angeles times for many years, and he basically very honestly talks about how he didn't see it. he didn't see the story. and how he turned and how he began to realize at first as a reporter, hey, this is a great story here, and then as a person watching it unfold in front of him. there were a lot of mistakes made, but i really think that a lot of it wasn't willful blindness as much as it was lack of exposure amongst southerners and northerners. in southerners it was protecting what they had, among northerners it was, really? this is happening? is this important? and trying to get a sense of it. ..

and the was also a major influence on this government. when the little rock nine were integrating central high school and when my old editor from the tried state defender was beaten, his picture was on the front page in russia. >> i'm told that president johnson and dr. king would discuss this matter of getting on the news and the hell if a demonstration turned violent how're you would take that incident and make sure that it got on the news. is that your understanding?

>> it's my understanding after dr. king received the nobel peace prize he came back to america, had the meeting with president johnson and said to the president we need a voters night and he said in effect we don't have enough votes in the congress to pass the act. he said in effect you make me do it. and dr. king joined us in selma and that led -- actually, coming out of the white house we didn't get in the white house until 7:00 at night. he waited until all of the press had gone on and we were coming out about 9:30 and the president's final words were that the president doesn't have as much power as you think he does. and he could not introduce the civil rights voting rights

legislation. when we walked down that little road to the west wing i said well dr. king, what do you think? he said i think we have to figure out a way to get this president some power. [laughter] >> was that going to be done through the media? >> he doesn't know but it was a mild mandate that he didn't have the slightest idea but about three or four days later the lady by the name of amelia came from selma and talked to him about the fact that they couldn't have an naacp emancipation day service. as the regular sunday emancipation day service. because jim wouldn't let them have mass meetings or political meetings in churches. he was very mean. just a vicious man.

he wouldn't let her bury her husband in a church because her husband had been to political. so dr. king said this is where we are going. >> we are very rapidly running out of time and i do have a concluding question and i would be grateful for a quick answer from each of you. i will start from dr. willson. what's the most important thing young people, and there are many in this audience what is it that they ought to know and remember and hold dear to their heart about the march on washington? >> the purpose of it was jobs. but what was behind that and what was the revelation for me was how much and everything dr. king did was really all about education. was all about education.

he was locked in on that and when that group went into the white house and talked with the president, president kennedy said and this is reported by brandt, that the kind of influence you have in the black community you really ought to emphasize schools and getting your kids to do well in schools. >> i am struck mostly by how different things are now. the technology is such a you can get a flash mob to show up if you want but 1963 you get 200,000 people back to the mall and you would be below horned. organizing was remarkable and that to me -- i would like people to understand the enormity of that. >> a very short time a group of people came together because they believe in something. and they put together the most

unbelievable moment in american history. >> on the march on washington to go forward but the young people who want to be journalists tuesday that they have an obligation to cover poverty, to cover race, to go deeper and find the real story. >> we are missing the pbs video documentary on the march tonight because we would rather be here. >> will be on line. >> look at it and see the people that came to the march. these are ordinary men and women dressed like they are going to church and they believe they are going to church. >> i think that the world came together around an idea that all men, and we soon added women and children, gay lesbian and children are created equal so it

created a human rights movement. >> i am terribly sorry to say that the time is up. thanks to everyone. [applause] >> thanks to everyone on the radio and internet and television. i want to say thanks to our panelists and i want to say thanks to martin luther king who wrote from a jail in birmingham alabama the words that applied then with equal power. and justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. he wrote we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tie it in a single garment of destiny. whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. and of course he was right. when i covered the march years ago i felt that i was involved in something much more, much larger and important than the

news story and there was a huge moment in american history. that's it for now, ladies and gentlemen. as my mother said many years ago, good night and good luck. [applause] >> this is your opportunity to ask our panel list a few questions. we set aside 15 minutes for that purpose. there are microphones on both sides. if you have a question if he would direct to one of the panelists make it a question and i will start with -- if i could

see somebody there -- hello? node. anybody on either side? speegap. i work here in the city and i am a former student in charlottesville and a former colleague at nbc. to the point of the movement how is the movement being covered and taught in schools today. that's the first question. then for all of you dr. king's's legacy so-called reduced to the dream speech made on the 28 or could it echo in the birmingham jail or the riverside church speech april 67. >> who would like to answer that? >> they did a study about the civil rights in america and they fall -- found not surprisingly if you look at the states with the biggest black population they are most likely to teach

about civil rights. i don't know whether this is to the black people in the states or because they realized these people want to know about themselves and what they did. but since then, several other states said we made a big mistake. and mississippi had already done a better job than many and has now mandated its civil rights to be taught in all of the high schools in mississippi to read a great step forward for the state of mississippi which had -- north carolina has become the new mississippi now. so mississippi lost its place. i will let someone else answer the question. that is one of my students. a bright young man. >> i would just say it is the story itself at morehouse college for sure. we are going on line with some things and converging the expertise and the brain power. we have one of our professor.

a couple things have happened in the country recently. the monument here in washington was about $120 million. and then the civil rights museum in atlanta. here is morehouse college that built a chapel in 1979 with a statute out front. we say that we need to convert more resources to really undergird this tradition at morehouse and that is what we are going to do. >> my name is jane and i had the honor of working at the brookings institution previously give it my question came up earlier and i can't you mentioned it regarding the civil rights movement and i was wondering if you could speak about that and the other equality movements going forward.

>> it's kind of a travesty. it's not as if there were no women working in the movement and as if there were no women working on the march. there were a lot. they were the foot soldiers that kept it open but when the men are in the pulpit at least that used to be the case. in this case i asked several people about the march about where the women were that day because there were no women speakers. the only woman that was chosen to speak was ms. evers that was late because of a transportation snafu. as a result there was no one speaking. you can see some of the shots on the page she didn't speak. the closest they got to seeking is when jackson said tell them about the dream, martin. that is what we have heard about the speech. but women's places in 1963 as eleanor holmes norton told me who was an organizer this was pre-feminism. they were not seen to be part of the public eye and how would

start other kinds of feminism and other movements as well so even though they were on the stage they took the center stage as it went on. >> they did speak at the march. and mr. randolph had asked all of the participants to leave town that night. dorothy heights said no, i'm not leaving and she convened the meeting the next day and some of the seeds of the feminist movement were still there. but you also have to remember that it was a group of women that got behind rosa parks. the montgomery bus boycott was university women from tuskegee and alabama state university that had gone through several trials of bus boycotts that didn't work before rosa parks came in. i mentioned amalia.

she went to selma in 1929 sent there by george washington carver triet she was there still in 1965 in fighting dr. king. she is now 103-years-old or 108-years-old she led the get out the vote rally for barack obama in the election in the back of a car. [applause] she was sitting in the back of her convertible but she registered in 1932 the year and i was born. but she is still a lurch and sharp and nobody knows her name. and i cussed out her sorority sisters because the introduced the sar ready member and didn't know who she was. so when men, it is your fault. [laughter]

>> if i can say another thing, f martin luther king and i. and ralph abernathy hadn't married a little country girls from alabama, you probably would never have heard our name they made andy young and martin luther king jr. and ralph abernathy. women had never received the credit. all across the self in america even in cambridge maryland in national tennessee a woman by the name of diane nash and ella baker that called the first meeting to organize the student nonviolent coordinating committee for a woman by the

name of joann robertson who was a professor at alabama state college. long before martin luther king said anything about the boycott, she took an old machine and made hundreds of thousands of copies. there is a discussion about the absence. >> it was demonstrated by ministers. a lot of the baptist students. they were operating in their own church. >> there is a book about the march on washington just published. i can't think of the author's name. it traces the history of the women in the labour movement who

did much of the work before the march on washington. and it is a wonderful read. william jones is the author. he got a bad review in "the new york times", but don't believe that. >> let's move on to a couple questions. >> i am the third year student at gw law school and it is an honor to be in the presence of such great leaders. my question has to do with the media and the black community. sometimes it seems as if there is a disregard for the problems that affect black people and consequently, the leaders that are working to resolve some of those problems. while at the same time highlighting the negative aspects of the communities of the only narrative that we have is a - one. do you feel as compared to 50 years ago there is a stagnation in terms of how the media covers the black struggles or do you think that more of our problems are being highlighted and the solutions that were taken or the steps that were taken to resolve them. >> i'm going to ask gwen to

answer that. >> i saw that they're rolling right towards me. i would ask dorothy to weigh in because dorothy, the former president of the national journalist has given a lot of thought and given a lot of mosul beyond this issue of the representation in the media. we were better than we were. we have to see the story in front of us because we all are crippled or hampered or expanded by what experience and unless you have people with a variety of experiences, it's not going to be that kind of coverage. i don't think there is only negativity covered but when there is conflict the cameras are going to go there and where

there is going to be a fight and others quinby heat we are going to pay attention and for longer periods of time. if it is a trial we are going to cover that experience in cable television. the platform sexist other than the newspapers which are fading savagely and television in order to get information. it's more than i could have ever found out five years ago. so, to me and lots of respect because of the technology there are places to get information is just not as broad but it's a deeper. >> there is also balance. al sharpton has his own show and rachel mazel just did hirsh of -- rachel madow just did. >> i think she's talking about journalism, not activism, which

is different to me. being in front of the camano -- >> they're really is a difference between fox and msnbc. you have the feeling walter cronkite there was a solid metal even in the south that wrote 11,000 columns and 700,000 of them were about race relations. more than any journal i know about right now. >> the response of the body for covering the story of race and poverty continues. i and a stand the way the media works of course and we follow what isn't going to write and what we think when we think there is a problem. when we have katrina or some

initio but there is a troubling trend that should be covered. >> new orleans was 70% black with the majority of the bodies counted in the flood were white. because the whites were living in the swamps around the city and the blacks got to the dome. it was a really shallow reporting that we all contributed to and it needed a bad story. it was a story of nobody caring about the infrastructure development of the american people in the mississippi valley and they needed a story about

poverty. >> i think the idea is that reporters of all stripes really have a responsibility to write about these issues. part of the challenge is to use creativity and to realize the issue such as the expanding wealth gap and it's affecting people's lives. especially with young people now who are more sensitive in many ways than the reporters 50 years ago excluding those people that covered the civil rights movement. but i think if we need each young person who is to be sensitized what they can do -- curious about the human story

and to realize that these are great stories to be told and you can win yourself a pulitzer prize. >> i remember all of this advice 50 and 60 years ago. it's the same advice. we are running out of time. that is a fact putative i will have one more question here on the right. and i apologize to the rest of you. >> good evening. i am the proud father of the morehouse man who also worked for one of the show's sponsors. out of the '63 march on washington was significant legislation, significant civil rights legislation from a difficult congress. now as we come together soon after the voting rights act has been cut, we have a wonderful march last friday and we will probably -- >> forgive me but we must have a question. >> the question is what do you think we can get out of this congress after the march?

>> we have one good congressman right here. [laughter] you must never give up or give in. he must be hopeful and optimistic. i think that we will get something. maybe not any thing compared to the congress back in 1964 or 1965. but you cannot give up, dr. king says you cannot get along -- let's be optimistic. you must do something. >> the thing is i went to com gross went on the seven others opposed to the viet nam and within the next congress we got the funding. but i think is going to happen in 2014 is the women are going to realize the nonsense of the extremes in both parties are canceling them out and you are going to have a gathering and increase of women of running in the middle and they will be

democrat and republican but they will be different from what you've got. [applause] i think we are going to have a white woman senator from georgia and two white women congressman. we already have black congressman from georgia. i think this repression is making people mad and getting them organized and that is going to help us in 2014. >> i'm glad you asked that question. we will be asking him that. [applause] >> i think that is a wonderful way of closing. and i want to kill every single panelist that i've been honored to be on the panel with you. thank you for being with us. thank you and good night. [applause]

>> one of the things i looked at when i was exploring it is i looked at a lot of the county records in which the counties where the policies are to the when you look at the colonial records very often you won't have the name of the president or the name of the professor listed with their taxable

property. >> did students bring this place? >> if you think about this, what happened is if you look at the name of the president and then three lines over what the taxable property is, what you will often have is in the case of princeton or harvard you will actually have the president's name and college. in the town until local area the president and the college or kind of inseparable.

photographer in the documentary producer recalls that the 1963 march on washington was filled with peace and respect to the he was among the thousands that participated in the march, listened to martin luther king jr.'s i have a dream speech and documented the event with his camera. he says while there has been much progress since that day more still needs to be done with regards to raise the quality to begin he was one of three panelists who participated at a

recent historical society of washington discussion to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. this runs one hour and ten minutes. >> good evening, everyone. thanks for being here. i am a reporter at "the washington post" and after the election i moved over and i've been writing feature stories and early this summer i started thinking about the 50th anniversary on the march on washington and because winans i'll know and have a little that time to work on stories i went to our researcher and checked out as many books as i have time to read on the march and began to think about what were some of the story is that i could do about the 50th anniversary. and so, i landed on three's that i wanted to do. i had time to write two of them

and the lawn was about the role of women in the march on washington at the active list level as leaders and their struggle to be a part of the leadership, not having a speaking place on the podium as some of the dynamics there and talking to the historians and those who studied the march about the way that that became a turning point for the women in the civil rights movement. that was one piece. another was -- i will tell you about the one before. i also got interested in one and also how the civil rights movement was founded and came across some interesting characters who because they cast in the 1960's and 70's we haven't heard a lot about in the recent years the the sort of meetings and movements and folks on wall street who were

interested and gave money and raised money for the movement was another piece i wanted to do which may be is the 60th anniversary will get a chance to read that piece but -- seóul eric was born in boston

massachusetts in 1945. they lived in philadelphia and prior to moving overseas. in 1963 he came to washington, d.c. to attend the american university where he graduated in 1968 with a degree in communications he's worked as a cameraman, film editor, director, production manager and producer for a variety of television stations and studios. most recently he is the co-owner of the universal media pity he is a copyright, music and film researcher and one of the producers for the night james brown saved austin. >> you can ask him about that. he and his wife are avid book and music collectors with a

collection of audiotapes. next is derek anarchist in the d.c. public library and has held this position since 2008. he manages the archives made up of over 250 collections document in the rich, political, social history of washington, d.c.. he's also responsible for the care and management of the d.c. public archives. he's held positions at the archives in new york university and the historical society in flushing new york. prior to his arrival at the d.c. public library, derrick worked at the library of virginia in richmond as a researcher could best for six years. he's one of the four co-authors of angels of deliverance, the underground railroad and beyond.

derrick grinned a bachelor's degree in history from virginia state university in 1998 and both the masters in history and library with a concentration in archives from the state university of new york at albany jennifer krafchik is the director of the kepplinger research library at the historical society in washington, d.c.. so she didn't have to walk far to get here. before joining the society, she worked at the headquarters of the historic national women's party now the belmont house and museum where she served over a 11 years in a variety of positions most recently as a director of collections. if you haven't been there is a lovely building with the great museum as well. jennifer has expertise and

library services, a nonprofit management and administration collections management, fund-raising, education and public programming and exhibition development. jennifer holds a history degree from the university and a master's degree in the library and information science from the university of america. she grew up in southern maryland and has lived and worked around the district for 15 years. i will start off the conversation with you since you were there that day. set the stage for us. [applause] i meant to go back to say i guess i did come to washington, d.c. june 7, 1963 after eight and a drive across the country on the greyhound buses landed here. none of the bags were on board the buses but they all flew in

and one at a time including the last that we 110 pounds by the samson might suitcase of my record collection. it took awhile but i finally got a job. i was getting frustrated trying to find a job. i talked to the senator who i've worked and did a tv commercial with and he got me a political appointment as an interior photographer learning how to be a photographer. the band me to the basement for months to bring a map of the colorado river. i started hearing about the march on black radio. i was so in two or and the at that point hearing stories about them on the radio.

they were really talking and went on to become the president of this tax records i was reading the post and the washington star but i don't remember being hyped up by what i was reading in the paper to the it was coming more from the black radio. i felt like i wanted to be there and i wanted to be part of it but i wanted to take pictures. i had taken pictures since i was five for 6-years-old so i wanted to take pictures that day. i went to work and it was getting pretty close to school for me to be in entering freshmen. couldn't have been another week away. unbeknownst to me there was a policy that day so i probably didn't even need to come to work and ask my boss if i could go, but i did. as you probably saw it was a bit of a racial tension between the

two of us with our wanted to hang out with them in march. i said yeah i guess i do. and while you are in a good mood why don't you ask security to let me get up on the roof of the building, which he did. and i went up and took the first initial pictures of the buses that were already parked all over. you could see people screaming out of the buses. i don't know where the location when it was. you know better than i do but everybody used the same set of signs that for all pre-made. i had a certain number of roles of film and i didn't know what i was going to be doing that day. the biggest event that i had ever been a part of before was the big bonfire in alaska in 1961 and became a state.

i probably took we too many pictures of the bosses. i probably overtook and didn't take enough pictures at the end. we will get to that in a moment. but i finally started walking towards independence avenue and i kind of household over there and started seeing the people marching. i was immediately impressed with the crowd. there was a love in the air and it was a mix of people. there were folks from all over. everybody just had a smile on their face. nobody gave me a hard time about taking their pictures. i was walking backwards for the most part to the and i was using a camera with a 35-millimeter lens. i preset the field on the camera so i wouldn't have to keep doing

focusing all day long. i had no light meter but i had enough experience with this to gauge the light and hope that most of them came out. for the most part the shots cannot fairly nicely. i really didn't know what i was going to shoot. icefall images that grabbed me either expressions on people's faces or as much as i could to get a uniques sign. was not like the standard sizes being used that day. i then started walking down through the mall area and took some shots of people laying down, sitting around. and was almost like a picnic festivity at that point. i then started moving towards the lincoln memorial that self. i can't honestly remember how i managed to get past the fences or the barriers.

i still have the same time. was a slender tie with a tight check from alaska and i had my camera on the strap and i guess i just looked the part. everybody just smiled and waved me through. i managed to get to the steps and i was immediately at asahel of the audio tape recorders that were there. to be honest with you i took one shot -- if you have seen a group of important people at the march. i didn't know if i know for sure what martin luther king looked like. i heard the name in the top on the radio but i don't really think i had any idea what he looked like. i don't know that there were pictures necessarily of him. if there was, i didn't make that connection. if i had taken one shot slightly to the left i would have gotten

his picture, too. but anyway, i started walking up behind the press corps and everybody just paid no attention to me. i started taking these pictures and i wanted to take a wonderful shot with him speaking this speech. during the speech he started it a kid got very quiet. the crowd had been really reverend any way and they had been quiet but during the speech itself even the press corps got quite. even the tape recorders you didn't hear the noise any more. eventually you could hear the expression of the penn dropped and i realized i stopped being an observer and maybe i should start listening to the speech and i lowered my camera and i was rolling bell of the film anyway. but i started to listen and it had such an impact on me. i never heard a man speak like

that before ever. i had the july of actually working with and being in the presence of charles when i was 16-years-old. he was quite an orator. but there was something quite different about martin luther king. he was both a combination of emotion. he brought out the best in people. i thought he brought out the best in me. it certainly had an impact in my life and what i did in the future doing my best to bring to the public of the best of the african-american culture to the radio shows eventual documentaries and museum exhibitions for the smithsonian. so it was a day of significance. i finally say i got one last shot and who should i take? i saw a young lady with a strap

of please type of shoe and i was intrigued by that image and the young lady sitting next to her that was the last shot i took before i told people and somebody said that was joan baez [applause] >> okay. but i remember that day i thought about this in the last couple of days i think i didn't take the bus home. i wanted to walk all the way home to 18 columbia road to think about what happened that day. it was a warm day that i wanted to walk home. i wanted to have that feeling stay with me as long as possible. i thought it would kind of evaporate if i got on the d.c. transit bus. [laughter] so i got home and my parents wanted to know all about and what happened. but i think the exciting thing

was three or four days later when i got the film back because in those days it had to be shipped to rochester new york for processing or maybe it was rochester new york for processing. so when i got back it was pretty exciting. and it pretty much stayed in those boxes for many years until the 45th anniversary project cannot. i looked at them occasionally but i had been waiting for the right moment. i never really wanted to exploit the photographs for the financial gain. somehow it didn't seem right. that's why i thought that this was the right thing to do. [applause] >> i think the story tells us about how washington and the culture have changed.

so he was able to walk up to the steps of the lincoln memorial on a historic day. and the fort rucker and social media he didn't know what joan looked like. >> i'd been in washington for two and a half months. i was into r&d and already i was doing a dance party show called the varsity show. but i was more into dancing on the trust or whatever. it hadn't quite entered my head at that point in alaska. it was more of a dance scene. so i didn't know who joan baez was, not a clue. >> to derek and jennifer coming you wrote about the march in washington history. can you give us some insight into your research and when you founded and when you thought was important? >> de want me to start?

>> when we first started talking we knew we wanted to nato on the march of washington. neither one of us actually can to this knowing very much about the march on washington so it was a good educational experience for us. we decided to focus on the washington star collection and the historical society said there is a few things in our collection that once we started looking at the photographs it became clear that the was the direction that we wanted to go. i don't know if all of you have had a chance to see it and will be available after words but there are some very powerful images among that collection and they were all press images, but they tell a very clear story about the structure of the day, the organization and the amount of pain the planners want to to make sure that everything was organized and peaceful. that is the cheek true that we took. do you want to add?

>> the research that we did when we found that order and security was the theme of the planners, the local d.c. planners. the goal was to make sure that everything went off successfully this was the largest demonstration at that point in the civil rights movement. so the big ten or six, big 1046 -- [laughter] the kind of put it on local d.c. planners with a message of make sure this goes well. >> bigger getting a lot of pressure from the kennedy administration and then that filtered down to the local

organizer. it was security organization that get people to come and especially local people to come. the main people involved was the d.c. mobilization committee with several civil rights activists and pastors and julius hobson whose papers we have in the washingtonian club and sterling tucker. hobson in particular was interested because he was a member of -- he was the head of the d.c. chapter on the racial equality and later got expelled as he was considered a radical and too conservative. but his main tasks was getting

volunteers to practice drills in terms of moving people in an orderly fashion. and he realized that he needed help. he actually tap resources and got a group of police officers from new york to come down and help because again, they didn't know how many people are showing up. but they also needed major assistance in getting the d.c. folks to the march. and they had -- the hold their meetings at the d.c. chapter of the naacp's headquarters on 17th street. and they actually had reports -- and i wanted to investigate this

a little further but i couldn't find the information. they had reports from the local past demonstrations in which they finally found that not many people from d.c. had shown up. so their attitude was people were coming in from new york and florida and virginia, wherever and if they show up in large numbers of the local folks don't, what is that going to say about the movement and the cause and that kind of thing? so that was one of their main focuses. >> the title is that the guard was up and that is a quote from the evening star in reference to washington dc. they were hoping for the best and probably expecting the worst and they were just keeping their fingers crossed. and that was evident in everything that we read through. and one of the things i was

struck by when we talked is how you specifically mention how quiet things were, how happy things work because the laws were reports that we were reading in the store and the washington daily news that was a very happy atmosphere. people are generally very respectful. everything from the way that they marched and how quiet things were and how respectful they were when they were marching. but also everything from even just -- people picked up their trash. everybody knows how the city can just dissolve into a mess of something like this and everything to the way people came and left in an orderly fashion. i read a report that said people who couldn't really see the speakers left at about 3:40 because they wanted to go ahead and get out of the city and the already been a part of this special day. but there was a lot of recognition that they needed to make this a really positive

moment in the civil rights movement and devotees acknowledge a debt and in the end of was a huge success and the attorney general robert f. kennedy just thought that it was not going to work. and kennedy -- the biggest concern was that, you know, he is going to come to d.c. and storm the capitol and rye yet -- riot and forget my slang, but act a fool. that's what they were concerned about. and particularly the civil rights bill was making its way through congress. kennedy really thought that their presence was just going to alienate or bother particularly the southern democrats whom he

needed to pass the civil rights bill. so they were just fighting so much. >> there is the perception in some corners that the washingtonians didn't turn out for the march in large numbers. how many were out there and what did you find? was the city really engaged? >> the numbers were between 40 to 50,000 out of the 200,000 that marched from d.c.. so we thought was a pretty good number. and the amount of publicity, grassroots and otherwise they'd been to this march obviously paid off. also locally the churches were very engaged. the university's more, the catholic university in georgetown i believe is the other one that we read about. so a lot of engagement from the local organizations owls well helped to bring everybody out. >> can you tell us about one or two of the photographs that

stand out for you when you look back? >> there is 1i should have been more patient when i was taking it but i was trying to keep on moving. there was a water tanker truck with a water fountain there and in the shop i have i think there is one spanish descent american drinking from the water fountain. but we looked at it and i realized that day everybody was drinking from the same water fountains. what it was white or black or whatever. and that was -- that felt really significant to me. in the article i said that i never experienced jim crow. that is not entirely true. i did see some things happen in alaska that were not very pretty. but at the same time i had never seen anything in washington. i had never seen any of the white only signs to it i don't

think anything like that existed. but nevertheless, seeing everybody drinking from the same water fountain, that seemed very important to me. there was a shot of a young lady with her head bowed down with the afro-american newspaper which put out in addition something about they are pouring in. she's looking down and reflecting and is with her parents. her father was either a catholic or episcopalian priest. there was something in her eyes that you could see in her facial expression that she was in a moment and a very much into it. that was a really heady shot for me. i was of course being a freshman about to get in -- i already been in tv for a couple of years and radio when i was a teenager in alaska. but to see this big a long table with tape recorders and stuff and i went wow why would like to

have one of those. [laughter] but it was just released impressive to see that and that really took my breath away. of course years later it seems pretty significant. the other shot of course when i was on the steps slightly to the right of the statue and i'm looking down and basically martin luther king is no farther down than half the room and i'm standing in the east down there and the shot takes a little out of perspective because it is a wide angle lens but at that point i realized he was speaking and just getting into the speech. i framed that because i wanted to get everything just right the framing of the monument and everything. i knew that i captured kind of fun moment. but i was running out of film. if i hadn't used up so many at

the buses, i might have had enough pictures to go up and take a closer shot. i think that is a couple of key photographs. i could talk about them all with those are the kinds that stick out in my mind. >> thank you. derrick and jennifer, you went back and went through these archives and as a newspaper reporter i am always fascinated by the first take on history that is done within hours after anything occurs. tell us more about what you found in the archives to be in your article mentions some letters so the editor that came you chose some specific photographs to go with your article. what was the immediate take on a march? >> overall it was positive. there was certainly a few negative responses that we saw.

there was a lot of feedback and the editor and i will read a couple of quotes from a few that i was particularly struck by and i am sure derek probably has his favorites as well. the other thing that i noticed afterwards was the amount of scrutiny. there was a lot of scrutiny on how much the district spent and how much time was spent because there were so many organizations that were brought into this. that was the other piece that i noticed. i will pull my other quotes. >> to echo what jennifer is saying pretty much the same thing, but what was interesting to me was how particularly on the opposition wasn't exclusively caucasian. there were many in the black community as well who felt that this march wasn't going to be

successful or that the march was not the appropriately to go to advance civil rights. there were some pastors who thought that the three day conference should have been held. what struck me was it kind of leaked out at me because we got most of our research taken from a collection of scrapbook clippings. because when we first started we were like we were starting to write like a general history of the march. ..

>> thought people were not ready, and it was all these, like, reasons it was not going to go well. he made the statement at the naacp meeting in chicago, and they just let him have it. they just let him have it. some of them were, like, woah,

so that was interesting in terms of someone who was very prominent in the movement who was there, and what do you offer as an alternative, and they were not satisfies with what the answer was, and so that was very, you know, interesting to me. >> there's just a few things i wanted to mention to read to you from some of the things we were reading. after the march, and one was about the police in force that day because they brought them in all over the place, trained people, national guard, all over the place, a lot of folks there today, and one person spent -- wrote from pittsburgh saying, "no doubt the police officers were not in sympathy with the marchers, but you couldn't tell

how it by how they acted." i thought that was interesting that there was a recognition that there was a lot of respect that day in that it was, you know issue everybody was, you know, able to be a part of that, and then the other one is, "the march would be a climax to the effort of the nations to achieve civil rights, but the beginning stirring into action of support the movement those colored americans in many communities who have done well despite segregation. the active participation of white supporters and participants should lift the chapes of fear, timidity, or cowardness from the white moderates." i found that interesting, you know, in preparation for the march. there was discussion about what this was going to do and what the impact was going to be. >> and i'm just going to read one passage, one quote, that really talks about how, even

after how successful it was, and orderly, everybody was pleased, and, generally, feedback was positive. the march just didn't please everyone. >> oh, yeah. >> several residents defended the status quo and excoriated the marchers. charles s. kiss jner, a white resident, blasted the march in the "washington daily news," from the performance of the negro in the native land over the past 2,000 years and in haiti for the last 200 years, i sincerely doubt that mlk's dream, if it was ever to come true would further the development of a sane and responsible government here. the struggle for civil rights was, in mr. kissner's view, a feudal indenver because, quote,

all american are not created equal, never have been, never will be, and all the lawed passed by congress, decisions of the supreme court, and presidential orders will never change this, end quote. it was -- >> not everybody. >> not everybody. >> was happy about that. >> we cannot end on that note. >> no, no, no. [laughter] >> he was in the minority. >> he was, definitely. >> but as we get ready to open up for q&a, i will ask you to talk a little about your view of the legacy of the march in 1963 and any parallels you see for today. >> there's been advancements in economics, economic employment. there's so many -- when i first started working in television, there was few african-americans

in television, and now, you know, it's, like, it's great. interracial marriages, certainly, 63 there was not a lot, and if there was, there was a lot of trouble involved with having interracial marriages, and that seems to become very normal now and very accepting. i guess what's troubling me is that the election of obama, president obama, is that it just seems to have brought out the worst in some people, and that it's just so incredibly discouraging to see that, just read -- any time there's an article in the post about anything that has to do with the trayvon martin trial, or whatever -- >> just don't read the comments. >> yeah, the comments are just not something you want to read for bedtime reading, you know? [laughter] it gets vile. it's interesting you seen stories write, you know, in the

"new york times," and you see the comments, and it's not anywhere near as vicious, and i don't know why that is other than i guess that in new york it's just not that quite the same. >> well, it takes more people to sort of comb through and delete bad comments. >> yeah, yeah, but i do -- there's a lot that needs to be done. there's still a lot of economic disparity. there's no question about that. there's disparity, not only in in getting the right jobs, but disparity in terms of income, and that's across the board. doesn't make it difference if you're black, women, or your social status or who your daddy was. it's nuts out there. there's a lot still to go, but i think that king got the ball rolling, and it's still moving forward. it's just, you know, it's just hit a few rough patches here and there, but it's definitely going

to continue to get better. >> what i find interesting about the 6 # march is that, to me, it served as a major thrust, i mean, the marchers, they pushed action, and they kept agitating, and, you know, their presence showed. it's, like, okay, we're here, we had enough of the police dogs and the bombings and so forth, and so, you know, they pushed action, and i think people that have the power to make the change, they need that, and i was -- i went to both -- the statement rally and the larger rally saturday, and two people really, their words struck me. it was seven words that the

reverend joel lowry said. he said, "nothing has changed and everything has changed." you have -- it was interesting to me because he's right. i mean, you have -- you know, we don't have the clan running around anymore, but -- well -- [laughter] well, well -- [inaudible conversations] well -- [inaudible conversations] in that way. my point is that it's taken on different forms, you know, you have the voting rights act was passed and who would have thought it's been assaulted right now. you have a whole litany of issues that, you know, are still going on. particularly, state hood, that,

to me, locally, that's a big issue, and that's one of the last major fights because king also spoke about the need for home rule in dc, and i live in virginia, but it's just something that's i'm passionate about because, you know, it's just not right, and something needs to be done, so if you live in dc -- [applause] , you know, and, also, the other quote i remember was john lewis, "stand up, make some noise, keep agitating, keep pushing, and just keep going until president obama and nancy pelosi and all these folks hear you and get something passed and bring statement to dc." >> i'm not going to try to top

that. [laughter] >> how do we use the messaging through the mass media p.

in terms of the headlines that you all saw, were they generally the same from publication to publication. >> it was the daily star, the afro-american, and some in the washington post, and not as much as we would have thought, and so that was -- so, generally, the messaging was across those headlines, were, basically, all about, you know, leading up to the march, it was a lot of committee beats and locals are working to bring people in and there was some focus on the grassroots efforts, but, you

know, overall, it was kind of pretty straight across the board. >> i will add in from my perspective, ordering the march, struck by their media savvy in the ways that the harlem headquarters sent out press releases and encourage local committees to make sure their local newspaper knew they were meeting or raising money or how to get information about the march in the press because once the march was announced publicly, there were really no more than two months to promote and bring a couple hundred thousands people to washington, and so when you think about that, rochelle, who directed the transportation for the march, you know, told me stories about how basically they use machines to, you know, copy things, and send them out, and when you look

at that cop text versus today having been at the post for 12 years watching media change and that time of the add vent of social media, twitter, and large numbers of people around an issue, and it's not all coming all to the same source of information being in their local paper or local television. it's interesting in ideas how they are profuse, and look at the messaging and the conversation from the march on saturday versus the very -- the clarity and strict disciplines that was, in many ways, enforced on the march in 63. you know exactly what that march was about. i'm not sure other than, you know, in some ways, honoring the 196 p 3 march and being about a

wide range of issues if that same kind of clarity exists in media today. i mean, one of the things that the organizers of the 63 march would say these are the messages to write on your signs and don't vary from them, and these, you know, these are -- that we are all for, and, you know, we're not veering from those things. >> yeah, i think going to say the same thing, actually, is what struck me the most when we were looking through this was the strict adherence to -- there was an organizing manual that went out far and wide, and these are the tenants of the march, what to follow in order to do this successfully and make it organized. the signage was a big piece they had, the specific signs, and the marchers went, picked them up, first thing when they got off the busses, and assembled, and that was something that was very, very clear across the board, even in the publications that we read.

>> great, next question. >> yes. >> i was surprised that the post, with its new owner, but there was nothing in the post about helping us get to the march tomorrow, and i have to say i did come in 63, and -- [cheers and applause] i was in michigan, was in the peace corp., coming here for a job, but our church got in touch with the all souls harvard unitarian church, and i met a number of people who were unitarians walking, and the church folks were coming, acting right, and women with high heeled shoes were watching. [laughter] i'm asking you historians, i have seen an enormous amount of

confusion, which march is it? saturday march with the rev, or the tomorrow march, or there's -- i would like to know how the history of how that got together. [laughter] there's got to be some politics there. [laughter] now, tomorrow's going to be very different, very tight, can't have -- no signs, can't have -- you know, so how did that evolve? that's what i'm looking for to hear. thank you. >> want me to jump in? >> you're asking about the two marchs -- the march that happened -- >> and your research, maybe you already know, but there's an enormous amount of confusion by people by deciding which one is it, and there had to be politics here. >> asking about the two marchs

-- >> [inaudible] >> oh, for the future, okay, okay. [laughter] will do. absolutely. go ahead. >> i want to ask a question, i guess a question and comment. i think people don't understand these were well-organized, very well-educated people that fought -- in places like in birmingham so they knew exactly how to message. you're talking about people that were, you know, they were very well-educated. this is not just a one thing. they were organizing in churches, used to committees, they really should get a lot of credit for the march and putting people together. i mean, these people have worked together. there are people in socialist party, communist party, unions, you know, and back in those days, i'm a little bit of a historian, if there was something, and it was black and white together, they thought it had to be communist because that was the wrap that martin luther

king got, so i would like you to talk about some of those people who financed. there were some money, you know. we don't talk about the jewish-black connection that was going on at that time, and there are a lot of people, a lot of people that gave their money, but this was a very well educated, well-organized, not from -- he was thrown away and brought back, and i'd like you to talk more about that organization. i think that's what -- that -- that distance was there because they had -- this was a well-organized group of people. >> uh-huh, that's right. i'll talk a little bit about the story that i didn't write on the money, and then if there's something you all want to add about the organization, especially, the dc organization. >> sure. >> so -- >> [inaudible] >> okay. >> same struggle, same fight, all the people must unite.

i know all of you in this room have heard that over the years, and i'm wearing all these buttons and badges because i have boxes and boxes full of them. joe madison always ask us when we call in and give him a complaint or suggestion, he says, what are you going to do about it? this is what we did about it. i see you have on your shirt, the dc statehood representation without taxation. our congresswoman norton was also a part of the freedom riders. >> that's right. >> in the early stages of the march of the movement. >> yes. >> i'm not going to take time from your conversation, but i just wanted to share with the sister over there, black and white, christian, muslim, and jews, straight or gay, we all are you, and you are --

[inaudible] [applause] >> i think you gave us a lot of information about, in part, how the money came together, the organization, the lead organizer, mr. ruston, and i would add that it was important that hollywood show up that day and hollywood did show up that day, organized by harry belafonte and charleston heston -- >> sammy davis, jr.. diana carol. >> horn. yes, money came from hollywood on the runup to the march. there were fund raisers, a show in harlem -- i think at the apolo theater where money was collected. the unions who showed up in force also contributed heavily to the march in the financing as did the churches who i think

made lunches distributed that day, and the largest expense for the march, which was really run on a dime, was the sound system because ruston wanted to make sure everyone could hear, and so they spent something like enormous amounts of money, and there were folks who gave money to the not march in particular, but to the movement overall. in new york city, and one of the people that -- his wife, part of the carnegie-melon family, she was an heiress, and her folks

owned another company, and they were part of bringing together, you mentioned the big six, martin luther king, john louis, ncaap, the national urban league, core, people like that together how it could advance, and one of the tensions that occurred at the time is what dr. king ran because ncaap was culled in at the last minute to help get -- when the children were arrested in birmingham after the protests and crusade, and they were jailed, and they did not have the money to get them out of jail, the naacp did that, and they were constantly funding lawsuits and bail for protests that they had not themselves been privy on the planning, so some of the money

from new york and other places helped alleviate those tensions, but you had, you know, malcolm x at the time calling the march on washington the farce on washington in part because he was concerned who was funding the march and who was really in charge ultimately. >> there was a lot of discussion -- i read a lot even about product sales, and that speaks to some of the things we certainly do a lot of today, and even those buttons, and i'm sure they know what i'm talking about is the buttons with the two hands. i'm sure somebody has one somewhere, and they made quite a bit money from selling those buttons, you know, everywhere they could, and so that was another thing i found very interesting. >> i think we have time for two more questions.

i'll go here and there. yes, sir? >> i'm earnest, and i want to thank the society for having this event. i'm innative washingtonian, just 15 years old when i went to the march with some of the kids from the neighborhood, and i guess my perspective was just a little different because the movement in martin luther king has been quite roman -- romanced over the last few years, and the concern was whether the nonviolent approach really worked, and some said, nobody's going to spit on me or sick a dog on this, fight back, this, that, and the other, and out of curiosity because we heard about king's struggles in the south and all these different things happening, and he didn't have a lot of opportunities to present himself, but this was an opportunity where he could

explain why this approach really work, and i went off curiosity as a 15-year-old, three or four other kids from the neighborhood, we all got lost in the crowd, but what eric said is true. when he started speaking, you could hear a pin drop. to be honest with you, at 15 years old, i did not understand anything that he was saying. [laughter] i -- there's one thing that i took away from the march that whatever this man believed in, he was sincere. he believed this. it's the realness. i realized that getting older, i realized i listened to the greatest oracles in american history, and i began to have a much more appreciation for his position and status in american history. a good friend of mine, american university alum, and he's worked

on reunions at wamus student workshops and other things, but where in the hell did you get colored film in 1969? [laughter] [applause] >> i know the answer. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i just had -- i still have some film left over from alaska that i brought with me. i'm pretty sure, got great photo shop in anchorage with another photo place that was a foe foe processing place, one of our sponsors of the boy scout explorers then, and explorers in alaska, a different trip than here, i guarantee that. [laughter] it's a real deal.

it was expensive. you know, and i was trying to make enough money being a gs3, department of labor college, but although tuition then the first semester was $550 in 1963 for a first semester, but i did know this. i just sort of sensed that everybody, the press, was going to publish in black and white because they had the immediacy situation of turning it around quickly to get it into the papers and so on, so i kind of knew that i was doing something probably different, and it was around then, but slides always look better. in fact, i can't think in the 50s and 60s, no color prints of

my film. everything i shot was color or plaque -- black and white, so color slides was a natural thing to shoot with, and i wanted it in living color, the way i was seeing it. >> panelists, think about something you want to leave the audience with, if you have a plug, eric, you're going to tell us about your james brown documentary -- not yet, we have one last question. >> sure. another question. >> then we'll close out. >> i guess my question would be is that, you know, i went to the march on wednesday, and they talked about how organized these people were 50 years ago. you fast forward 50 years, people can't agree on a hash tag to even -- [laughter] put this on twitter, and i was struck by the fact that there were marchers going this way,

others going the other way, and people who wanted to march, but they got lost, and they are holding up flags for other people, like, over here. how is this so unorganized even though the issues are so much the same, even though we actually have real concerns. this is not just a commemoration. it should be a call to action, and, yet, there doesn't seem to be any unity or communication. how will this be successful, and how did it fall apart so badly? >> sometimes you -- sometimes i wonder if there's almost too much communication in the world nowadays. i mean, you know, we had a knock down drag out fight about a hair tag before this event started -- [laughter] that's part of the problem. there's so much information out there every day, and in the case of the marchs, ruston, those folks, they were together. they may not have agreed on everything that they needed to

do that day, but they agreed that this was a moment, and that they needed to take it, that moment, and make the most of it. forgive me, but i think that there's so much disagreement these days on what the most important, and there's issues to be concerned about, and it leads to this disorganization, and that's just my opinion, but i'll let anybody else -- >> i think that's an important note, and i think that does a good job, your question does a good job of taking us from then to now, and reverend's word speak to that in some ways, don't they, that everything has changed, and then in some ways, nothing has. >> cree. yeah. >> so, panelists, leave us with

a plug. >> we have two things -- launched a collection, methamphetamine belle -- memorabilia drive because we have four things documenting the march, a button, a program, and two more programs or rally in new york encouraging people to come down to the march, but we're asking for anything -- buttons, fliers, photos, if you have a letter to a family member or friend about the experience, we're just trying to build the collection up, and even more importantly, my colleague, she's in the audience, kelly, a

trained oral historian. we are collecting oral histories of people who were at the march. [inaudible] [laughter] wife four already. last week, they -- we had a program at the library in which they came back and shared their stories, very wonderful program. it was my most favorite of all the programs we've been having, and they each have a very different take on the march, so more information is on our website, dclibrary.org/marchonwashington. thank you, all, for coming out. this has been great. i really appreciate it. thank you. [applause] >> so i hope everybody will take

a look at washington history and the article we did, the evening star photographs were fantastic, and we really were enlightened by the research we did. i hope you become a member of the historical society if you are not already because that is the way to get the journal on a regular basis, and the next issue in warrant 2014 is on the history of jazz in dc, and so it is a theme issue, really excited about it, look for that. >> we're leaving this to go live to a panel of innovation and security, and disruptive thinkers are examining the impact of innovation on national security and how innovators and defense professionals can learn from each other. the group is comprised of young professionals and military thinkers. live coverage now from the center for strategic and international studies in washington, d.c..

>> you can find us on facebook and twitter, and instagram. we enjoy partnering with other great organizations. >> we have chapters in nashville, austin, toronto, and dc with the in addition to innovate in the defense department and other agencies by connecting military government leaders with entrepreneurs and creative thinkers to provide the tools and networks we need to bring disruptive thoughts into action. we have these two organizations together today because we share a common belief that tomorrow's leaders in foreign policy and national security are going to need the traits of entrepreneur shop in order to shank their organizations and agencies. >> so now i'd like to make two introductions. the first is my colleague to the

right, kris tin, who is live tweeting the event with the twitter account @ypfp using the hash tag dcdtytfp. the two organizations. use that hash tag, live tweet yourself or later in q&a if you don't want to ask a question at the microphone, tweet it. we'll monitor the questions, and she'll ask some of them from her microphone from the panelists. it's my pleasure to introduce our moderator, beth flores, director for leadership and organizational studies at the office of the secretary of defense. she's been with the department of defense since 2004 when she joined as a presidential management fellow and also worked in afghanistan while she was there. prior to her time at dod, she's worked in the public and private sectors. i know you all had a chance to

read her bio on the website, but i'll mention fun highlights. she had a coral fellowship in san fransisco, worked in silicon valley, and most recently, created an online community of federal workers where they could share their stories about their experiences during the 2013 furlough, so, thanks so much for being here, beth, and over to you. >> thank you. >> well, thanks for having me to ypfp, of which i'm a very supportive fan, and to disruptive thinkers, which i'm excited to learn more about. i thank to this playing home to the events, and for the audience, taking their time to be here and to learn, and i think this is an area of inquiry that is very open to make change and speak to the commitment of

yours. let me first praise the event organizers for bringing together a really diverse and interesting panel, in which i think reflects a key design element of innovation itself which is diversity. here on the panel, you know, you read their bios on the website, but we have many different perspectives and experiences represented from the civilian world and the military world, from industry, from development, and also folks who are taking some time to study innovation to stand back and reflect, so i really appreciate that diversity being so acted upon, say, in this event, so to set the scene, i was going to make a couple of assertions. one is that you are all here because you are committed to the national security of the united

states, and maybe even more poetically to a peacefully and globally connected world. my second assertion is that you're interested in responsible or at the very bearest minimum, you are certain somewhere deep in your gut that innovation is an imperative for companies, for governments, for organizations to -- for their own security, but also to be prosperous. even if you have no clue about how to go about innovating in this space, you're here because you care about it. my third assertion is that you don't know for sure the answer to the question that was posed by the event organizers. innovation and national security, do they mix? even though you don't know the answer, you're ravenously

curious about it. if all these things are true, we're in great shape because these are absolutely the necessary ingredients for having a mind-blowing conversation about this really important topic. those, you know, you have the passion, the deep curiosity, and the commitment to learn. i'm going to offer this challenge to you and to the panelists, that we have a different kind of a conversation than washington typically sees, and that that conversation is driven by our curiosity and our commitment, and we show that by being -- by acting, you know, really great questions. in that spirit, i was googling today, and i found fantastic quotations from someone that i had never heard of before, but apparently, he's a very famous american poet and also translated don k's divine

comedy. in any case, he said this, he said, "a good question is never answered. it is not a bolt to be tightened into place, but a seed to be planted and to bear more seed towards the hope of greening the landscape of idea." i thought that was a nice theme for the way that we go about learning more about this topic. just in case, if you consider yourself a little less poet and more street fighter, i found one from bruce lee -- [laughter] who said, "a wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." please, ask questions. if you forget how, i'll step in to help, okay? with that, i'm going to turn it over to the panelists. each of them will have about five minutes to introduce some ideas on to the floor, maybe

share your take on the question that's been foes posed to all of us, and then we'll open it up into a discussion. with that -- you want to go all the way down? >> thank you for the introduction. my thanks to the organizers. this is a real interesting event for me because i know none of the -- i know none of you. i know none of the supporters, sponsors of the panelists, but i'm happy to be claimed by either and both groups as a disruptive thinker or a young professional. i feel very welcomed. i'll be very quick. very simply, i believe, and i hope that national security innovation makes this very well. there are a lot of barriers and constraints about that, and i want to talk about those, particularly in the q&a period. i want to throw out a few examples in the development space where innovation is moves forward, i think, with a degree of intentionality that we have

not seen in the past, and to kind of spark your interest in that area, and then talk about what that land scape means for young professionals and foreign policy. i guess i just think it is actually -- if you look at the last two administrations in the emergence of the 3-d thinking of development, of diplomacy, and defense, development -- i talk about development. i assume that this is part in supportive of national security, so innovation that occurs in development is going to advance our national security. i'll stipulate that up front. the second is these all come from usaid experience, but i think they are indicative and emblematic of the movement underway throughout the development field if you look at donor practice, if you look at nongovernmental organizations, academics, philanthropists, they see innovation, new uses of

technology, and their applications appropriately in the development space as ongoing and increasing. i wanted to stat out with a quote from u.s. add min straiter, ron shaw, who i believe this issue of bringing new science and technology approaches to development would be his enduring legacy. he said at the aspen institute last year that we need to break out of top-down institutionally driven model of developments and adopt an open source development model that empowers people everywhere to tackle the challenges. effective development enables the system of free enterprise to take hold and connect to app integrated global economy in the way that protects opportunities of vulnerable and poor populations to survive and thrive. that's a long quote usually put on a big powerpoint and have people read it rather than read it to you, but couple concepts there. there's open-source developments actively involving those people

in the own development aided by advances in science and technology, and, again, adds to the benefit of poor populations and vulnerable populations as the leadership guidance that we're getting. three quick examples. one of the things that we started doing is look at big problems and development and under a program called grand challenges for development, we put out what are cases where we need to see big scalable solutions that will affect millions of people, and we have sort of charted what the problem is, and then opened up the design process to solve this, be it in academia, in the private sector, in the donor community. we asked of the solutions that they have four qualities. number one, is the solution you're offering scalable? does it have the ability to change millions of people's lives?

number two, is it adaptable? is it something that can work in the developing world environment, not a replication of something we do in the first world and tried to retrofit it into the developing world. number three, is it sustainable? that's a question we have to ask about any development engagement. it's the difference between providing the assistance and doing development. number four, does it take full advantage of 2 # -- twenty-first century technology. there's four development challenges that have been issued. they are called saving lives at birth. what interventions happen right close to birth that would help survivability of both mother and child. all children by age five, what innovations are available to create more literal populations, making all voices count is on accountability, and then empowering agriculture. those are a grand scales, larger dollar values, and scalable

results. the second area of innovation is what we call development innovation ventures which, again, in grand challenges, we script themes we look at, the development in innovations ventures are wide open. it's a continuing competition for ideas. statistics on that, 3 # ,000 applications for development innovations received since 2010, and interestingly, 70% did development innovation ventures, are from new applicants to aid, not just going back to the same old development community, and there are new 60 solutions underway in 22 countries. there's cost share for every dollar aide puts in, gaining 70 centss of partnership from the proposing coalition's approach coming together, and solutions come from all places. half from nongovernmental organizations, 52%, 33% from the

private sector, and 13% from academia, anne i don't know where the other 2%, i think that's the am biketous other cat boyar. the third is what i'm most familiar with because it fell in the area of work i do for the agency which was historically has been democracy in governance and then conflict management mitigation, and the united states should have a strategy around the world, and what can each agency bring to that fight, and what we are doing is the tech challenge on atrocities prevention. look at this, it's calledded www.thetechchallenge.org, and, again, in a similar fashion,

there's five challenges, and i'll just list them quickly. what are ways that we can identify spotlight and detour inadvertent unintentional third party enablers of atrocities prevention. folks in multinational corporations or the banking system or transportation or insurers who may be supporting bad actors who are responsible for contributing to mass atrocities, so how do we spotlight that and verify and try to detour that? second, how can we build greater chains of evidence to capture evidence where mass atrocities or mass human rights occurred? third, how can we get better predictive capability in communities or countries that are vulnerable to atrocities risk? what about secure communications between communities at risk? how do wet get into communities -- we get into communities where there's not the infrastructure for secure communications? it seems like the bad guys have

all the communications they need, but who is helping those who are at risk to communicate securely with each other. this was really the genesis of the tech challenge was really came out of the experience of the then deputy administrator of aid who was the director at the time of the rwanda genocide, and looking at what aid was proposing to do, what training we did, what grammatic response we had in the space saying the paper could have been written 20 years ago. any advances to bring to bear, and thus born was the tech challenge. in each case, i think what this says about innovation is that it sort of stands development thinking from the practitioner point of view on its head saying we are no longer going to define the problem, script the solution, and then contract to

grantees or contract to contractors or grantees. this is how we would like to characterize the problem. what we want to do is identify the problem, the challenge, the barrier, and put it out to solve communities that go well beyond the traditional donor or actors because we believe the complexity of many of the challenges, the solutions like well astride the typical disciplines that are usually entered into by young professionals historically be it economics, science, agronomy, whatever, that those solutions lie elsewhere, and so we have to be much more open sourced about where we go to the solutions. less points, what does this mean for young professionals? with apologies, i have five. i'll assert you have to think the hiring public the employees already think that you are

totally tech savvy whether you are or not so they think you are ipoded, itabbed, icompetent, and can solve this. if you're not, then realize that you're competition is closely -- this is a generation of those raised on the web or whatever it's called. second, it's much more important for development of top rate critical and analytical skills because the problems globalize, conflicts, need to develop a fairly sophisticated capability, and you can talk not q&a how to do that. get smart now. there's a way to do that, but you have to be intentional about it, i'd say. third, you have to be situationally aware how much the environment changed. i remarked by the time i started the career, 20-30 years ago, big government flows really was the

dominant place, aid, world bank, other donor agencies accounted for most of the assistance. now, it's not just development organizations, but, you know, in the height of the military conflict, 20% of development assistance came from the department of defense. that's just in the united states. the larger flows, that's just official assistance that come from philanthropists, undirect investment, from the chinese. the chinese, their official development assistance in 2001 was about a billion dollars. by 2007, it was 2 -- $21 billion. that was significant. to be situationally aware of the diversity of players in the space. fourth, that means the skills that traditionally train practitioners change. you have to be familiar dealing with private sector, other governments, nongovernmental actors, academia, look for solutions that are open sourced, we have to get familiar with how

do we deal, what's cultures involved in the other sources, and then, fifth, good old -- this has not changed -- emotional intelligence, ability to play nice in the sand box, the ability to work with people who are different than you, but not just work with them, honor and incorporate their ideas and give them your ideas in a collaborative way because that's the only way we can really get to the solutions we need. >> great, thank you, neil. so i'm going to turn it over to ben to share some remarks, and we saw how hard it is to stick to five minutes because there's so much to talk about and there's so much out on the table so the challenge is yours, ben, go for it. >> beth, thanks, i'll preface this saying everything i have to say now and the rest of the afternoon and evening is not representative of the navy, but my capacity. with that said, i'm a fan of asking for forgiveness rather than permission, and implicit in that is a requirement and a phrase coined that was said,

execution is the new innovation, and innovation is one of the buzz words that is around dod and government in general, and there's a mind set it's all about ideas, once you get the right ideas, things happen, but it doesn't happen unless you take action and executes on it. in the the military, what i'm seeing, is that junior officers and junior listed returning from war are the ones taking on these actions and making things happen. i think part of this is because a lot of us were sent into an environment that we were not trained for, and not because we got poor training, but because of the wars we had no training for. you know, infantry offers and others who were on the ground were trained to fight another state-on-state actor in a standard military operation, but when they got there, they were faced with basically defeating insurgencies and building a country from scratch or two countries from scratch. 25 and 26-year-olds in charge of

developing an entire community in the culture, religious, economic stand points, and they had to take on their feet and create solutions for that, and in that environment, they had a lot of leeway to do that in a lot of cass cases, and that internal intern neuronship, -- entrepreneurship created a mind set of getting things done quickly. the united states return has been a challenge because they are back in the environment where they have to go back in place, and not breaking the rules before, but there were solutions on relying of their own abilities, but back in the states, it's challenging. there's training, blocks, six or seven layers of pure bureaucracy to go through if we have an idea to execute, and what we see is a lot of the officers and enlisted personnel take things in their own hands, and of their own time, money, and that ligs, they make things happen. one of my friends, a pilot, started a company called

military traveler where it's an app where anybody can go around, and if they travel from one end of the country to the other, log on to the app, and see every single phone number of every base information sense they need. if they need the boq, a movie, and another friend of mine, jeff gilmore, has military lounge, an online social media platform. there's other organizations rising up where people take ideas and push them into action. two more than to mention is first defense entrepreneurs form that i led as ten junior officers who had a weekend-like event in october over columbus day to turn it on its head. ratherrather than hosting the sd dod top-level people and generals who, for the most part, say the same thing, the talking points, and leave the conference wonder what just happened, we leave innovators and entrepreneurs who are making a difference, every day have

companies, and they left the marine core after being in social forces and started a nonprofit in africa bringing water to that impoverished area, and katie, who was, i think she was army intelligence, created a company that's basically doing stuff with volunteers here in dc, and a 3 # 1-32-year-old who are making impacts at a young age, and they will be at the defense entrepreneurs form as well. second thing is my current position with the rapid innovation cell, an organization formed by the chief naval operations to get people outside the normal structures of government and give new ideas to the navy, people who were not institutionalized and more within the system to bring ideas, see technologies that our generation sees as changing the shape of the battlefield and putting them in demonstrations for the fleet to access in a quick way. getting back to my these sis, those in the generation, we want to make a difference. we're not there just to make

money, form a company, whatever, we want to solve a specific problem, and i think, you know, with the entrepreneurial mind set we have, we can do it. i encourage you in your organization, whether it be in military, government, or in a large company, or your own company, take an idea, run with it, get senior leadership, and if you don't, if it's good enough, get stake holders on board and take action to make it happen. if you fail, learn, move on. if you don't fail, build on that success and see where you go. with that, take questions later on, and i'll pass it to my friend off to my right. >> thank you, that was definitely -- [inaudible] hi, everyone, i'm leon. i cannot believe that a thursday, right before a major holiday, and there's this turnout in washington. what's going on? the city has changed. [laughter] well, thanks for being here, what an interesting topic. ..

their initials become a book we are in many respects it just your typical film producers who perfected the behind the camera, not in front of it. but here we are. i love the idea of execution being the new innovation. i feel compelled to plug the

bard, not shakespeare, but will smith. he said in the late 90's, some have hopes and dreams, we have ways and means. there are a lot of dreamers who want to come to this town. the ones that end up here are usually day students and the eight types. yeah, we may not be their sharpest dressers or, you know, maybe hollywood people but here we are. believe it or not, the people in this room, as it always happens, a few years from now there will be senators and congressman and positions of power. so we are here on a thursday evening right before holiday. i'm going to stop talking. let's have a conversation.

>> so i am under instructions to moderate a little bit of a discussion among the panelists, but i think we all generally agree that the more interesting interactions are with all of you. so what i thought i would do is throw out one observation or one question that came to my mind as i listened to you all. you can take a stab at it, and then we will open it up. is that fair? so this is actually a question that i was kind of -- it was forcing me to scratch my head as i was thinking about this event. that is, how do we think about the relative roles or importance in innovation between the creativity? that's where i think a lot of the initial focus goes. in the implementation peace which been really focused on.

when i was in business school they defined innovation process as three concentric circles. you know, that desire ability of the solution, right? is there a demand for it? the economic viability of the solution, which is a, can you make money? can it be sustained? is there an economic model behind it? the technical feasibility, can it be done. that, i think, is really interesting in terms of this question because it brings all of those pieces together. the easy answer would be that the idea generation pieces where we focus. a lot of times more fun the, but been a really highlighted the execution these, and i wonder if the panelists might reflect on their own experiences across the spectrum and then maybe we will open it up to the thoughts and questions from the audience. >> i think execution is scary

for a lot of us because in many cases it involves failure. none of us want to fail. i mean, we are all in d.c. or other organizations that don't really reward failure or allowance opportunities to fail, but i think when you get in the mind set of trying things and learning from them and really embracing the solution mine said, you get a lot of value out of that. you also meet people. one of the things i learned most from my time running disruptive thinkers and being a part of this hell is that relational networks are really the thing that drive a lot of these solutions for. in the military we love widgets and gadgets and things that look cool and fly around and go fast, but this see in el marching orders right now our platforms which makes perfect sense to me, but i would argue a person with the brain is the most potent and best weapon system ever created.

those of you who are more on that side, but they human brain and the ability to connect with others humans committed to people in a room and get some sort of synergy. five or six to have different skills sets. start throwing ideas back and forth and all of a sudden the individuals are far more together than they ever were by themselves. you form teams around ten or 15 organizations that i looking, manufacturing and a ship. somebody is already doing it. and maybe you stumble here, but someone else comes in to project management. you're executing up against a government bureaucracy, of a sudden you need a lawyer in assets make the system work for you and then you just about this whole network of people that is not justice debate once it's done, but you can go to a new project and rely upon that network later on our introduce that network to new people. self replicating ad hoc organization that just percolates and creates more power in and of itself.

so when it comes to execution we really have to focus on the fact that failure is a possibility, but from that failure can come great game. >> no comment. >> well, innovation, national security. this town, if you want to be read you have to write fiction. so the best fiction writers dealing with national security are now writing about national security institutions that exist mostly illegally but are staffed by people who used to be in the government that are aided by people who may be a junior enlisted folks but went an innovative and more entrepreneurs and made billions. they want to give back. instead of giving back, the institutions are helping set up

small cells of people who are do worse rather than people who are frustrated and the bureaucracy. the list of authors who are creating these worlds include tom clancy and others. so clearly some of the best informed the minds and national security, the ones that write the books that everyone else reads i talking about creating a new type of restitution, an institution that is complementary to government efforts, but is not limited to buy a lot of the rules and regulations and bureaucracy and everything else. a well-established government, the longest government on the face of the planet. we may be a young country, but we have the longest lasting government. we have institutions and rules and checks and balances. a lot of times it may not be the

most innovative organization to be and commanded may be frustrating for young people. a lot of them leave and do interesting things. it's a challenge as to how to keep the best people still interested and willing to play within the sandbox. of course someone who does not have to play in the sandbox. that's why i could talk about it. i don't to the same for -- i don't go through the same frustrations that government and military go through. hollywood or the deasy version, nonprofit production company. so all just listen to your questions. >> we will, i'm sure, get to some of the issues about the system in the organization that support for hindered innovation.

any other comments? >> just to pick up on this idea of failure, organizations generally don't like to fail. governments like it even less because there dealing with other people's money. governments in washington don't like to fail because mistakes are so high. you get noticed in a bad way for failure. i was watching folks here probably familiar with the organization's, i was watching a video today of some -- something like like to fail to learn quickly. and so this is a place where innovation does not necessarily makes. and i think my response to that dichotomy, the date. 1999. talking about failure with the government is not something

we're going to go out and adopt. so the way that i think around this problem is to start small, to build our tolerance by experiments where we can fail fast, we can create safe environments. if the objective is learning, i think the american people will understand that. >> great. so it is about 7:10 p.m. the event goes until 8:00 p.m. why don't we open it up to the floor. i would just ask that if you are at the table you make sure your microphone is on to ask your question. if you are not at the table, i will try to repeat it for the group. just speak slowly. okay. any questions? short. go ahead. >> hi, everyone. i am a defense policy analyst. my question for you, we have the

ways and means. do we have the ways and means? if we do, who is weak? i think that question of influence is something that we feel as young people a lot, especially in government in that we don't have it. but i want to see what you thought when it comes to age and influence and innovation, where we stand, where we going, will it improve? do we have the power to improve its? >> well, that is the first time someone has called me sir. you do have something that no other generation, looking at him and me -- not these guys, but no other generation before you had. that is, you don't have to write a letter to the editor. you can have your own publication. you don't have to call into a

radio show and wait for an hour. you can create your own radio show online. all you need is -- there are collapse. you can go to scatter radio, create your own radio show. go to a football game at your high school and say, excuse me, i game that no one is broadcasting. here i am live -- i don't know what the right technical word is, but you can broadcast the game. you know, your friends around the world can listen to you, the ones that are not watching that high-school football game. and you know, it used to be that there were flow charts and organizations. so and so reports to someone so. those were part of every website . you know, when websites first

started organizations would put up their flow chart. you see that a lot. maybe some governmental offices don't have that. something that someone took from a power point and just put it on the web. you know, so and so reports to someone so. there has never been a better time to be a young person in foreign policy. the hierarchy has been pancaked, if i can say that. and yes, probably a little more frustrating to be doing this inside the government rather than outside, but you have a lot of tools at your disposal. so you can either hope and dream or say i have the ways and means, and it is totally up to you. you feel that benefit outweighs the cost. because if you write something and you slide it under the door of your supervisor or supervisor , that also is a high

risk reward category, but if you have a time, energy to put something new together, people will read, especially -- you know, has good character development, as we like to say. never assume that the only time you should be allowed to speak is when you get the promotion or you get -- no. you know, you have to somehow standout. >> i can piggyback on that. one of the things that really came to focus for me, there were a lot of organizations that i wanted to exist that did not. you have to go out and make them yourselves. i think in d.c. and in bureaucracy's especially -- and

that will steal a phrase year. they're is a soft bigotry of low expectations for junior phelps, a junior officers, jr. listed. i run into admirals' to have said i am completely surprised at the level of effort these general offices are putting forward which is a very backhanded compliment, as if they did not expect that we could produce these things. you really just have to, if you see an organization, on short -- civilians with innovative military people, go do it. get people together in your living room over a book club and talk about policy issues. then they tell a friend. somebody else tells a friend. a year later you have three chapters across the country. foreign policy ten years ago. now is 10,000 jen people. that is taking an idea and running with it. if you have an idea for a group, just to. one of the things i want to do in my own organization, we are supposed to be the center of innovation. we have stovepipe organizations

that have of our time talking to each other. just start a book club in your organization. we will look get military history. i want to me for an hour every month and meet people and talk over a good discussion and start fostering relationships. if i have a problem more idea i can get to the experimentation department. the book on fragility your ever. we have their relationship. you have an idea, try it out. >> i work on national security policy at the heritage foundation. my question, to something you raised earlier that kind of struck a chord. i think it is fair to say that generally particularly in the defense world when we year -- when i hear the good phrase innovation, it tends to deal with systems.

and there is, as well, very familiar with an overwhelming focus on an unmanned systems and seeing as the future of defense systems. in a sense, i think we have kind of taken the human away from the equation. so how do you think we should continue to view the individual and the human and the innovative sense as technology changes and as we find our relationship with those tools different? i am thinking particularly with the way we talk about people who fly. i know the people that do this don't like to be referred to as drawn by ellis, for example. >> the first thing that comes to mind, we did at trip up to mit and happens to visit with the labs. one of the things they're working to do is make computers adapted to humans to read the interface is very optimized for

the computer itself. what about systems that respond to human ergonomics? what can we do to make the interface more directed and work? what you said about us focusing on widgets and physical objects was very true. it reinforces to meet the need to come back to the human is a weapon system. human performance optimization. areas like nutrition and physical fitness and even all the things coming out from the dna or the mapping of our genome as starting said -- understanding with the ability is. there is so much potential to truly optimize us as shoot capable people. instead of spending $100 billion in the next fighter jet, what if we poured a hundred billion dollars in the human performance or disease reduction or whatever which would optimize the

utilization of the systems? imi war with the human focus. is that your question? add on know if that got to it. >> i think just as an extra tax on to that, i think also what i was curious about is just in terms of how we even talk about innovation. it seems to be increasingly stepping away from the individual. the reason i'm, kind of thought about that before. and i think about the strength or traditionally how we refer to the superior of the american soldier, as you are very well familiar and i'm sure everyone else, not just the equipment. using that framework in the future, not just in the military, but elsewhere. >> i think you're absolutely right. >> i have a question over here. [inaudible question]

>> go out and try to do something. a little less tolerance, little less tolerant of hierarchy. so can you explain why. sort of talk about, you know.

[inaudible question] >> repeat the question. it is going to be hard to do it, but basically the question is around the tension between the individual and enervating impulse to be totally a liberating. and the institution that we innovate and, added to that this kind of imperative to scale, to paint the picture of the past how you would scale have that seems in some ways to create tension with this individual impulses. is that fair? ish? want to take a crack at this? >> i think, you know, the first place i would start is thinking about what you know about the

particular culture of the organization you're operating in and listening to the system that you are in and see what the tolerances are for destructive thinking or innovation. i would think that in any institution you -- those bankers tend to standout. those are your potential allies. i don't think the nature of that innovation -- you cannot do it by yourself. you can do it in a small group, but you will be better in a somewhat larger groups. i think the nature of the problem you're dealing with, do we have tolerances for horizontal communication, and formal networks. but this generation in terms of the whole idea of technology enabled communities of practice

and affinity groups, governments are filled with affinity groups. generally there are very low bars to doing that. i would start there. i think it is highly situational dependent in terms of the organization itself. >> i think for the military and specific, the chain of command exists for various reasons. have to be this levels of and lines, especially when it comes to combat operations. another phrase comes to mind, admiral nelson used to great effect in previous campaigns. his subordinates were able to execute his mission commander orders basically flawlessly and still win the battle. a modern-day example is general maddox. further on many was commanding general, he really believed in it. one of the things that i want to

create is this groundswell of innovation at the department of defense lower-level such that we are playing a long game. there will be the ones at the four-star level, kernel level, even the senior level who understand the innovative mine said and will allow their subordinates to truly use their talents. right now we have to exist within that, but i will go back. 20 percent. you have to prove value. 20 percent you're using is a return on investment. some crazy thing to my you have to sell that to your senior leaders in order to make a valuable. i think with the initiative that a lot of us have, we can do that. we can show true value. once you do that, it's often the playing field. so chain of command is absolutely important, but there are ways to help soften that.

>> to be cleared, i don't think any of us are advocating going away with the chain of command. that is one thing we will say. but just to mention -- i mean, the general who was known for its exports later in his career and go for one or two depending on how you count them, he had a battalion. you know, there were trying to see house of baghdad was. you know, i'm going to just keep driving. he went all the way. you know, he called headquarters . at the going to stay here overnight. i think i can pull this off. the war ended earlier. the headlines worked.

u.s. tanks roll into baghdad. our military is blessed with more entrepreneurship than most military's. most of the workers in the arab world. what we like to say is that u.s. army staff sgt has the same entrepreneurial / ability to get things done without getting someone to sign off of it. so the military allows people to think on the feet. especially in combat settings. what happens when we go into a country and there are a lot of issues? case in point, able to think on their feet. it works.

>> if the moderator is permitted for the folks to -- civilians are in these institutions, reminded of something. the social entrepreneur. in innovation series. good people being are feeling stuck in bad systems. so there is something to that. i think it is interesting to consider how being in the systems teaches you new ways of doing your work for being you, even in the civilian world, of very permission base system.

and you learn over time to ask first win, you know, before you ever worked wherever you worked. so one way to kind of put pressure you have to be educated about where the boundaries are of the appropriate behavior. but also, i find people say yes more often than they say no. it is better to put your ideas out there faugh. there is usually an audience for this kind of thing. >> there is one issue.

the present situation. really, i think there has been a significant issue. separately violated. have been doing a fair amount of research. really a number of people need to have a conversation. nothing was happening. the was a blogger situation. so really like to hear more about innovation. >> to you have a question? >> how can we sort of promote the issue is native for national-security in a way that cannot harm people.

>> i don't think he is a whistle-blower, not going to take this question. i think you can innovate without putting your national security interests in danger. of the fur. >> i think -- i'm not an expert on this, so i cannot offer a good opinion. i think there are technological revolutions. with the advent of the internet there will be consequences. but it's something to be mindful of. i think the democratic process will sort it out. unfortunately i cannot say anything more. >> kind of a different. we can't bring herself phones and to work.

no wireless internet. for good ideas outside of this basic research, we can't even tell our co-workers. so how you innovate in a setting where everything is classified in the classification is there for very good reasons? >> classification issues. >> in a culture of secrecy. >> yap. that's a great question. [laughter] >> i have never been -- all levels say is that over classification is bad. [laughter]

and things that are sensitive but unclassified sound like an oxymoron to be. i can say that because it's not my sandbox. figure out what is really important, protected really well everything else, just put it out there. if it really means the national security imperative use all the means to your disposal. but the idea of putting too many silos, not mine capote. >> i just want to offer a sorry. one of my two favorite until stories that demonstrates this culture of secrecy. so typically, you know, a id gets asked to go to interagency events. you go to some building that as a very innocuous name like

united technologies are something like that. no go and. on the director of the office of counsel management and mitigation for the bureau of. began talking to will say, hi, i'm bob. and, you know, i am sure bob has really get information. he invited me to this event. probably an ongoing professional relationship, but there is no business carter last name, no kind of interest beside a one-way extraction of the information from time to time. but if i just passed but don't think there is a good answer. if you lock down your ability to communicate with each other, what happens is those folks at that level are only talking to each other. it does not bode well for problem solving on the level of complexity that we need. the reverse should be true.

i believe there is a way to do that and still protect the nation's secrets. >> we will hopefully provide a mind bending perspective, directly -- para a phrase from a guy who does a lot of stuff, you know, and 20 or 30 years' time we will be directly interfacing with computers, putting things in our brand will be talking to them. this problem was going happen. so you as a government employee with classified information, when you look yourself up to a random machine to have the competitive advantage is that every one of your civilian peers as having, what kind of fire also will have to create. does that create a disincentive to the government worker when you can't use the same resources as somebody else? technology is going to keep pushing the boundaries of what

classification means. and when you connect to the internet or to the computer, and it's in your brain, how you deal with it? so think about that. >> a very provocative build on what has been talked about. we recently had peter singer over to the pentagon to talk about revolutions and technology on the battlefield. and one of the things that i walked away from, exactly what spam was talking about, that over time, as technology has advanced, the competitive edge that the government once held in this area is being eroded because of the openness of the civilian society. and that will come at a cost. i mean, you know, the question is going to be alcan government continue to do their jobs and

resist the direction that, you know, technology or the civilian world is pushing at us. on an individual level there may be ways for you to collaborate in ways that you and your office might not do by habit, but still confined within the rules. you know, in this spirit of the book club, just getting a bunch of smart, interested colleagues to spend an hour and a classified still trying to solve the problem. >> if i could say one more thing , the story about silicon valley in boston, some of you may notice. both of those of innovation corridors. the reason the silicon valley drive is that the state of california does not have a non compete clause. if you working with company acts, you cannot discuss anything if you leave that company with companywide. in california you are able to do that. a lot more cross-cultural interaction.

former new company with that personal intellectual property and develop something new. the cultural secrecy is the boston model. a culture of openness @booktv announcing we should make everything in classified, but think about the level at which we are classifying things. does it in his national security? are there areas for we can open things up to environments, even like to support all that would be an online crowds or site. if you could vote ideas up and down. that would be a complete cultural shift because you're opening up the aperture to people who don't have a need to know. very carefully, but collaboration does lead to superior results if done properly. >> a question on the table here. >> thank you for the cybernetics. i enjoyed that. i wanted to ask a question more about the here and now. in eminently practical question with a couple of facets to it. what is the hope for disrupting

the current hierarchy? specifically that the we have in the government's. i think for instance you might have seen dr. thomas barnetts talk about reforming the department of defense, changing it into a department -- a multifaceted department that could handle u.s. aid, like responsibilities where you don't just destroyed but create. what is the value of that kind of thinking? also, is that even the right kind of thinking? does change need to come from within the government or from without? >> the disruption that is coming , the retirement of the baby boomers will be huge. and it started a few years ago. between now and 2016 a lot of departments will have changeover

up to 50 percent of their total, you know, employees. so that is a huge change. and if i were you guys i would be worried however would retain the expertise was the are not here and once they're people my age looking up to me. >> i don't want to take a position on dr. barnett's -- actually going to host them in a couple of weeks. here is latest talks on this. i think it makes me think about u.s. aid in general and the ability of strategic thinkers and big thing to go on to challenge all kinds of conventional wisdom. whether there are enough platforms. you know, it is hard to imagine that there could be more robust intellectual life here, but it

does exist between certain kind of boundaries of what is seen as polite debate here. i guess there is always -- disruptive thinkers is kind of the idea where their conversations that we are not having could be had. and so one of those conversations, you know, that i think about a lot is, we talk about the 3-d world, but we choose as a society to, i think, under invest dramatically in two of the three things that we say are essential to our national security. so where does that discussion take place? it is going to get even more difficult as resources are greatly constrained. at the same time, who plays what role? who is best suited to play the roles that the government is asked to play, whether that is this agency, a combination of

en, or a combination of private and public roles. a natural space for that to occur, but again, it is sort of only existing between a band of debates. >> i think i am actually kind of optimistic that things a changing right now. i will use the navy as an example. admiral richardson, who is now the chief of naval reactors, when he was the commander of the submarine forces, he began an initiative called tactical advance in the next generation and brought together a group of 15 or 22 senior officers from across the lead and develop the next generation of the submarine bridged. and they created a completely new concept of how run a submarine. they took that idea and moved it into actual production for the next generation of submarines. now, guys -- you know, people like this, those guys really did

it. they are trying to get new, innovative ideas. the blessing of the challenges we're facing right now is that people are forced to look outside existing systems for solutions, and that is our saving grace of the generation. they're going to start looking just a flick of the solutions. we have to be ready to pounce on them when the opportunity present themselves. this may be a fleeting moment. so many things are lining right now for us to take advantage of. there will be an about is within the bureaucracy. but you will find those advocates who are in senior positions you're gone through the ranks, understand the system and the shepherd your ideas through. if you take advantage of it and find those people, they can be your mentors and really give you guidance. i am an optimist. there are beams of light that actually making an impact.

>> in the back. [inaudible question] >> overcoming the challenges. a lot of times when we joined up with larger companies working on concepts, we have engineers on site and we bring them in. they help in a vase solutions to the next generation of programs. and they come up with really fantastic ideas. they understand how works, how does not work, and we cannot implement those ideas because that is not what the contract for the new generation. it is the old way. and if you have an innovation that works better, to bed. that's not what we're asking

for. you guys have seen some examples of how you can overcome those structural challenges, if you will. >> submit a proposal. >> an unsolicited proposal. whoever is writing the contract, they may actually. don't assume that the people at the top of getting the same information that you're getting. >> there is also a kind of contract thing where you basically described the in state that you want to. then let the proposal propose how we can get there. i don't know if and the delivery of the proposal, whether new innovations that were knocked present at the time, the proposal was written would be accepted, but i think there is a way to contract.

it really does go to sort of how you approach problem-solving and what you can do with the allies a procurement to do that, but there are -- generally, greuel base system, but there are rules that designed to build and at least some innovation. the knowledge of that is very nearly shared, as part of the problem. >> way in the back. >> i feel compelled task the next question. we write the rules requirements. [laughter] and that is where i really can't kind of raise this question. one of the battles that we fought, i love talking because it seems like there -- there is

an old culture among those who have been around for a long time and have retired to a three times. half my team is fought in vietnam. they don't share in permission because so many of the last -- the recent history has been stopped telling the industry how to do things and let them innovate. that has been interpreted through couple of generations as don't talk to industry. let them figure it out. and so industry at the small and creates these ideas. there is no real method. we have seen -- and i am sure you've seen, the navy also on the rapid side, some of these very rapid and unique. it's a great on ramp. and great stuff has been built. then it fizzles out in the eyes because it does not have a legitimate requirement behind it to carry on. and i guess my question would be, for those who have more experience at higher levels, what do you see being the bridge

from the government side? we cannot change regulations as much as we would love to rewrite and make it 12 pages long. you know, what innovations are you seeing that allow us to bridge that gap? >> i cannot answer that because i have not seen examples. one thing that i think we need to do a better job of is in procurement, a systems approach. and given a large program with multiple components, we usually optimize each individual components separately. sometimes even the different companies, but when you put them together they don't talk to each other. there are problems, and so you need to create a conduit whereby the organization's response will for creating the systems are working together to create the best as a whole, and it goes back, the 1980 u.s. olympic hockey team, you had a team of soviets who are all stars in their own right individually, the best of the best. you have this team of scrappy,

you know, u.s. guys to work really well together. they may not be individually the best, but as a system that work better than the individuals. far too many of our weapons systems because of the procurement process, of reasons why, but it does not produce the of -- optimum results for the system as a whole. think we need to do a better job in procurement of recognizing of these interactions and letting the war fighter be intricately involved in this decision making processes. i'm talking about one, two, three, who is using this every single day because they're pointing out, i have to log into two different systems because they won't talk to each other. if they do it takes ten minutes to download to the server. you have to get this on the ground expertise integrated directly with the contracts. that would really be a fundamental culture shift, and i don't know if it would ever happen because it would fundamentally shake up how we do procurement.

>> it is a great question because it is easy to, where is -- there is a problem in this system or the people? and while the procurement, speaking generally, the ones that i am familiar with, the rules that allow you to do several things to break through this attitude of not sharing, number one, you can publicly request information. request for affirmation that goes out, canvasses the field and says, what is out there? what are you working on? what do you think would be of interest to us? to open, transparent, full participation. you can do business conferences. you can, you know, as long as you keep between the four squares of what you have said in writing and share that on an equal basis, you can identify who the parties are. once a protected procurements sensitive -- procurement goes

off once an award is made, you can work closely as a partner. we call it our grantees and contractors, our partners. and my sense is if you are guiding value for the american taxpayer, they are going to want a good program that represents the best thinking. this idea of holding back information and letting others figured out runs counter to what that prime goal would be. >> right here at the table. >> dod. one of the things we touch upon among the questions is the tension between innovation and silicon valley necessarily bottom-up. government is more top-down. large corporations the same way. legal political command control reasons. with this new century of technology, some sort of transformation of government is going to come. if he were to imagine a certain

transformation in government, what would you wanted to be? if you could snap your fingers and change the system in the way you imagine a make it better, what would you wanted to be? >> okay. [laughter] years ago i was an intern here working on a blue ribbon commission to look at what is going on. the interest of protecting. and a lot of the dysfunction, the reason why the chose to go outside the agency to bring stakeholders from throughout washington to say, guys, help us was because in the 70's it was politically expedient to say we have this crisis.

wouldn't it be great if everyone that is working on energy in any shape, way, or form across 20 plus agencies would be under one roof, talk to one another, and we can say we're doing something about the oil crisis. of course, a lot of institutions and organizations that had their around corps' history were merge rather suddenly. and here we were in 2000 looking at something that was done wrong but fast in the 70's and trying to figure out, wow, this organization has had a growing pains that are older than we are . how do we address is? and, you know, fast forward a few years and we have another instance of a similar merger because it was politically expedient to do so at the same time. the department of homeland

security. so long story to tell you, you know, if it were to be organized or reorganize -- and these things take time. yes, politics is involved. it has to be involved. i would like a government that, given a lot of retirements and given a lot of necessary belt-tightening figures out what are some things that we no longer need to do. and, you know, now you get into turf battles. who is willing to give up any of their responsibilities to many of their prerogatives. i don't have an answer for that, but i was a say it is not just

the executive branch that has this issue. these turf wars also happen on the hill. and the hill decides the shape of the executive branch. so be patient. but they're is a force of less money to go around. someone has to sit and think, we are talking about how many ships should the navy have. that is an ongoing conversation. there is less money. budgets are going down. a lot of people are going to retire. perfect time to of sit and think . >> just a couple of suggestions. i don't think these are down the road. these could be implemented fairly quickly.

in terms of this idea about what you would change to promote innovation and get more bottom-up, it is far too hard for people to of move around the government and in and out of the government's as it is structured now. many of you know veterans of the pms program that is designed to move you around. i think you said it within the first five minutes or so. very stovepipe, and we don't talk about every bureaucratic organization. some degree of that still piping specialization and deep knowledge, but it also creates independent cultures, career paths. but for a lot of the complex problems we need much more krauss colonization, fertilization. the ability to move on detail, come back into government, to go to a think tank or an academic appointment, and then the concept -- that is one. we have the authority to do that now.

it can be done budget neutrally. there is some loss in terms of transaction costs. and then the concept of lifelong learning. the military is way ahead of the civilians in terms of this. i teach glasses, multiple degrees from the military since. the travel around the world. nothing equivalent on the civilian side. to make lifelong learners. that kind of developed -- experience will be needed in terms of promoting innovation, not just for yankee people, but for the entire conduit of people working on these areas. >> i'm actually kind of a fan of the current system in the sense that it you evolve over the past 30 years, 4760 years now, and to

snap your fingers, start over again and have all the points evolve from there. at the discussions like this and things that we are trying to push are going to move that evolution naturally towards a more perfect equilibrium almost. the dod and governments can align behind 20, 25 years of society, but it will be pulled. we don't have to buy phones, but we do have e-mail, pre fast internet. in the evolutionary process is hard to have significant point said the change. in a democratic system, almost the best way to mobile any to push it. many people to poke the bear almost and make them prove that there are still valuable and that those market forces go up as individuals and point out the flaws and force them to change

if they see value. that is a long proposition. it is a long game, again, but our systems evolve for reason. a lot of it i don't like, but it's that much harder to prove that what i am advocating for is more beneficial and that process will make a better system. >> we are a couple minutes before 8:00, but we started a little bit late. i . to you, maybe, as the last question, second to last if it is a burning one. >> appreciate that. hopefully my question and comment will tie it all together. enter agents program manager for the coast guard. perhaps innovation, and then we also mentioned emotional diligence.

introduced the concept of systems. and i think it is very clever. in innovation across the internet, you're coming across a lot of people, the model associated with innovation. so this tangible gadget, this thing. so the analogy i offer is the iceberg. what you see is only a small portion of all mass in itself. so the water around the expert is a culture that it operates within. on top is the stuff you can actually see. underneath it is holding the iceberg up. the vast majority of its mass i will submit as this is facilitating innovation.

the management, the training, the education, the administration, and all these other connections. so it is effectively no system. so if we talk tough -- to stir the pot of little bit -- encouraging growth or expansion with society's systems quotient, some techniques that we can do to shift the mental models away from the gadgets and sort of trance and to the idea that innovation is everywhere. innovation is pervasive in all our systems, within the not so sexy financial system, but not so sexy administrative system. they're better ways of doing things. ..