.. >> guest: those are the decisions that drive our criminal justice system. most think of police officers as being sort of the first people who introduce people to the criminal justice system, and for the most part, that's true. police officers have a lot of discretion on who they stop in the street and ultimately, who they arrest, but they only bring individuals to the courthouse door. it is the prosecutor who has the

power to firmly entrinch individuals in the system or not because once a police officer brings one to the court, to the prosecutor, the prosecutor then is the person who decides whether that individual will be charged with a crime and what those charges will be, even if there is probably cause to believe a person committed a crime, even if that prosecutor believes that he or she has proof beyond a reasonable doubt and can prove that person's guilt. at trial, they are not required to charge that person. they can decide at that point to simply drop the charges, or they can decide to go forward, and they have a lot of discretion in deciding what to charge that individual with, and there they are accountable to no one but themselves. they don't have to justify, bring charges. they don't have to justify dropping charges, and there's a lot of discretion in what they do, so, for example, if a police

officer arrests an individual for possession of cocaine, a large amount of cocaine in their possession, two kilos, with that amount of cocaine, a prosecutor could charge an individual with possession with intent to distribute cocaine, which is a felony offense that carries a lot of time in prison and possibly even a mandatory minimal period of time in prison that the person has to serve. they could charge that, but just because they have the evidence to charge that, they don't have to -- they can decide, well, i'm just going to charge the person with simple possession, a misdemeanor that carries a year in prison at most and possibly probation. that's a lot of power to put in the hands of one person, and the concern i have is that when that discretion in power is not used in an equitable and fair way, when there are individuals similarly situated individuals, similarly situated in terms of what their alleged to have done, what their criminal history is,

and prosecutors treat one with a certain favoritism and another they don't, then that's when you get unfairness in our system, and prosecutors, unlike any other official in our system, they are not as accountable in my view to the public that they serve. police officers do what they do in public space, we see what they do. judges are in a courtroom when they do what they do. prosecutors make these charging decisions and plea bargaining decisions that they make behind closed doors, and it's very difficult, in my view, for the public to hold them accountable if they do the functions in ways that produce inequities in our system or in ways that produce unfairness, racial disperties and so on, and so that is my concern about prosecutors. we need prosecutors in the system. they are important. they enforce the law. we need them to do it in a way

that's fair. we need to figure out how to hold them accountable because a lot of their actions can and do produce in justices in the system. >> host: professor davis, is there power institutionalized in law, or is it just developed over the years? >> guest: it's interesting. the idea -- prosecutors, a system of public prosecution started right around the time of jacksonian democracy with a view that we wanted to vote for people and hold them accountable, the whole idea of democracy is that the people choose the individuals to perform the functions, and so when we start to get the public prosecution -- because in the past, there was private individuals who were able to bring charges against other individuals and they would pay for it. that didn't last long. we ended up with a public prosecution system and ended up with elected prosecutors for the state and local system so all of

our states, except about four of them, have elected officials for their state and local prosecutors. our federal prosecutors are appointed, but state and local are elected officials, and that electoral process is supposed to be the way that we, the people, hold prosecutors accountable. the problem with the system is that because there's no transpaper situated -- transparency in the charges and plea bargaining functions, it's pretty hard for the electorats to hold them accountable. when they run on the state and local levels, they don't talk about the policies. i don't think people know what the terms mean. they speak in general temples. you know, i'm tough on crime. the opponent says, i'm tougher op crime, and that's what the public has to choose from without discussion about the most important functions that

they perform. that is my concern. >> host: would a defendant's lawyer not be allowed to be a part of that or hear the deliberations of the team? >> absolutely not. so, for example, i spoke about the charging function. it's hard to talk about that without also talking about plea bargaining. defendants are involved and defense attorneys have involved in the plea bargaining process, but not in a way that gives them very much say so, and i'll explain why. so i talked before about the charging function. well, very closely connectedded to that is plea bargaining. we have a system of justice where americans think there's all these trials going on in courtrooms and criminal courtrooms around the country watching law and gored, the television shows, and, well, the more trials going on in tv shows

than there are in real life. we don't have a lot of trials going on, but we have a lot of guilty pleas. about 95% of all criminal cases are resolved by way of a guilty plea, not a trial, and the way it worked is this. the prosecutor brings the charges, as i mentioned before. the prosecutor has a lot of discretion in deciding what to charge, and the example about the cocaine, for example, that prosecutor can charge a felony, but if they want, it can be a dismirren. there's overcharging where they pile on charges because it's very easy to bring a charge; right? all the prosecutor needs is probably cause to believe that the person committed the offense. that's more likely than not. that's a very low standards and far lower than what they have to prove if the case went to trial, which is, of course, proof beyond a reasonable doubt so prosecutors, some of them, bring a lot of charges even knowing some of them they won't be able to prove at the higher standard,

and they do that for the advantage in the plea bargaining process. if there are five charges, for example, five felonies, the prosecutor goes to the defense attorney says i'll allow your county to plead to one of the felonies if he pleads guilty to one, i'll dismiss the other four if he agrees to plead guilty rather than going to trial and exercising his right to a trial. >> host: a negotiation? >> guest: a noashting thing. they come back and say, well, what if he pleas to one misdemeanor rather than a felony? it's back and forth, ultimately, the prosecutor has the last word. the judge has nothing to do with it, can't step in and force a hand. it's up to the prosecutor. they don't have to make a plea offer if they don't want to. they hold all the cards in that situation even though they negotiate. they have the power there. that's what the defense attorney can do. now, that happened in many more

cases than not. we have far more plea system than we do trials. i don't think there's anything wrong with plea bargaining and it benefits all sides and the defendant, for example. if he's guilty of all five of those charges, and he's given an opportunity to have four of them dismissed and only please guilty to one, that's a better result for him than going to trial, risking going to trial and have a jury come back finding him guilty of all five. obviously, it's going to benefit him, and it benefits the government, the prosecutor because it saves the system a lot of time and money rather than going through a trial that's expensive, lasts for days, go into court, the guilty plea's over in 15 minutes and moves cases along. there's a lot of people in the plea bargaining system that benefit from that process. if it's fair -- if it's fair, it's not fair, for example, if the prosecutor makes a plea

bargain with the defendant, but doesn't tell the defendant all the evidence or doesn't reveal to the defend that there's evidence that would ten to show the defendant is not guilty. if the prosecutor suppresses that, doesn't turn over to the defense, then that's not fair. >> host: is that legal? >> guest: it is not legal. in fact, prosecutors have a constitutional obligation to turn over all evidence to the defense in a case called brady versus maryland. it's called brady material is what you'll hear it called. in fact, many people may remember the duke lacrosse case in north carolina where the prosecutor there had this evidence showing, in fact, the young man at the lacrosse team were not guilty because the dna, none was found on the materials, and he suppressed that and got disbarred in that case, which is in and of itself unusual because

frequently prosecutors don't turn over evidence and nothing happens to them, another thing i'd like to talk about. back to plea bargaining, when a person pleads guilty and they don't know whether they got a defense, if they are forced to plead guilty before the defense attorney had the opportunity to investigate the case, that frequently happens. the prosecutor comes in, you know, the day after the case has been brought and say to the defense attorney, okay, i'll let the guy plead guilty to one of the felonies, dpises the four, but take the pleas tomorrow. the defense attorney says, well, wait a minute, i have an obligation to invest gait the case ensuring the client do you want have a defense. too bad, the prosecutor will say, take the plea tomorrow or leave it. that happens a lot in our system. we have defense attorneys who are in a position where they can advise their client one way or another. they have to tell about the plea, of course, and leave it up to the client, but you can't do

the job as the defense attorney if you're not given time to investigate the case to see whether that deal is a good deal for the client any yay, and you can see some people under an incredible amount of pressure thinking, and we know of instances issue and there's a number of examples, public examples of individuals, who pled guilty, who were later found not guilty, but they were afraid to go to trail, facing all of these felonies with the mandatory, minimum sentences where if the justify comes back with convictions, there's no -- the judge has no discretion because they have to serve a mandatory 10, 15, 20 years, and given a deal, well, if you take the deal, you'll serve two, even if they are not guilty, they know they can't spend the rest of the life behind bars, they'll take it. that's not the criminal justice system we should have in these united states of america. we should have a fair system, and i feel that prosecutors, because of their power and their discretion and because of the

instances in which they engage in misconduct, and i'm not saying all prosecutors, absolutely not. we have good ethical prosecutors who do their job, but in my view, we have far too many who are not fulfilling obligations, who are exercising discretion in ways producing results that are not fair, and we really don't have a system for holding them accountable, and i think that's what the problem is. >> host: professor davis, what's your background in the courthouse, in the courtroom? >> guest: well, i was a public defender in the district of columbia for 12 years, started as a staff attorney, first remitting juveniles with crimes and represented adults from simple assault to first degree murder. i did that for 12 years, represented clientings for six years, then the deputy director and director of the office for the remaining six years, and

that's, in fact, when i became interested in the topic and when i became a professor, and that was the area of state, and in my experience, there, as a lawyer, i was surprised by how much power and how much discretion prosecutors had and how little accountability there was, and i saw individuals who were similarly situated treated differently, and i thought that that was unfair, and it seemed arbitrary, which is why i came up with the title for my book is that, you know, why is this person getting a good plea bargain, and this person not? why -- and, quite frankly, i'm not just talking about defendants. sometimes victims, some victims, their cases get far more attention than other victims, and i saw that oftentimes it seemed to break down along race and class lines. there are a number of racial disparities in the system. we know the class disparities. we know that people who are

wealthy tend to be treated more fairly in our system, whether they are a victim of a crime or a defendant. the same is true for race, and there's a lot of, you know, race and classes often difficult to tell whether we talk about race and class because african-americans and latinos are poor, and the poor are disproportionally black and brown people in the country, and i'm not saying that it's all the prosecutors' fault. it's a complicated issue. there's many reasons why that's the case. prosecutors definitely play a role. i'm not one to say prosecutors are intentionally discriminating based on class and race. i don't think that at all. i do think that there's a lot of unconscious or implicit bias going on when they make decisions just as all of us in america suffer from implicit bias, the stereotypes out there in the society, the belief we have that we're not conscious of that cause us to agent the way

we do. they are not immune from that. it's easy for a prosecutor to see the humanity in a defendant who looks like them, you know, that -- if there's a young kid, young white kid who's got his own private lawyer who comes, you know, well represented, comes in the as the prfort saying the kid's got a future, going to college, don't ruin his life because of the drug case, prosecutors have empathy. the prosecutor might say, maybe i did a little -- had a few youthful indiscretions myself, and if someone had mercy on me, i would have ended up -- so they can see the empathy there; right? they are more inclined to give the person a deal, not consciously, not consciously saying i'm going to helpous this young white kid, but they are going to see and empathize more with that person than with a poor black kid who doesn't have a future, maybe his lawyer is not able to get him in a drug

program where someone else could. i don't think it's an intention thal thing, but the i think the race neutral decisions prosecutors make have racial effects, and i think there's -- there has to be a way for us to get at that. i don't -- again, i think prosecutors, most of them, are well-meaninged public servants. >> host: most of them white? >> guest: most of the chief prosecutors in the country are white, no question about it. there was a study done some years ago that showed that the vast majority of da's, the individuals running the prosecutor's offices are white, and same is true in the federal system, but, quite frankly, you know, in my experience when i was in the district of columbia, there were quite a few african-american prosecutors and they often engaged in the same problematic decision making, so i'm not one to say that the

answer is that -- we needy versety in the offices for a variety of reasons. we absolutely need more. we needy versety, more latinos, more african-americans, more races and ethnicities and so forth because we needy versety, and those are all the reasons we needy -- need diversity. i don't think they will for that reason that they are going to act differently because i think there is a culture in certain prosecutor's offices. some get the conviction and get, you know, do what they need to do to get the conviction rather than think about what the supreme court said is dear to the prosecutors, which is not to seek convictions, but to seek justice, and sometimes justice means seeking conviction, and sometimes justice means dismissing a case. >> host: professor davis, is there -- is there a to --

to littization in the process? >> it depends on the culture of the office. i think there's far too many offices where there's a culture of win at any cost. there are some prosecution officers where the prosecutors are not -- not into that culture or trying to do the right thing. there's a prosecutor in dallas county now who came into that office and decided, for example, that the cause is -- his name is craig watson, he decided because the office had a bad history of misconduct and wrongful convictions that he was going to go in there, review all the homicide cases, and decide and reinvestigate them, and he, in fact, found out a number of people were innocent making that his goal. harris, now the attorney general in california, used to be the da in san fransisco, she had a very different approach where she wanted to convert the cases and not treat everyone in that

opposite and not have her assistants go for convictions, and wrote a book called "smart on crime," and we don't want to lock up everybody because they don't need to be, and look at the role as prosecutors in a bigger way, and there are other prosecutors out here who are trying to do the right thing, but far too many of them, in my view, do have this win at any cost attitude, and that attitude is a type of attitude that results in the find of injustices talked about in the book. >> host: is there a way of holding that -- these prosecution offices accountable for the actions? >> guest: well, that's the question. that's what i tried so hard to get at, and in the last chapter of the book, i talked about reforms, and there's so many different problems in the system, and i think that the answers a reforms vary depending on what the problems are. for racial disparities, protection, there's a private now going on at the vera

institute in new york called the vera institutes racial and justice project where the stay tigses at vera are going into certain prosecutor's offices at the invitation of certain chief prosecutors who are interested in improving their system in their office, and keeping statistics on the races of victims and the defendant and keeping them whether race neutral decisions, and in other words, if they are doing something unintentionally, it's resulted in a disparity. those particular prosecutors saying loorks, we don't want to make decisions creating racial disperties. if we do, it's unintentional. tell us how it's happening. that's an exciting process. they are doing it, and making

the system more fair. for the misconduct we talked about before, where we have prosecutors withholding evidence, and, again, i mentioned the case, and i was so surprised when the case came out, and it happens way too often, and the victims are poor and african-americans, and it doesn't make the news, and we don't hear about it. >> host: the duke-la cross case? >> guest: that case, and that type of misconduct happens a lot, and i talked about that in the book. >> host: do you not think he should have been dismissed? >> guest: oh, i think he should have been, but i think a lot of other prosecutors should be too. that's the point. i fully believe that that case got the attention it did because those young men were well off, they were able to hire a topnotch defense team that because they had a team of

lawyers, that team was able to discover the violation. they had to go through thousands and thousands of pages of complicated dna evidence to discover that they had, oh, my goodness, they found -- most overworked public defenders will not do that; right? the individuals who are poor, who are victims of the that misconduct, the prosecutors in their cases are never referred to bar counsel, are never even punishedded in any way. that's the concern. we have to beef up the bar counsel system so more prosecutors engaging in this misconduct are referred to bar counsel and are disciplined when they do it wrong. now when they violate -- when they violate their constitutional duty to turn over ethical evidence, in the back of their -- nothing happens to them, which is why there's no incentive for them to sort of change those practices because there's no punishment, and that, i think, is one of the

improvements we have to make if we want to see the changes. >> host: booktv at american university talking with law professor angela j. davis, here's the book "arbitrary justice: the power of the american prosecutor," oxford university press is the publisher. professor davis, what do your colleagues on the prosecute side say about "arbitrary justice"? >> guest: when i wrote the book, i expected a big backlash from prosecutors, and, interestingly enough, i have not gotten that much of a backlash. what's interesting is a lot of friends who are former prosecutors are saying, yes, you know, you're right, that the this stuff happened. the current prosecutors, those i know who are saying that many of them are saying, yes, but the things we write about don't happen often, just a few bad apples, painting too broad a

brush. i got that criticism. other prosecutors who admit the system encourages this behavior thing that what we need to do is we need to have more training for prosecutors, that there's a lot of offices when a young prosecutor comes in, they are zeal louse, jump in there, and they are not trained properly which is why they do not exercise discretion as well as, for example, a more seasoned prosecutor, and i think that's true. a lot of time when prosecution's been in the office for awhile, that sphr of them, you know, learn that you don't have to go full steam on every case, and you can exercise discretion, but there's been a mixed response, but it's not -- i have not got as much negative response from prosecutors than i expected, and many of my defense attorney friends cree with what i'm saying because they experienced it in their practice. >> host: a very inelegant question, but did you burn out? >> guest: no, i did not burn

out because i left before i did. you know, being a public defender -- and i loved being a law professor, the greatest job in the world, and i hope to be doing it the rest of my life, but being a public defender was the best and most important work i've done or feel i'll ever do. i loved every day that i was there. i loved standing next to the clients representing them, making sure they -- standing between them and the government, you know, saying to the government, you got to come through me first with something that i reveled in because our clients were poor, and they, you know, i looked at them and say, you know, there before the grace of god, go i. i grew up that way. who knows, i may have ended up in that situation as well. i took a great deal of pride representing my clients, and i've been gone for awhile, but they are the best lawyers ever, and the dc public defender system is the best in the public because they fight hard for the

clients. i stayed there, have a good fortune of being there in a number of capacities. i was a trial lawyer for 16 years, director, deputy director, worked in different capacities, and i left at a time when i was still having that energy, and that time comes at a different point for different people. there's people who were there for 20-25 years. i couldn't have done that because the clients needed my 100%. when i got to the point where i was about to get burned out, i left before that happened, and i think that's what everyone should do because the clients deserve to have your 100% energy all the time, and i think i -- especially as a director, i was frustrated because as a director, i had to -- you have a budget and i had to go at that time to the city council and sort of make sure that we were well-funded, and that was a different kind of work that i, you know, was frankly, getting a little tired of. there's a lot better to be in the courtroom fight for the client. i left at the right timing and it's now still doing incredibly

well. >> host: what would you tell somebody what it's like to be a lawyer in a -- an actual murder case. >> guest: in a murder case what it's like? >> host: what advice? >> guest: what advice? >> host: like on what we see on tv and "law and order"? >> guest: it's not. that's why i have a hard time watching the television shows because i scream at the tv all the time. it's intense. representing an individual when you know the individual faces a loss of liberty, and that responsibility, especially in a murder case as mentioned, it is incredible. i mean, there was never a time i tried a case that when i was in trial i was a bundle of nerves, i couldn't eat. i felt sick because so much, you know, so much was my responsibility, and i knew if i maid a mistake, that could cost the client. it was incredibly special, but incredibly fulfilling. particularly when the jury comes

back with a not guilty verdict. there's no better sound to know i freed someone from the system. i felt really good about the work i did, and so it's not for everyone, and i tell the students, e encourage them, we need smart ethical prosecutors, and i really push them to do that and help them to get the jobs and train them and those who want to be defense attorneys, and i encourage them. we need law students to be in the criminal justice system as either prosecutors or the defense attorneys. i'm happy when they are interested in doing either, and i always encourage them. >> host: did you defend someone that you were just convinced was guilty, or is that not your job? >> guest: that's not my job. i never thought about whether the clients were innocent or guilty. that's not the job of the defense attorney. my job is to provide the best

defense possible for that client, and i was more -- always happy to do that. i didn't care, frankly, whether they were innocent or guilty. it is the job of the jury to judge the client. we have an adversary system where we have a prosecutor fighting on one side, a defense attorney on the other side, and somehow justice is from that. if i, as the defense attorney, start, you know, deciding that i'm not -- that i'm not going to be on the client's side, question and judge him, there's no way he's going to get justice, so my job is to provide the best defense possible, to be there for that client, and to do everything in my power legally to help him out of the system, and i was always happy to do that. >> host: professor davis, what would a prosecutor say is the advantage of the defender? >> guest: well, i would hope that a prosecutor, any prosecutor, and prosecutors are offices of the court, would want to be against a defender who is prepared and working hard because any prosecutor who believes in justice and believes

in our add adversary system wano have an a defense attorney on the other side doing their job and representing their client zealously. if they are a good prosecutor, they would want that defense attorney to fight hard for the client so that the system will be more just and more fair. >> host: another case you write about in here is the jean of six case. what's that? remind us. >> guest: that case was an example of a case where a prosecutor in my view was absolutely abusing his discretion. this was the case in louisiana, got national attention, where there was a high school in a little town in louisiana, and there was a big tree outside the high school, and the african-american students and white students segregated themselves. all the white kids together and black kids together, and black kids were under the tree, and

the white kids told them they shouldn'tment at one point, the white students hung little nooses from the tree, which, of course, african-american were tram matized and terrorized because we know about lynching and the history. at any rate, there were all kinds of problems where the white kid got in fight with the black kid, and the prosecutors basically came into the school and endedded up threatening the black students, promises they prosecute him them, and, in fact, there were fights where white kids committed assaults and black kids committed assaults, and the short answer that the black kids were charged with very serious felonies, you know, in a -- where those committed crimes as well were not. it was one of the examples where it certainly appeared that race was playing a role in, you know, in that case where the

african-american students were treated unfairly, facing adult time in court where as the white kid committing crimes were not. there's an outrage, a national march of people going down to protest it, but, again, this was the elected prosecutor. i don't think he cared about all the people from the north marching down because he cared about the constituents, and they voted him in, and so, you know, they did not respond in a positive way. i mean, ultimately, i think because of the national attention, the judge ended up, not all of the individuals in that case ended up with an unfair result, but it was just there was so much national attention put on the case. >> host: do you know, are any of the kids, probably not kids anymore, but the defendants still in jail? >> guest: i don't think they are now because that happened some time ago. >> host: where did you grow

up? >> guest: i grew up in phoenix city, alabama, which is, you know, right on the border of alabama and georgia. my father was in service across the river. that's where i grew up, and i think, my growing up there became why i became a public defender. >> host: why? >> guest: i grew up in segregated south, born in 1956, grew up in the 1960s, yes, i'm that old, and i grew up in a time remembering separate accommodations, and i remember traveling to south carolina to see my aunt, father, drove a long distance can the army dressed uniform because he thought if he did, we would be okay and not treated unfairly. i grew up with seeing that, and i wanted to be a civil rights lawyer, and i wanted to do that, and i wanted to be a lawyer from the time i was six years old, sorry, by the time i was in the

6th grade, in the 6th grade, and i knew i was going to law school, and by the time i went to law school, i was interested in criminal law. before that, i never thought of it. i was interested in it because of the professor, made the class interesting, and pursued that, and then it was not until much later that i figured that i was a civil rights lawyer because i think that the work of public defenders is the work of civil rights, fighting for the rights, and given the disperties in the criminal justice system, the race is not really that far from what i thought my original dream was. >> host: where did you go to law school? >> guest: i went to harvard law school and howard university undergrad. >> host: you have a famous name. >> guest: i do. terrorist confusing -- it's confusing to people. i get phone calls and e-mails from people. i got communications from cuba. that's why i knew they -- an

incredible woman who i admire greatly -- >> host: have you met her? >> guest: i have not. i want to meet her. i got a lot of e-mails and, you know, so i had that kind of communication with her, and, you know, she's doing a lot of important work talking about the prison industrial complex and the criminal justice system, but it created more confusion. >> host: we have been talking here at american university with professor angela j. davis, "arbitrary" justice, the name of the book, the power of the american prosecutor. now from american university, john gruel discusses his book "how to succeed in college while really trying," and the american universities professor gives advice to students entering clog and while there's books on how to get into college, few tell students how to succeed once they get there.

this is part of booktv's college series, and it's a little under 15 minutes. >> host: well, on the screen is american university professor john gould, a professor of law at the university and also director of american university's washington institute for public and international affairs, and he's written this book, how to succeed in college while really trying." professor gould, who is the book written for? >> guest: two groups of students. it's written for high school seniors who are on their way to college, and it's also written for first year students who come to this place and kind of find it somewhat foreign. i guess i should add it's written for the parents of all of those students as well. >> host: so if -- when you're asked as a college professor, what will make my son or daughter successful, what's your short answer? >> guest: my short answer is a sense of independence and

responsibility. that's the kind of thing that sometimes parents may not want to hear because it means they have to pull back. when we get them at college, it's a chance for them to take ownership of their lives and be responsible for what they need to do, and that is a most important skill for them at our doors. >> host: what is your responsibility as a college professor to make that successful? >> guest: well, my job is to challenge them, and that is something that sometimes people are not ready for when they get here. we are not here to hold hands. we want a friendly environment for them. this is the place where we want them to feel that it's open to consider new ideas, but my job is to take them, give them some of the new ideas, but challenge them to think in new ways they have not before. >> host: when you meet students, can you now predict who will be successful and who won't? >> guest: oh, no. at first, not at all because the first time they are all

pleasant. most of the students we get are going to be successful. that's the good news, but on the first meeting, no. it's impossible to predict who is more disefl than others. >> host: what are the down falls in the first year of college? >> guest: well, there's lots and lots of distractions here or at any other university, so that's probably the biggest down fall, which is not paying attention to what they need to do so not going to class, not getting assignments down, not studying. that's the important thing in terms of making sure that they have the best opportunities to succeed. >> host: what's the most common question students ask you? >> guest: what's going to be on the test, and that's simply not the right question to ask. what they ought to be doing is be in the class on regular basis, engaging with us on the material. if they are there, if it's part of the dialogue we're having day-to-day, they'll know what's on the test and