crime rates are high in. they are more likely therefore to get caught up in crime and particularly the king kind of conspicuous crimes that attract police attention. you have the problem of economically deprived neighborhoods, neighborhoods and which in which in some cases be gray market which is already teetering on the edge of criminality is one of the main sources of income for many people so you have a hold, the isolation of the underclass such that they don't have access to job opportunities. they don't have access to good role models. all of these factors that are legacy of past discrimination but for the most part not the result of ongoing bigotry and ongoing overt discrimination. these are resulting in high incarceration rates for young black men so you have a

collection of social injustices but the attempt to address them by trying to find the big it is not going to produce results. >> right. most of it can't be explained by bigotry but some of them can. you are suggesting a two-pronged approach where civil rights laws for court cases that may not apply like racial profiling or corrupt police then for larger issues like for policy or other kinds of solutions? >> yes, i am certainly not suggesting we abandon the civil rights approach. there continue to be instances of overt discrimination and covert discrimination that we can detect and can discover and civil rights laws are important and correcting those forms of discrimination but the attempt to shoehorn in the entire problem into that relatively narrow approach has been

unsuccessful and in many cases, we find that is either very difficult, it's difficult to prove discrimination and is controversial whether discrimination is the main cause of the problem even in something like racial profiling. the fact that there is a disparity in the number of people for instance stop by police or arrested by police in terms of race does not in and of itself prove that the police have acted with racially discriminatory bias. it may be that again because crime rates are higher in neighborhoods in 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 an exclusion of the civil rights approach but as a supplement. >> you open this new book with a case of the jena six. can you talk about this case and

why it has sets up some of these arguments for what is gone ron? >> the jena six is an example of a case that got a lot of know to write a because it drew attention to a real problem but it turned out not to be a great example of the broader social problem. the broader problem is again the high incarceration rates of young black men, problem in the criminal justice system, racial inequities in disparities. this specific case involves six young black men and a small town in the south who were arrested for an attack, an assault. one in particular was charged initially with attempted murder. obviously gross overreaching on the part of the prosecutor, huge overcharge but that charge was subsequently reduced. he was also tried as an adult in that conviction was reversed on appeal but 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 at jena that was described as the white tree were only white students could sit and when a student asked whether he could sit under the white tree the next day there was a news hanging from the tree. not the next day but later, there was a news. the racial tensions began to run high and from the outside like a little redneck town that was persecuting the six young men. as it turned out, the facts on closer examination were somewhat more ambiguous. first of all the assault was a real assault. it was six athletes being beat one young man senseless until he was unconscious. and was taken to the hospital. so some criminal prosecution was appropriate. the incidents that were seen as obvious incidences of racial bigotry were on further examination more ambiguous. wasn't clear that the white tree was really restricted to white

students. later peoples that in fact all students of all races sat under the tree. so the point is that as the facts became more ambiguous it looks less and less that the case of justice and more like a complicated case that involved rossi tutorial overzealousness and racial tensions in which all sides bore some plane etc.. >> one of the categories of "right gone wrong" are these confiscated ambiguous stories where people try to fit into a narrow possibly old-fashioned sort of condition of one right side and one wrong side. it's much more complicated than that. >> that's right. but that doesn't mean there is not an injustice. >> absolutely. there other kinds of categories you talk about, for example some of the most contentious issues you discuss have to do with education. can you talk about for example

your discussion of accommodations in the public schools like adhd? >> yes. so the story here is we begin with, because of the way legal analysis often works we operate by analogy so we begin with the case where civil rights type solutions are a relatively good fit and we move through cases where they were pretty bad fit. so in the case of disabilities the case where there is a pretty good fit involve severe disabilities that are conspicuous, things like someone who is in a wheelchair, someone who is legally blind and in those cases it is quite clear throughout american history there has been overt bias and discrimination. people are squeamish -- that they discriminated in a way that is analogous to the types of jim crow style discrimination that people of color face, the types

of discrimination that women have faced and workforces and public accommodations. but we move from that too to in the public schools, if you don't accommodate someone with a disability you are discriminating against them. again you can see if you look at someone who is in a wheelchair, refused to put in a ramp in order to help the person with a wheelchair gain access to the building but you might say maybe the reason he refuses because you are biased against people in wheelchairs and you don't want them around. we move into cases like adhd on the other end of the spectrum, a mild disability that in many cases experts find hard to distinguish from what you might call garden-variety wandering mind. so then, in a milder cases the experts are in agreement about that it 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 a timed exam or in in the case of hyperactivity, a community from normal school discipline perhaps in some cases, one-on-one extra tutoring. it may be that will help that student but the question is whether in the context of scarce resources at the same types of intervention would be just as usual for the student with the garden-variety wandering mind, the one that doesn't have a diagnosis whether it is a matter of civil rights to say the one student is entitled to extra resources from a cash-strapped school and the other student is stuck with in some cases quite an adequate education that most kids get. my claim is that we need to look to improving the educational experience for everybody and that may well mean making quite significant changes in the curriculum but looking that is a

question of individual rights does not make sense and produces perverse results and distributive inequities that are hard to defend. >> it's an interesting question because as a parent with children in the public schools, you also want your children's potential to be maximized so from a social justice perspective i can totally see that you would say -- i'm thinking of example say that is more extreme. if you have those premade babies in the hospital that are a million dollars so from an outside perspective you say oh, scarce health care resources, we can put them all -- but if you are the parent, 2 million, 3 million you are in a different sort of position so it seems like i really like you to open up the issue in your book where you make people think about sort of what are these larger moral issues but at the same time they are balancing individuals wanting the best for their children.

it's an interesting case. >> i don't believe the parents of those children for pushing as hard as they can to get every thing for their kids. but the question is a matter of public policy is whether it 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 where in many ways the two individuals are similarly situated because of course the kid with the garden-variety wandering mind, they have parents too and those parents want to maximize their kids education but they are stuck with what is left? >> right, right or they're not able to navigate the system as well. city or they are not able to navigate the system as well so then you bring in the inequity that involves the resources, the wealth in the savviness of the parents so drawing on public resources you have a situation which there is an almost built-in bias in favor of the

wealthy, the powerful as opposed to those without resources and without sophistication. >> so interesting. many of the examples you cite in "right gone wrong" are of 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 in the in the end the right have hijacked civil rights for personal advantage. can you talk about some of the more political ones of these issues whether it's something on the left or something on the right? >> beasher although it to say sometimes it can be hard to tell the left in the right apart in some of these debates but not always. so i will give an example and then you can decide whether you think it is the left or the right. so, both in federal law and in state law for cases i'm about to talk about our under state civil rights laws.

extremely important in making sure that women have access to the workplace and women have access on equal footing to public accommodations. places like restaurants and bars and what have you. now these laws have been used by in order to overturn ladies night at local bars and restaurants. of california's one of the states where ladies night is a violation of civil rights laws. it's also chewing many other american states and if that one person overturns a mother's day promotion on the basis that it was sex discrimination they didn't win that suit but the point is that this was a plausible lawsuit to a lot of people because taking an extreme view of the prohibition against sex discrimination rather than look at it according to its purposes and according to a sensible public policy purpose which is to make sure women have equal access to the market and equal access to public institutions.

we have taken a kind of abstract view that would also sweep ladies night under the same prohibition. that doesn't make sense and whether that is left or right i'm not sure. >> that's complicated. >> is complicated. some feminists would argue equality means equality no matter what. >> you could argue that, i really found myself thinking about ladies night he coasts, they know it seems so funny but the funniest thing about it is i was reading through it and i thought wait a minute, if women are getting special treatment there and if it's economic, women are paid less and maybe if we get rid of these kinds of customs maybe that would be a good kind of idea so i'm thinking this and that i'm reading that it's actually been who are suing to get the discounts. so i say oh come on. so i was going back and forth when i was reading howell was playing out in the courts.

but that seems like it's a little bit more complicated. it's not a man wanting his mother's day bag. it could be that these things have a higher price and we don't know how to get rid of women getting paid less. we can talk about that and a direct attempt now about the walmart class-action suit. to lead ladies live for a little bit but it seems like a if we got rid of those kinds of things, the special treatment of women, we could then see what happens. maybe they wouldn't be the sense that they could be paid less because they are going to be treated all the time. >> i have my doubts that cause-and-effect would work in that way. [laughter] but seriously, it's important, if we keep our eye on the appropriate goal, i suspect that we would have better luck both in dealing with the wage gap between men and women while leaving these kind of trivial matters or perverse suits like ladies nights to decide.

at least he wouldn't be wasting resources litigating cases that don't amount to much but at the same time i think it's important to zero in on the fact that when we are talking about social inequity, we in this case are talking about discriminatory treatment against women and the idea that a guy that wants a free drink at ladies night -- >> no, not the man. i am with you there. i was just saying the larger sort of custom. but let's talk about the class-action suit that walmart, that was against walmart, a more direct intent to use the law. this shows how much these issues are in play in that i first received a copy, the preview copy of "right gone wrong" and in it says we will see, so to

this open possibility and by the time the actual book came out, it had been dismasted -- dismissed as a class-action lawsuit. >> the walmart case was a very interesting and important piece of litigation. most of the suit involves statistical evidence or for most of the evidence that the plaintiffs presented, the statistical evidence was quite compelling that there was a pattern of discrimination on the basis of sex that walmart such the women were not getting anything close to the number of a promotions one would expect in an even-handed employer to have. walmart drew its managers mainly from its wage, hourly wage employees and although the hourly wage employees were something like, want to say 75% women, by the time you got to upper management the number of female managers was more like 10%.

the problem in the walmart litigation was that it was hard to find, it was impossible to find a policy, a single policy on the part of walmart as a corporate entity and the national management that was responsible for all of these various instances of sex discrimination. instead it was individual managers of individual stores, so what joined these cases together? the supreme court decided nothing joined them except the women, except the fact that the plaintiffs were women in that lawsuit so they dismissed a class-action. the difficulty this raises is it is going to be very difficult to many of these cases for the individual women to prove their case individually because the statistical evidence might show that a lot of women were discriminated against but it doesn't show that you are one of them. ..

>> going back to educational issues, affirmative action which was originally intended to be about the big picture, where are we now on that? >> [laughter] >> that is a very big question. >> host: from the civil rights standpoint? >> guest: affirmative action is legally acceptable and a fairly narrow range of circumstances but what we have seen is the legal debate, it has done several interesting things. number one of legal principles that were understood to be in support of things like integration have now been turned against

policy that is designed to integrate schools and what have you for affirmative action policies. they began on a narrow idea that it nearly this describes affirmative action and that is an instance of the kind of thinking that i am describing. does that mean affirmative action should not be controversial but the precise way the law has dealt with with these most important questions rather than eliminate them. we don't make much of a decision now with the popular debate as a result of the legal debate. we don't make much of the state's affirmative-action or higher education or public contracts these are very a different context brought to bear and highly

plausible that they favored one and oppose another but they are focused relatively narrow on the issue of affirmative action. one other thing that has happened as a result with the way the lot is dealt is much of the debate around if we should have affirmative-action and in particular the higher education no context has been truncated as a result of legal opinions that says there is basically only one rationale that is acceptable for higher education which is diversity. so the diversity and almost all described as the appropriate rationale for affirmative action with a narrowing and precisely the place to have a robust debate, universities now have to say it is only diversity that is why we do

this proposal another of reasons to remedy the societal discrimination more ruled out by the supreme court by the most part and i am oversimplifying a tiny bit. the results has been a constructive debate about something we need to have a robust debate about. the state of affirmative-action the popular conversation is an example of rights gone wrong >> host: the issue that the legislation was too ambiguous or open and did so the courts depend move or interpreting its could you go back to make different legislation that is more specific? would that remedy? >> with the affirmative-action context

it is not legislation but the constitutional principle. the equal protection clause is written at a very high level of generality and it is almost inevitable that the courts will have to interpret it. but what i am suggesting this sites that have have been unfortunate that it narrows the debate we can have about the important social crisis slim become much of it has to do with the effort on the part of conservatives to have more conservative judges on all levels? >> that is part of the story. but not the whole story. i say a few things about that. number one, in the 1960's, liberals had an idea and many still do that the

courts are naturally the vanguard of social justice and will be the last resort in the face of a hostile confrontation of political practices. that has not been historic in many ways the progressive jurisprudence of the warren court was historical for a very long period of time they had occupied the role and one could see the zero later court the roberts court. and at most, they are bag being the political process. to the extent because politicians ultimately a point* to the federal judge. they'll lag eighth political process but not escaped from

it and it is important to note. but also it is not just the conservative effort to take over the judiciary which is a natural part six of the political process which anybody in power tries to do but the narrowing of ideas is the reliance on the courts or individual rights that left us without other options when that is what we want to focus on in the book. >> host: the other options of policy? >> changing hearts and minds. the whole new way of thinking about a question primarily in terms of individual and legal entitlements to think of a broad social policy may not involve legal entitlements are individual rights adderall.

>> host: is there any argument some of these should be reformed or do we just move line for other things? >> some should be reformed. i could have a long list of potential reform proposals. [laughter] that would take a variety. but yes. civil-rights laws could be reformed to address those more repressing forms but some of those are back to the future because they were advance in the '70s either rejected or narrowed with the judicial opinion. but many involved do approach that may trade-off for lack of a better term of individual entitlements of social justice let me give one example. my back to wal-mart comment instead of the focus on

individual entitlements we had a focus on the laws that try to change the day-to-day practices. we know those that are vulnerable to bias now businesses are not required but they could be incurred in we are encouraging them if you adopt practice is known to reduce by as you could join some immunity from individual lawsuits. we have greater collective justice for those who could not prove their lawsuit against wal-mart would be better off if colmar were encouraged to have practices less likely to buy as. and in order to encourage them to do that they could enjoy the civil-rights case. that is on possible i.d.'s. >> host: it is interesting on one hand to address a

more complicated problems to be at we're also in the middle or in the beginning and middle of the at gay-rights civil rights legislation. can you talk about the defense of marriage act had you see this play into these issues that we talk about? >> one thing to note is the gay-rights struggle is part of social injustice the bigotry over discrimination, that has not gone away with minorities and women but it is a smaller part of the problem. -- of louis -- lesbians it is the largest part of a problem. as an example of that, the civil-rights approach is

appropriate and remarkably effective. the civil-rights movement will remarkably be effective from over discrimination much more effective than many people expect it. particularly in the area of public accommodation the laws that fell very quickly and much less than people thought and for the first generation bias the conventional civil-rights model is a good thing. that is where we are with those of the issues that are currently facing the gay-rights struggle. they could be second generation and issues also right now the focus is on the form of the overt bias. >> host: it ties into your book that the senate judiciary committee just repealed but they don't think that they can pass

that to the general senate. been no that they can't sew up the same time we have others coming to the judiciary system. how do see that two different process and how they can help? which would be more effective? >> a complex question but on the one hand litigation could inspire the legislative change and so for instance a conventional way to think about brown v. board of education the civil-rights act of 1964 that brown sparked the change to make fat act possible but it is important to note that civil-rights act was necessary to effectuate brown, a very little happened in those years between brown and the civil-rights act of 19642 tide funding for syria's

efforts of desegregation. also important to note to that achieved through legislation in the minds of many had greater legitimacy than those achieved in the court. when social change is achieved through the courts, the argument is always available for the a legitimate intervention for the political process. the will of the people when it is achieved through legislation that is not available and as we see already, gay-rights advocates thinking hard of the trade-off and what is better to win in the way of massachusetts through litigation or the way they did in new york through legislation and in new york there are doing our victory has greater legitimacy coming to the political

process. >> host: right. so interesting. knu talk about class division and how these might be affecting civil-rights ideas and issues? >> absolutely. one of the most important and overlooked problems in thinking of contemporary civil-rights. increasingly, the division of up for class and middle-class middle americans has grown so stark that it is fair to say the kind of injustices that the relative the privilege have our different not just from degree but from those that the underclass face. as a result those civil rights laws that want them to gather -- together both misdiagnose a problem but the kinds of regional

justices are much more likely to be subtle, take the form social snubs, invisible impediments to career advancement. but with the problems of the underclass largely the result of isolation. poverty poor public service and high crime neighborhoods. increasingly we need different solutions and fixing the problem for the underclass requires investment in the under class community better schools in reform to the criminal justice system for prosecutorial misconduct and changes to drug laws that are responsible for most of the disparity of incarceration for on the other hand, the changes to address the problems that

those face better like the wal-mart context. there is very different problems it is not all the usable to lump them together into the category of discrimination. >> host: we will have to close unfortunately it is such a wonderful conversation. i was thinking when i was reading your book from the martin luther king's letter when he talks about we're caught in the inescapable network of mutuality, of whatever affects one directly affects us all indirectly. and your work is so cognizant at these levels for the individual to be a part of the larger whole and it is such an important conversation your emulating and i think you have written this book thank you for joining us.

[applause] >> host: would you tell us your opinion regarding the judicial opinions of clarence thomas? [laughter] i will tell you a little bit.

clarence thomas opinions i can only talk about the narrow range there are so many of his jurists prudence on a number of levels but particularly those involving the strong who libertarians of malcolm x and the same opinion that very often, for instance, with the affirmative-action cases to say it is insulting someone would think the only way blacks could get an equal education is to be in the same room with whites. almost pulled directly broke the same time one of the most strident free-market conservatives on the course, that's the did some things that characterizes

most of the clarence thomas discussion about race. it will not surprise you to hear of the jurisprudence of that race and i don't agree with the consistent thought it is impossible to tell the difference between the nine discrimination they're all forms of racial classification and should be treated with equal contempt. the view that i plush throughout the book is possible to tell the difference between the nine forms and the jobs of judges to evaluate these conflicts in the context in anyone's way. they are called judges for a reason they aren't to make judgment. that maybe hard but that is why repay them. if it were as simple as the people who would finance the simple idea then we could have the computer doing a

good job that is my strong this point* of disagreement with clarence thomas although there are others. [laughter] >> host: all fares argue racial discrimination is also severely need the strongest laws. -- other authors say we should determine affirmative-action what did your stance? i'm sorry, i can i get some help? [laughter] how can we look? is there an argument that we

need stronger laws? >> guest: we need stronger laws but also civil-rights are doing not enough and too much at the same time. again with the subtle forms of bias the system reforms we need more but they may not take the form and probably wouldn't those of our conventionally understood but on the other hand,, when the law is applied indiscriminately comment then sometimes it is too much and in many cases as my book is designed to illustrate we do need to say that prohibits ladies' night. it is both it is the end type of problem which is a vexing thinkpad about the contemporary moment.

>> host: this is a curveball comment on the henry s. storey. is that a civil-rights issue? >> that is a curve ball i don't know if you had a chance to think about that. >> guest: i am aware of the controversy. her resonates because in so many instances, historical a african-americans have been exploited to have their contributions fake and without getting it acknowledgement or credits of there is a sense it is the epitome of that history that includes everything from artistic contribution to the labor and that is why the book resonates. so much.

yes, it is a civil-rights issue. but it does fall into the category of the issue that does not directly involve discrimination and is said to involve the social structure that a class of people are subject more vulnerable to exploitation of the variety. >> host: a wonderful book. here is another hard one. please tell taka he would change hearts and minds. >> guest: the 1.2 wanted to advance with the book is to think about the social justice struggle from the wide range of perspectives that might not involve individual entitlements or things like that so changing hearts and minds comes into

that category that right now in many ways advocates for social justice using our hearts and minds perceived into the civil rights narrative so you start off with a narrative and it is a bigoted town. it is the perfect instance but it is ambiguous and a lot of people have legitimate objections to the idea is straightforward civil-rights the you are preaching to the choir. so that says to me a consistent pattern with many are much of the civil-rights agitation of today that we lost the battle to win

hearts and minds of those. but how to fix that is a complicated question because so many social injustices are not susceptible to a dramatic narrative are susceptible to the narrative of the individual reno has done wrong but instead they are complicated. through statistics and analogies that lead people to flawlessly. that can is the challenge. i don't have a straightforward answer but i do believe that is a challenge to make them more hour to make them come alive to be real without going through the bit to the individual that is a hard narrative to maintain. >> host: have the divide

and conquer strategy is by the economic elite? darby dunn? [laughter] that i thought that was my time call. are the divide and conquer strategy for the economic elite perpetuated climate for racial characteristics and identification to take on exaggerated her -- importance with the general population? >> guest: a very interesting question. i am not sure about the strategy of the elites but i would say that there are many instances in which civil rights policies have played out and have exacerbated the division between the working class. the example of segregation and busing. one of the things that happened was relatively early on, it was decided by the supreme court that

busing could not reach the suburban school districts unless they could be found to have been engaged with discrimination involving the traded could not be desegregated within the city because by the time the case got to the federal court it was 85 percent black and the courts held you could not reach the super been districts that could contribute to meaningful desegregation. out one result is the place is for the wealthy live to were and the metropolitan areas were exempt from desegregation. it was the inner cities, the old cities to be engaged where the busing have been and intensified those effects but also made it appear that desegregation

and busing were reserved for the less well off. so that played a role and resistance to desegregation so the story of the resistance of the desegregation was strongest was the story of racial bigotry but also resentment against the elite and the feeling the white working-class was abandoned by the way to beach. so there are instances that kind of antagonism has been the result may be the unintended result perhaps of the application of civil-rights with poisonous consequences for political dynamics ever since. >> host: what is your

opinion of the statement, we fought long and hard for immigration. but i tell you harry i have come on the realization that really troubles me. martin luther king to harry belafonte. i don't understand the question i have a great last question that i have one i am not sure that you can address but what about the child civil-rights? >> guest: those are not this civil-rights questions restocking about. >> host: that's is the definition of civil rights could be broad but that is not the subject. >> host: this is the last question. what would you have for

individuals to exercise their power or position in society on a day-to-day basis despite the more subtle forms? what the people do who want to make a difference? >> i would say focus on the local issues that are closest to you and look for the ways the subtle biases could affect the institutions that you are a part of and the difficult part is very often the practices that are vulnerable to buy as or give rise there also justified for other reasons. and wal-mart, scott store managers have broad discussions to make decisions of criteria that might be a perfectly good strategy