launched. he earned an unwavering attention to his command. our situation today highly perilous. i got from tampa and made an observation. they seem to steer by. we are covered with francie, but we can scarce cr make use of our eyes. every person complaining and some of them soliciting extra loans. and it positively refused it. >> visit booktv.org to watch this and more from our first 15 years on there. now more nonfiction authors and books on c-span2. >> in light of recent diplomatic contacts between the united states and tehran. ♪ team presents portions of author talks the salmon negotiations between the two countries over

the past 30 years. in the next hour you will see clips with u.s. central command adviser david crist, author of the twilight war, abraham sofer, former legal adviser to the state department, and author of taking on iran. and president of the national iranian american council and author of a single roll the dice. we start with david christian author of the twilight war, the secret history of america's 30-year conflict. he sits down with former national security council official to discuss internal debates within the american military government over relations with the wrong. how to manage the iran problem, how to act ... clear signals about redlines an element, without being so confrontational

that the only option is to escalate military tensions buried at the your book had some really original material on some of these debates within the military. i wonder if you could talk to us a little bit about said, is out in the arena. trying to set the course of u.s. policy. a few stories at thank you remember quite vividly, the late 80's, i believe between the chairman of the joint chiefs and the admiral that was in the region and the time -- i think the admiral was poor to fair responsible for the name of the

-- naval forces and your father was the scent, cmdr. help us understand why the story was important for the u.s. katie storytelling. >> it's a fascinating story, and it is, as you say to my illustrative of the fact that there is not uniform view of in the military, let alone the u.s. government of how to approach iran. the issue was really between -- there was an admiral who was described to me by the chief of naval operations at the time as the most as a board man he had never known, but also grudgingly , a great thinker, people who really thinks outside the box. lions never had gotten over the bombing of the u.s. marine barracks. he saw iran as complicity, and had not responded. so he was advocating not only a

very strident military policy but actual military strikes against the iran at the time. the have a long relationship. he used to use alliance for a lot of his dirty work, for lack of a better word, or for do things they did not necessarily want to be associated with. this was a case where the admiral really encourage lions and what he termed a window of opportunity plan which was in august 87 there was a turnover of aircraft carriers out in the gulf. lions wanted to use this plus the that was about to arrive to really punish the iranians. perhaps even use it as a way of assuring in regime change, regime notorious the civilians

in the pentagon, if you will come outside the joint chiefs of staff who bought the answer with the iranians was more than a containment feel that we don't want to escalate this crisis divvy if they do something, we will do sort of a restraint measure operations. avoid striking the iranian mainland. the object of trying to keep this crisis in check said it does not go to a full-blown war. we would essentially drive the iranians back by seizing oil platforms and things like that without a split in the conference. so if they do something provocative we would respond proportionately. in these two are really clashed with in the pentagon. and what happens is a series of events happen, these carrier deployments. eventually it gets to the secretary of defense weinberger's attention to

essentially sides with those who think alliance has been insubordinate and fires them come relieves them. in the middle of all of this admiral kraft, the guy who had privately encouraged him and the transcripts of the fall of conversations the trend lines in growler, he does not backing up and says that he knows nothing. saliva six the fall for something that the chairman and actually encouraged. >> interesting. first. >> you understand that ron is perhaps the largest piece of the threat environment. is no longer the soviet union of the russians to rerun the word

about somali pirates, and the big scheme of things iran lens the largest as the possible military acquirement. how does a more junior military personnel, how did they understand u.s. policy? busted a snapshot of something fairly recent. the think our young military officers do see iran as the enemy? county think that they are conditioned to understand u.s. policy. how often they get briefed on u.s. policy. how they get the nuances? was supposed to before landing in my recent post to be just maintaining and containing.

>> that is a good question. even the senior officers at the same nuance. such a difficult problem. as i describe this relationship between peace and war, light or darkness, that is not an easy spot. everybody approached it away. iran is different. your average sailor probably does not have a good view of this nuanced view. a lot of it is based upon their interaction with the iranians themselves when they pass on the water which is, in some cases, their professional c'mon case to the other cases the revolutionary guard barely notices. the u.s. military does, i think, a very good job trying to condition ships because we are really talking naval issues, most likely not army or air

force. but before they deployed a series of workshops to kinda put them in the mindset of, okay, is disposed -- is this book hostile? isn't it? is a smuggler or revolutionary guard boat? see out there to tweak your nose and not restart a war or not? so we tried very hard to get people condition to the some barman. it is a tricky situation. there is no doubt about it. and with no diplomatic relations , last year at least according to the press accounts the supreme leader rejected an opening of the hot line between our two navies which would have, perhaps, helped diffuse this problem. >> this is what we saw. >> i know several of the u.s. naval commanders in the region the big political breakthrough.

still something very useful and pragmatic. >> absolutely. i think that if we could get to at least that step would help. is now have anything to do with the strategic calculations of the way the government's view each other. we did it with the soviet union. it is something that navies to be read it is keeping. >> i think the lesson for the cold war is useful. how do we understand the u.s.-iran story. the cold war and some ways is a useful analogy because there are pieces of this relationship that have that coercive set the limit, signal each other, don't go any farther. did you can still make at least in the cold war there was also a political conversation that was going on to my political conversation that did not suggest it or that good of

france, very different world views but had a channel in which we could communicate and trying to not misunderstand each other's intentions. and in the cold war i would say that the bill was very much to avoid a catastrophic war. but certainly it was trained as we are adversaries, very different goals for the international system. there are not appear adversary and never will be. they understand that, i think. interpreting our intentions. a disproportionate adverse effect. so let's fast-forward to the iranian nuclear program to being a big threat. a lot of the story in the 80's is unable, the tanker war.

the secondary effects of the iran-iraq war, of lebanon, stuff that is fairly locally contained but over the last decade the buildup has been to something that really has larger geostrategic consequence. the iran nuclear activities. but think about it from the u.s. military perspective we have been talking a lot about the navy, but preparing our thinking about what the developing capabilities for a possible requirement that the president would said to set back the iranian nuclear activities or to prevent them from crossing that line, presumably it would entail very different parts of the u.s. military. can you talk to us about that? planning for what some of the contingencies are. right now all options are on the table, a diplomatic solution. we hope very much to avoid. the president tried to get that balance right still believing

that iran has a choice to make up politically resolving its dispute with the international community about its nuclear activities. but what about the planning side , imagining that we will have to use other measures. >> the prevailing view is that hopefully it will cut down the path. there is time for diplomacy. i think the diplomatic opening the president has done is the correct one. i think that iran has a unique ability of taking everything else to the brink and then suddenly reversing course and working a compromise. i hope that is the answer. i think the u.s. military is prepared for any contingency, be it iran or elsewhere. there is a robust air defense system in the gulf today with -- i think the other day there was an announcement of $4 billion with the new patriot air defense system.

we just deployed more minesweepers to the gulf, mine countermeasures. we have the largest number of those instances storm today. and those are not only just aimed at iran, but every -- any possible contingency. iran, elsewhere, al qaeda, pirates. the one certainty that we have in the middle east is, you don't know what the next race is going to be. so obviously i think the military is fraught. we are probably smart about them militarily, dealing with iran as we have been in 25 years. but it is just not only iran but a number of other potential problems. >> i'm with you on how -- you know, the policy-makers are framing ahead. and really the iranians have a choice to make. there is solution that would get us to re more -- you know, different outcome. one argument is made that you

know, after the wars it would be hard for us to pull off, you know, military operation on the scale that iran would require says iran is a country, let's remember, three times the size of iraq, more important than the geopolitics of the region. a very important energy producer but just as a practical matter, a santa populations with respect to the iranian nuclear activities would entail the air force more than the navy of the army. so the argument about could we do it and what are our capabilities might be different than the public conversation gives the impression sometimes. >> i think if there is a conflict of any sort, be it miscalculation or otherwise, it is going to be a joint war. i think you will see that we don't fight army and navy air force and in more. the fight altogether.

i think under any circumstances you will see every single element of the four services involved in it. and this energy that we have, particularly after ten years of war, when it comes to a lot of this, the political infighting that was done, even in 2002. and there are some nasty fights between the air force and army, for example, over how to run things and do is in control. a lot of that has gone away. we worked out a lot of the kinks as far as how to fight a modern join war. >> you mentioned our relations with the gulf countries. wondered whether russia spend a little bit of time reflecting on their security requirements, their expectations. you have said that their capabilities to join us both in deterring iran and possibly

having to go further, you know, have improved and changed over time. i wonder if we should just say a little bit more of how well we can coordinate with the countries of the gcc in the end the size of the u.s. and the capabilities of the u.s. adjust so qualitatively different, both quantitatively and qualitatively different. but i wonder if you have the impression that they would expect to participate or be a full partner at both -- in a deterrent or containment strategy and in a strategy that might require more for action. >> they obviously have the most online since it is their backyard, any conflict. he raised a good point because one of the enduring constance, if you will, of u.s. foreign policy that comes throughout the book a different phases is the desire to partner with the gulf

air, the gcc, gulf cooperation council states be read the first incident i ever found of us trying to work with them and forge a collusive bond was in 1982. the defense department to start. the late 80's, we start working on an integrated air defense system. he buys hawk missiles. it is all primarily aimed at iran at the time for an integrated air defense system in case they decided to attack one of the gcc states which comes a begin in late 90's. again, when the iranian threat seems to rise again. so we start working with the gulf countries again and trying to forge some kind of cohesive bonding we have been doing it. >> back again. >> and it really is a partnership. if you look at the very early debates about how u.s. military was going to operate in the middle east, back to the carter administration there is an

enduring constant that we cannot do this alone. we have to have partners in the region. it is we just need the resources, we need the people to help us. >> so where does iraq said and all of this? we have somehow between pro-american and pro-iranian or may be trying to be both. but iraq was our enemy, our friend, back-and-forth, back-and-forth. the iraqis in the gulf country don't get along well at all. i think they quite profoundly disagree about whether iran is a good guy or a bad guy. so how would you imagine -- here we ingates and tried to modernize the military. we made a huge investment in bringing iraqi institutions back on line. how would you imagine the iraqis playing in a contingency with respect to iran? >> that is a completely unanswered question.

iraq is in a transition. there is hope that eventually we -- the gulf states will come around. on the other hand, iraq is not iran. there are arabs and persians. even prime minister maliki who was at various times actually somewhat supportive of the iranians to migrate incident i recount. did you @booktv there the iranian president on tv speaking farsi. did you -- and he needs a trend -- translator. and he's been a lot of time in iran. he said to my surprise he did not learn farsi. my god to me you don't know what life is like, to be a

second-class citizen to be an arab and a person country. so that tension is there. i just really think that it is too early to tell how it plays out and fits into the larger calculus. >> our focus on relations between the u.s. and iran continues with the former legal adviser to the state department and author of taking on iran, strength, diplomacy, and the iranian threat. detailing five negotiating principles that he believes should be used in any diplomatic communications. >> doctor, our current strategy of sanctions working against iran? >> certainly putting pressure on them economically. but it is hurting the people more than it is hurting the iranian revolutionary guard corps. they are really our enemy.

the answer is no. >> host: in your bookie's been quite a bit of time talking about the irgc, the revolutionary guard court. you are they? >> they were created under the new iranian constitution in 1979 with the assignment of defending the islamic character of the iranian revolution. they have an enormous amount of assets and responsibilities. they are very radical. they control many defense industries. they have their own army, air force, and navy. they control the missile program , and they are under the ayatollah in charge of the nuclear program. they also have a force which does assassinations and other interventions abroad. right now that force is a group that is helping assad stay in power in syria spearman and we

will get to their exploitation of that kind of thing in a minute, but what is the relationship with the president's of iran? who controls what? >> well, the president has his own areas of power, but the igc is answerable to the ayatollah. the president is under the ayatollah also. could not order the igc to do something that the ayatollah told him not to or vice versa. >> host: what should be the goal in your view, our policy? much should we be looking for? >> we should be looking for an option to the two basic options we are considering now. an alternative to those two options would be what i would advocate that we need very much to consider. the two options we are considering now are both highly

undesirable. one is to attack the nuclear program of iran, to prevent iran from having nuclear bomb. and that is what the president has promised to will do. of course, president clinton promised he would do that with north korea and he did not. and wisely so because it would not have been sensible to allow a million south koreans to be killed and art to a brush in exchange for preventing north korea from having a nuclear weapon. anyway, the president has promised to prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon and that suggests an attack. it would be very costly. could cause a lot of civilian deaths, a lot of pollution, and it could fail. it would certainly be regarded as illegitimate and illegal the most of the world.

it would fail because iran would leave the non-proliferation treaty and proceed in secret to develop a nuclear weapon. the other option is to let iran get a nuclear bomb and tried to contain the nuclear arms iran. that is equally, perhaps even worse than the option of attacking the nuclear program because it is not going to lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the middle east, and it is going to destabilize that part of the world. iran is a threat to israel and has threatened to the fact that there should be wiped off the face of the earth. you could

soldiers, marines and our marines in lebanon, and airmen in saudi arabia, our soldiers. we have allowed the irgc to work with hezbollah and to work with other factions, arm them to kill americans, for that purpose. and that is clearly illegal and activity. we should have stood up to the irgc a long time ago starting with the reagan and ministration. we did send it to the soviet union and made a big difference because we're able to negotiate

effectively a result. we should stand up, defend ourselves from these irgc sponsored attacks and then, through that show of strength make a serious negotiation possible. >> host: you have experience negotiating directly. >> absolutely. >> in what capacity? >> i was legal adviser to the state department. and i'm conducted the negotiations in iran in the hague. there are negotiations over claims, but claims included a lot of things, military things. and as we developed a good relationship, myself and the person nine initiative with, member. he was a member of the ten persons controlling body in the iranian government. we were able to tackle some other issues as well.

and i think that when we can negotiate effectively with iran, we must do so with the background of strength and with policies, negotiating policies that are more analogous to what we do with the soviet union and they are to what we're doing now . >> host: you worked with joel -- george shultz here at the national security hoover institution. we interviewed secretary shultz a little while ago. one of his rules of thumb was that if you're going to point a gun at somebody cannot be prepared to use it. >> that is actually right. we have escalated a verbal war to a ridiculous point, but we have not used the gun and all virtually. we have said that a nuclear-armed iran would be unacceptable.

we say that iran supports terrorism. we have the option, the military option on the table. the president said he is going to prevent a nuclear armed iran. so there are a lot of words that have been expressed. we have allowed iran to kill about 1,000 american soldiers of the last 30 years, and we have not pushed back adequately. the only time we pushed back is in 1987 in the gulf. come we did and sank a bunch of speedboats and one ship, the iranians get the message. they stopped putting mines in the gulf. they stopped fire missiles. we made our point.

iran, if anything, was more eager to negotiate with us as a result of the strike than before but other than that we have done nothing. when they tried to kill. [inaudible] a year-and-a-half two years ago all we did was invite the irgc officials we knew were responsible. week indicted aside twice. it did not do any good. he went on killing americans, blowing of american ships until we actually took him out. and that is what you have to do with the radicals who want to kill americans. if you let them kill americans, they will kill more. >> host: at the beginning of our discussion you said we should not attack. the attack would be bad. it would be the wrong policy. how deep you negotiator operate from the position of strength if you are not willing to use military force?

>> guest: it is very different to attack nuclear facilities in iran than it is to exercise self defense against the irgc. the nuclear facilities, there are about to have them spread all over the country. if ollie defended. very well defended. they could cause all of the damage that i mentioned, including the alienation of the iranian people. the form of self-defense would be regarded widely as legal, legitimate, targeted. we could pick the targets we want. there are plenty of irgc targets, convoys carrying hours right now into afghanistan to help kill nato troops. we could take out a convoy on the iranian side of the border and make a point. this is a much more limited, targeted activity. yet it shows the iranian government that we are not going to tolerate the strategy of

using the irgc to attack us and make it more difficult, if not impossible for us to achieve our strategic purposes and places like iraq in afghanistan. >> host: a chapter in here, 30 years of u.s. weakness. that is exactly right. it was striking for me as a member of the reagan administration were we were standing up to the soviet union. we said all the right things, but what did we end up doing? nothing. we allowed them to kill the marines in lebanon through hezbollah, and then we said we were not gone to negotiate with terrorists but engaged in the iran-contra affair. we did not cover ourselves with glory. we absolutely did the right thing with the soviet union.

the negotiated from strength and negotiated in a meaningful way. we don't apply any of those principles. i frequently mention that. we should apply to iran the policies for the soviet union. he agreed with me and i am honored. >> host: what are those negotiating principles? >> guest: the first is to have to have rhetorical restraint. don't say things are unacceptable and an acceptance. don't make it difficult for them to make concessions. pounding on your chest and claiming he had achieved something.

make it easy for them the second thing is, treat them like a sovereign nation. does not mean you have to accept them or respect them for that matter, but you have to engage them diplomatically the way the policy works, the sovereign states. in the soviets were very concerned about that. they wanted to be treated as a sovereign state. they were the evil empire. we were concerned, and we said so, ron reagan said so. he still treated them with great respect and dignity when he engaged in. but maybe the most important thing is linkage. we link our willingness to talk to iran to their behavior. there behavior is terrible, but the behavior of the soviet union was equally bad if not worse. what happened there was decided

we have to stand up to these guys when they do something wrong. and refusing to talk will not deter an enemy. standing up to an enemy does potentially. and it makes talking possible. i believe that if we stop linking our willingness to talk to their conduct, stand up to them, we would be more effective at talking to them, and there would be more willing to talk to us sincerely. the fourth thing is that there is a broad agenda. we know the iranians are interested in talking to us, and we care about a lot of things, particularly human rights. whenever talk about the stuff. all we talk about is what we want, the nuclear concessions. they feel, and i am sure that they are right, we don't want to give them anything until they give us what we want. that is not the way to negotiate we negotiate things including

nuclear arms but also including commercial material, a human-rights, regional issues. lots of other things. and every time our leaders met they had a few things that they settled, i greenness to sign. there was momentum created as a result of having a broad agenda that we absolutely did not have. there is no momentum the context in which she negotiate, the form we have to be willing to talk to the iranians in any form, secret meetings, private meetings, even the meetings of commercial leaders the way we did with the soviets. but what we do is we have the talks and go and sit down at a very high level, very big to do

every time it happens. go on television. we get up and say before we go in there we're going to demand this and that. and then they get up and say, before they talk to as we are not trying to stop in richmond to my clothes, and we are trying to talk. sure. but we're not going to do any of the things that they say they want from us. then they come out of the talks and reassure the public that they have not done anything. i mean, that is not the way to achieve progress and an initiation. you have got to have the sophistication, the expertise, the commitment to actually change things. changing things means that you have to figure out solutions. we have not managed to do that. and so the negotiating principles that we use with

their principal in the in the world. there is no reason we should not use the same principles and negotiating with iran. >> we finish up our look at american and iranian relations with author of a single roll the dice, obama's diplomacy with iran. the president of the national american iranian council examines the diplomatic efforts between the obama administration and iran in 2009. >> i'm here to talk about the obama administration iran policy. we have seen how this issue has once again come up on the agenda, on top of the agenda. that perception that the risk of war has been essentially eliminated by the election of barack obama, clearly is turned out not to be true. in some ways back restarted. i think the book gives a good understanding of why we have ended up here. the book is based on dozens of

interviews, both with key people in the obama administration, people in congress and the senate who work on this issue, but also with almost all of the international actors to have been involved, ranging from the iranians to the brazilians and turks, european actors as well as san -- saudi arabia, is real command of the states that have an interest. let me start off. to the muslim world, we seek a new way forward based on a mutual interest in mutual respect, to those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, no there you are on the wrong side. but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. only 12 and a half minutes and to president barack obama's presidency he reached out to iran and the larger muslim world

offering a hand of if iran would and vengeance fest. a bold move born out of necessity. as far as we know having conversations in diplomacy with autocratic leaders of the iranian state was never a childhood dream of his. rather while some believe that bush was pursuing wars of choice, obama has come to the conclusion that peace with iran was a necessity. the bush administration calls it a policy that essentially said that diplomacy with america's enemies would be forbidden. it was diplomacy -- diplomacy was viewed as a reward, something you on the extent to the countries that deserve america's company. by talking to other countries essentially you ran the risk of legitimizing their leaders and in the case of iran clearly that was not something that the bush administration was interested in

. what everyone's view is of this ideology, the track record is quite clear. during eighth year in which there was no functioning sustainable diplomacy between the united states and iran, the bush and administration felt there were punishing iran by not talking to them. the iranian influence in the region grew exponentially. first to have the situation, two states which leaders -- whose leaders tended to be enemies. suddenly they were now -- iran was now they can -- kingmaker. iran only had a couple of dozen centrifuges in 2003 have up to about 8,000 by the end of 2008 when bush left office. and by challenging and increasing the and popular american beliefs, iran to stop power. against this backdrop abominates

something that no one had done before, a promise of diplomacy. and under normal circumstances they would have been a losing cause it now became a winning proposition precisely because of the american populations rejection of the bush foreign policy and the a conservative ideology that it was based on. time was short. the nuclear program was progressing. amassing more enriched uranium which could be used for the production of nuclear bombs. pressure from saudi arabia and israel against diplomacy was intensifying. obama would strike a deal with iran that would legitimize or

accept the growing influence in the region and leave these two states abandoned in dealing with what they perceive to be an iranian threat. the eu was also by and large at one. positive about obama, but also a little bit worried about what it could lead to. would the be cut out and obama be so eager to strike a deal that he would actually redefine the red lines when he came to the nuclear issue? and of course hanging over his head was the threat of a potential is really prevented military strike. a strike were military engagement that the obama administration at that time and continues to do so today viewed as being absolutely disastrous for the region as a whole and for the u.s. interest. of all of america's key allies, many of them wish obama well, but very few of them wish to obama success. after 30 years it was very clear

to obama that something needed to first happen when it came to the atmospheric. the united states was a great savior and in the united states katie was part of the axis of evil, that type of discourse was not conducive for the success of diplomacy. more than anything else first the language needed to change. obama did a remarkable shift in the sense that much of bush's vocabulary on iran was eradicated within the first few weeks of obama coming into power the boldest move was the unprecedented video message sent on the eve of the iranian new year. in that message in which he addressed but the people and the government cannot read as -- reference the government as an

islamic republic essentially signaling that the obama administration was not intend on regime change. he spoke of the need to bringing iran back into the fold of the community of nations. he spoke of how the many problems between the united states and iran could not be resolved through threats. a clear departure from the foreign policy of the bush and administration. the iranian response was quite swift. within a day the supreme leader of iran gave this speech in his hometown. after about 40 mats blasting the united states and all of the crimes of the u.s. had committed towards the end of the speech he left an opening. he said that if the united states changes then iran will change as well. this was a small but perhaps critical opening.

it also signaled something else. the iran view that if any change were to occur between the united states and iran it would have to be strategic. cannot be tactical command it could not just a rhetorical. changing the tone was not sufficient. there had to be a change in substance. and to that point there had not been any clear evidence of any substantive change in the american position, only a welcome an interesting change in town. but not enough to get the reins excited. now, the obama administration also knew that it would be difficult to engage. the elections are scheduled to take place in june, 2012, and already it took several months to finish this new policy, policy review, and after that the question was should the u.s. engaged before the elections or after? there were several arguments, but at the end of it the winning

again became that the u.s. did not want to do anything that unintentionally could affect the elections, particularly if it would affect the elections in favor of opera and a shot. clearly from the american perspective seeing him now when the election was preferable because of the political toxicity. so they did not want to do anything that could actually help him. but what was critical, the obama administration expected that by june 13th a day after the elections there would be political clarity. there would have been an election, someone would have one, a couple others would have lost, and the u.s. couldn't quickly get on with the diplomatic initiative. what they did not expect was that there would be anything, the opposite of political clarity. what you had was an election that a lot of people viewed as fraudulent, massive human rights

abuses, political infighting at the elite level at an unprecedented level. essentially iran has become politically paralyzed because of all of this and fighting. and much critical time that the obama administration already had lost for about to be lost again. and this was critical for the obama administration because not only was all of this human rights abuses that you could see on the tv screen very problematic in the sense that time, but also very critical because it started to create a little bit of a moral dilemma for the administration. how would it deal with this issue? at first the administration was timid. those were few and far between. the iranian opposition, i had the opportunity to interview

several folks from the inner circle who were pleased to see that the u.s. did not take a strong position and certainly not taking a position in favor. there was not what they wanted. as time passed and they felt that a bottle as being too quiet on the human rights front a lot of fears started to emerge. thinking that perhaps he is so keen on getting a nuclear deal that he would actually be willing to sacrifice the rights of the democratic aspirations of the iranian people in the process. it never really got to the point because of all of these difficulties. there was an argument in the u.s. government that perhaps precisely because of the weakness of the iranian government, opportunity for a deal may actually be greater. something happened a couple of days before the june elections

that had given the obama administration significant hope that perhaps a deal and a clear she could be struck. on june 2nd 10 days before the election the iranians in a letter to the head of the atomic energy agency in geneva saying that their one to buy fuel. it curved produces medical isotopes for approximately 850 to 900,000 patients. and they're running out of fuel. this was a very interesting proposal because since the beginning of the obama administration there have been several brainstorming sessions in which the key proposal or objective was to see how the u.s. could it low enriched

uranium out and buy that reduce the ability of iran to be able to break out and potentially have a nuclear bomb. you need to have low enriched uranium to do so. various ideas and concepts were being developed on how we could make a deal by getting the low enriched uranium out of the country. one of the issues was -- sorry about this. is that could? the key issue was because there was a sense that if they could reduce the iranian low enriched uranium stockpile and the political space and time for a deal would increase because there was a feeling that if the iranians were essentially having enough low enriched uranium to build the bomb, the political pressure of taking more confrontational measures would be significant in washington. but if it could be taken out of normal again time and political space.

the beauty of the iranians themselves asking for their reactor was that half of the problem was solved. they could give a proposal back and say, and said if you buying fuel, we will take there leave, turn it into fuel. you will get the fuel, and we will get the iranian. it would be a conference -- confidence-building measure and a political time and space. it would give something positive that they could show that diplomacy actually could work. by the iranians asking for it, the opening essentially was delivered to the united states. they realized as to the jury what he should have done, informal suppliers that the iranians wanted to buy fuel and steady only informed the russians and the americans about this. immediately proposal was in the making between the united states and russia and telling the

iranians, we will take it, turned into fuel and you will get back. by september signals were being sent that negotiations it is to be taking place on this issue. by a october 1st 2009 for the first time the u.s. joined the permanent members of the security council, plus germany in meeting with the iranians in geneva to discuss this idea. fortunately they initially showed a lot of interest. they agreed in principle on the idea of a fuel swell and agreed to have another meeting sometime later on in october. by october 20th their rematch at the technical level in vienna in which the main initiation was taking place between the united states and iran in a multilateral setting. the idea was that the russians would take the low enriched uranium, turn it into 20 percent enriched uranium, send it off to

the french. the french would turn it into fuel pads. approximately nine to 12 months later the iranians would get the fuel pats for the reactor in time before they would run out of fuel. here is where the problems began. the iranians make the argument that this proposition would put most of the rest on iran because the iranians would essentially be giving up a strategic asset without getting anything in return. mindful of the significance dow and mistrust that the iranians have of the west, this became a difficult proposition. instead they gave a couple of suggestions, including the idea that instead of giving up all of the leu and once they should give it up in three batches or two batches. every time a badge is given the west would then in return provide the iranians with fuel plants. for various reasons they could

not work. at technical level the problem was that these dual paths are not something you can buy at kmart but something that actually takes time to work out. there is no existing stockpile of them. at the political level, they have 1500 kilos. you need approximately 1200 to build a bomb if you are really successful. they needed to make sure that iran was as far away from having 1200 as possible.

stelle at war with each other literally and as a result it was no one in the political elite opposed or wanted to see him be able to score a political victory. only a couple of months after the disputed elections so almost everyone also opposed the deal and they made it impossible for the political elite to move

forward. by the end of november, 2009, the united states decided to activate. diplomacy was deemed a failure and diplomacy was abandoned. at that point the show moves from washington, d.c. to new york and the effort is to get a new u.n. security council resolution against iran. obama's promise of making sure diplomacy could succeed within him being in office essentially had been abandoned. >> you can watch all the programs featured over the last hour or numerous programs on the topic of iran on our web site, booktv.org. here are some of the books published in 2003, the was book tv's six the year on the book -- c-span2.

we did what we were supposed to do first the enemy came down the trail and we ambushed them and we locked them all down. it was about six of them. they were pushing bicycles. they didn't shoot back. we just fired and came down the

road to see if we get to give prisoners and see if they were dead and if they had any certification. the little bicycle in front had been knocked over and when i gave a push and i went to see if they were still alive to take them prisoner but to see if they had in the identification or uniform it was a little girl. [inaudible] >> i didn't think i would do not

>> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. where are we supposed to go? >> who was the woman? and what is her role in terms of writing the book? >> continue watching book tv all weekend long for the nonfiction authors and books as we marked our first 15 years on the air. >> a program from the booktv archives. in 2003, author bell hooks discussed the work and impact of james baldwin at a symposium celebrating the 50th anniversary of the publication of bald win's "go tell it on the mountain". 2013 marks booktv's 15th

anniversary which debuted on december 12th, 1998. [applause] >> first all i want to thank mcelwee brown douglas and angelo for all of the work they did toh make sure that i would be here. the many phone calls, of the kind and considerate care. i can't think of any writer would most want to represent than james baldwin. without him, there could be no belle hooks. to educate is the practice of freedom. we need educators to embrace global consciousness, a transnational literacy. it is the convergence of the will to learn with a vision of the world as classroom that is embodied in the life and work

of james baldwin. hence, our celebration of his intellect, his genius, his wit, his joy in living, the broad sweep of his prophetic imagination. as an intellectual cultural critic, writer, i follow the reckless wild renegade path cleared by james baldwin, a visionary, a man of faith, a troubled spirit, a brother who was not ashamed to declare that he just wants it to be an honest man and a good writer. race, gender, class, nationality, imperialism, religion, sexuality, homosexuality, the global struggle for freedom, these were the topics baldwin seized upon, understanding that we could not get to the universal

without first confronting the specific location of our origins -- home, family, nation , these issues placed on the agenda by james baldwin are the issue that is have created a revolution in our culture, a revolution in our classroom. i just would like to begin as many people have today reading some incredible quotes by baldwin. one of my favorites is when he talks about a right in the church called pleading the blood. this is one of my favorite baldwin books -- the devil finds work. there was a rite in our church called pleading the blood. when the sinner fell on his face before the author, the soul of the sinner then found itself locked in battle with satan, or in the place of jacob -- wrestling with the angels. all of the forces of hell

rushed to claim the soul which had just been astonished by the light of the love of god. the soul in torment turned this way and that -- yearning equally for the light and for the darkness. yearning out of agony for reconciliation and for rest. for this agony is compoundeds cy an unimaginable, unprecedented, unspeakable fatigue. only the saints who had passed through this fire, the incredible horror of the sainting of the spirit had the power to intercede to plead the blood, to bring the embattled and mortally-endangered soul through. the pleading of the blood was a plea to who solver had lawed us enough to spill his blood for us that he might sprinkle the soul with his love once more and give us power over satan and the love

and courage to live out our days. tonight, it is my hope that my words will stand to bleed the blood of james baldwin who carries on the spirit of courage and the fullness of life as william talked about earlier that was so much a part of his effort. when contemporary progressive educators around the nation began to challenge the way institutionalized systems of tkopl tphraeugs -- race, sex, nationalism, imperialism -- have shaped schooling, reinforcing dominateor values, a pedagoguey began in college classrooms, exposing the conservative, covert political underpinnings, shaping the content of material in the classroom as well as the

way in which ideology of domination informed a way teachers teach and act in the classroom. this revolution opened a space where educators could begin to take seriously what it would look like to teach from a standpoint aimed at liberating the minds of our students rather than indoctrine ating them. imperialist, white supreme miss, capitalist, patriarchal values were taught in all our schools and the all black schools of my and james baldwin's childhood, even as those values were at times critiqued. in those days, black teachers who themselves usually light- skinned, since those were the individual the color cast hierarchy allowed to be up wardly mobile and receive higher education, definitely showed favoritism, giving respect and regard to fairer students, thus reinscribing white supreme cyst thoughts.

we have studies now that show that children are treated better depending on whether teachers think they're pretty or not. since racism informs who we think are pretty, often children who are dark are the ones who get the worst treatment. in this space which was itself set up to reinforce dominateor culture, there are always teachers who manage to teach us about the white enslavement of black people, who praised anti-racist rebellion and resistance. in this phase where they offered alternative ways of thinking, a student could engage the insurrection of subject gated knowledge. it was impossible to learn liberating ideas in a context that meant to socialize someone to accept dominance, to accept one's place in the sexual hierarchy. certainly for african-americans,

the institutionalization of black studies provided a space for imperialist white supremacy could be challenged. in the late 1960's and early 1970's, students myself included were kad ralized in classrooms, coming to critical consciousness about the way dock nating thinking shaped what we knew. james baldwin was among the first writers i read who revolutionized my consciousness. as a girl, i simply initially believed white teachers who told me we didn't read black authors because they had not written any books or any good books. as a critically-thinking college student, i learned to interrogate the source of information. in 1969, june jordan published the essay "black studies: bringing back the person," arguing for black students that

we needed a counter location for decolonizing of black people. she wrote, "black students looking for the truth demand teachers least likely to lie, least likely to perpetuate the traditions of lying, lies that deface the father from the memory of the child." we request black teachers of black studies. it is not that we believe only black people can understand the black experience. for us there is nothing optional about black experience and/or black studies. we must know ourselves. we look for community. we have already suffered the alternative to community, to human commitment. we have borne the whiplash of white studies. therefore, we cannot in san teu pass by the potential of black studies, studies of a person consecrated to the preservation of that person. tonight it is my hope to think

of baldwin as that simple of transnational literacy who will reawaken in us that sense of urgency about the need for black studies, african studies. this was a powerful message about the decolonization of ways of knowing, liberating knowledge from the choke hoeld of white supremacy interpretation and thought. ph this essay, jordan raised the vital question -- is the university prepared to teach us something new? from the onset, the presence of black studies created a context for a counter narrative, one in which learning could take place for everybody, not just black students that did not reinforce white supremacy. it's so important that we recognize at this historical moment in our nation the power

that black studies had and then in its wake feminist studies to revolutionize how we think and how we learn. in 1952, i was born. baldwin was writing. in 1952 i was in america. just in time for the mccarthy era. i had never seen anything like it. if i had ever really been able to hate white people, the good- natured, flamboyant representative of the american people would have been pure heaven. for not even the most vindictive hatred could have imagined the slimy depths to which the fault of white americans allows themselves to sink noisily, gracelessly, tphrapblg hrapbt and foul with patriotism. though cowardess was the most

visibly recognizable color in the tapestry, it was not mere cowardess one was watching but something much worse, an absolute panic, absolutely infantile. i think that's such a powerful passage when you bring it to our contemporary moment we're in. [applause] i mean, transpose that -- i think it's important we just not come here and act like baldwin was this easy read, kick back read your novel. baldwin was a serious, militant seeker after freedom and justice. and powerfully, like many of the heroic gay men who have been our visionaries -- riggs, temple -- he was not simply concerned with gay rights. if you really study baldwin. he was concerned with the specific and universal.

let me start with gay rights if i'm a homosexual but let me go to the real issue of sexual freedom, people having the freedom, as he puts it, to find their love wherever it is. i think that we have this wonderful challenge in baldwin which is not to be -- to embrace identity but to not be limited by it. like many of you in this room, my love affair with books began with reading, not with writing. long before i ever began to write books -- long before i ever began to write, books were changing my view of the world, telling me information and painting pictures way different from the narrow confines of life i lived within, transforming me. i am where i am today not because i'm a writer, but first and foremost because i am a

reader. in the biblical book of revelations, there is a passage which declares "blessed is one that reads." in the 1950's, when i was beginning my life as a reader, it was a struggle to find works by black writers, and when i found them, i read whatever they wrote, devouring these writers, feeding my soul hunger. let's remember that the heartbeat of love is recognition i was nurtured as both thinker and writer. it didn't matter how many awesome and wonderful non-black writers, dead white men and all that i read and loved, i needed that mirroring that came from knowing there were other black writers out there, not to become a writer and a thinker but to be comfortable with myself as a writer, a thinker.

this foundation of self love and self-esteem emerging from the profound respect for the historical legacy of black writers and black thinkers in no way kept me from continuing to love and respect all great and meaningful literature or stop my reading and learning from the work of many writers who were at their core white supremisits. one of the first books i read came from my father's book shelf. a critically-thinking working man. it was "the fire next time." i could not have asked for a better literary mentor than baldwin. witty, radical, transgress seuf, a sexual renegade. he embodied it all. there he was writing to his

nephew, telling him that the heart of the matter is here. writing, "you were born where you were born and face the future you faced because you were black and for no other reason." the limits of your ambition were thus expected to be set forever. you were born into a society which spelled out with brutal clarity and in many ways as possible that you were a worthless human being. you were not expected to aspire to excellence. you were expected to make peace with mediocrity. my talk tonight has the title "against mediocrity." this is the warning that baldwin was putting forth to his nephew, in that we as students of african-american experience, culture and thought must put forth, that we must not make

peace with mediocrity. how many of you have read baldwin, not just one paragraph, one essay, but read and studied james baldwin? how many of you have heeded his reminder that our striving for excellence in the world of words and reader -- as readers, students, writers is itself an act of political resistance. it took james baldwin 10 years to complete the writing of "go tell it on the mountain." the writer at work, i remind readers again and again that our right to read and write as black folks is a legacy of liberation struggle. people died for this. doesn't it amaze you sometimes to remember that, that people died so that we would be able to read and study african-american writers and thinkers? in a world where we understand

the power of words to set us free or to bind us forever to the mediocrity, the substandard, the junk food, trashy stuff that will never nourish our souls. we must as readers and writers be ever vigilant, as students and professors, we must demand our right to study african-american experience, the global black experience. we must demand a diversity of work, work that is serious and playful, work that is trashy, cheap, vulgar, like vain, addicted to love. there is somebody out there who knows what i'm talking about. i don't have trouble with zane. my concern is when black students know who zane is and white students but they don't

know who dubois is, when they haven't read their, you know, "september clock." this is the crisis we're facing. i want to see more black mystery writers, more tacky romance, more outrageous erotica. i want black folks to be free to write and think about whatever we want to write and think about. but i do not wish to live in a world where trashy, pulp fiction cancels out all the meaningful writing that is our legacy, that is our history, that is being done today. we do not want to allow unenlightened market forces, the mind set of imperialist white supremacy capitalist patriarchy to determine the nature of what we read and write. in a world and study. in a world where white writers often gain great status and are

taken seriously when they write about race, many black writers and scholars are still worried that if we talk about stuff having to do with race, we will still be seen as not good enough not serious. for even liberal white writers and scholars cannot resist imposing on black writers this weight. receiving the jerusalem prize at the international book fair, a writer i read, study, admire, endeavored in her talk to speak about the necessity of writers not getting bogged down in propaganda politics, urging us to maintain the integrity of vision and craft. she declares, it's one thing to be voluntarily stirred by the imperatives of conscious or interest, to engage in public debate and public action, it's

another to produce opinions, moralistic sound bites on demand she tells us the writer ought not to be an opinion machine. yet the example she offers of the denigration of writerly craft evokes the issue of race. she states, "as a black poet in my country put it, when approached by a fellow african-american for not writing poems about the indignity of racism, a writer is not a juke box." while her point that writers should never write on demand, playing the tune anyone wants to hear is a useful insight, this thinker, cultural critic, writer who in the vast majority of her work never mentions reading any black writer. notice the black poet she refers to has no name. manages to use an analogy that

implies black writers who write about racism, about black experience are not the real writers and racism is maybe not a real issue, a serious issue. this writer is giving her talk in jerusalem, a place where the politics of white supremacy, imperialism, colonialalism continue to rule the day. reading her words in a new millennium, i'm struck by the use she makes of this anonymous black poet who has no gender, no name, only a racialized identification, only a few paragraphs later, she quotes roland. he is not a white european man. he is a writer with a name whose witty comments she quotes is no more substantial than the words of the anonymous black writer.

but it's so amazing she feels no need to give that black poet a name. that's part of why we have to take the study of our experience our writing, our history, every aspect of our culture seriously as black people. we have to give ourselves names. and we have to remember our names. we are in a new millennium, and yet we are still fighting for our right to become and be seen as serious writers and thinkers. we are still fighting as james baldwin fought to have our words taken seriously, no matter our subject matter. and yes, we are still fighting not to be denigrated, not to be seen as mediocre when we write about race and racism. i wonder when i read her words who the black writers are she

reads, studies and takes seriously, especially the writers of non-fiction. how many of you in this room read black writers who write non -fiction? one of the things that is so amazing about baldwin is he wrote so much non-fiction across so many different genres. his writing about film -- i have to pause and read you this incredibly wonderful quote where he says, "it is said that the camera cannot lie but rarely do we allow it to do anything else. since the camera sees what you point it at, the camera sees what you want it to see. the language of the camera is the language of our dreams." baldwin was one of the first black writers in our nation to write film criticism that is amazing in its convergence of race, sex, gender. how many of you have read that

criticism? many of the white readers i know read no black writers. many of the asian readers i know read no black writers. or when they read one or two, they read novels. for we are still living in a world that does not take the work of black writers seriously enough or that can take our words seriously only if we strip ourselves of any racial awareness. if we write from the perspective deemed universal. you have to read baldwin talking about why he had to return to harlem, why he had to return to that place that was so specific, so local in order to embrace that transnational literacy that sent him off to live in exile, that sent him away to think about this country from a distance. but if you read him talking

about why he has to return to the united states, why he has to grapple with the local in order to understand more fully the global. there is still so much that we need to read about black experience, so much that we have yet to study. there is so much that we need to hear from black folks about every subject imaginable that has yet to be written. everything that we need to read and write and study about is not a book idea that will bring vast sums of money in advances or sales. we need to be mindful of all the work that is not yet available to us. books for teens, more memoirs that tell the truth, biographies of writers and others that are slow to come. we're waiting for a biography of

hansbury, pat parker, essex temple, marlin riggs. they're all black, gay writers. we're still waiting to hear the story of their lives. in our reading and our writing and our study, we must refuse to make peace with mediocrity. institutionalizing the study of african-american experience, of black experience is in the diaspera. we bring a demand for excellence. propheticly james baldwin tells us, we should certainly know by now that it is one thing to overthrow a dictator or repel an invader and quite another thing really to achieve a revolution. time and time again the people discovered that they have merely

betrayed themselves into the hands of yet another pharaoh who will not let them go. let us be ever vigilant as professors, students, readers, as writers. let us recognize as james baldwin did that we are living in an age of revolution. sometimes i'm just amazed at how much the things i write about were already there in the prophetic imagination of james baldwin. have you noticed when you read him how amazingly prophetic he is on the subject of love? he writes, "love takes off the mask that we fear we can't live without and we know we cannot live within." i use the word love here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of grace, not in the infantile american sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of

quest and daring and growth. think about the fact that james baldwin so rooted in a law of blackness was also able to extend that love out in a global world to everyone and to write -- to encounter one's self is to encounter the other and this is love. if i know that my soul trembles, i know that yours does, too. if i can respect this, both of us can live. neither of us truly can live without the other, a statement which would not sound right if one were not endlessly compeled to repeat it and further believe it and act on that belief. my friend was quite right when he said, so we must be careful less we lose our faith.

these are times in our nation where people are not only losing their faith but they're losing their hope. i just finished a new book on teaching called "teaching community: a pedagoguey of hope." i tried to write about the question of spiritualality in education. what does teaching to the spirit allow? there again we go back to baldwin as this person who never hesitated to bring up the question of the spiritality in life and education, not as you heard so much today. his critique of christianity and consistent embracing of the need to take spiritual life seriously. to take not nurturing one's emotional and spiritual growth seriously. we are living in an age of revolution. think of all the baldwin books

you have not read. think of all the books, all the subjects having to do with black experience that you want and need to read. think about and study. think about what it means for us not to just have one book on a subject relevant to our lives, written by one black writer, but to have many books with diverse perspectives on the same subject. imagine all the books you want to read where black thinkers write about any subject. if we want to be part of an age of revolution, if we want to resist the tear any of mediocrity, then we must see excellence, the striving for excellence in our reading and writing, in our teaching, in our study of black experience as essential, critical, political resistance. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you much. we have lots of time for questions. say your name loudly. speak quickly. there are lots of people in this room even though there are lots of empty seats. it's just a big room. if you are going on too long, i will maybe ask you with loving kindness to stop. but who is prepared with a question? go ahead. stand up. the lights are dim over here so be daring.

i don't know if that strategy will encourage speakers. but walk over to the microphone. but maybe it will since we're such a celebrity culture. tell me your name. welcome. >> i was reading over your biography here. it says you're a writer who challenges institution such as the class system that delegates power and powerlessness. we have a group here called now or never which is from towson university. we're an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist group. do you have recommendations or advice for us as far as getting the word out about capitalism? it seems our society is completely obsessed with money. >> i think one of the best ways that we teach about capitalism is to teach young people to work in high schools, to tutor.

i just recently -- i was telling the students i spent time with earlier that i was with a bunch of 12-year-olds asking me to explain white cap teus imperialist patriarchy. you look for ways to help them understand the system we live within. not so they can be against that system but so they have a true articulation of what that system is. and so i think that working to educate young people about our system is really important because it's really hard when people have gotten something in their minds about how our nation works and they're like 30 years old and you try to tell them -- it's like when i ask my students how much money does a single parent getting welfare get? they have no sense of what the actual amount is and yet they have this hostility where they believe this person is getting all kinds of money and ripping

off the nation so that i think it's really important to provide people with facts, people of all ages to compare. i like the book on partnership culture. when you look at statistics she has in there, there's a whole page of just facts about money that are really important. i like the book, "your money or your life." i think sharing books with people, sharing information. i think xeroxing stuff and handing it out to people. you know how hard it is to convince people sometimes without them having some facts that are right in front of them. i think that's really important. i think it's truly important -- i love that bumper sticker that says "live simply so that others may simply live." i think that right there we begin to do the work of living in a more communeal way in the universe. because people really are not

convinced with people who talk about ending capitalism who have their riches horded up in the bank or, you know, who are living their own brand of luxury so that living simply is really important. what we embody in our presence. your name over there. >> my question is i want to know if you could comment a little bit about -- i think we all know the importance of words and especially written word. if you could comment about the evolution, if you will, of the n word and how it plays a role in society with literature, music and song. >> i don't have a lot to say about the word. it's not a word i use very often. i have been fascinated because it was a word my mother taught us not to use but i notice how she's using it more and more and

more. and thinking about how much media -- we talked earlier today about rap and the influence of rap. gabby brought up issues around her interest in rap and then as she began to critique it more and see what was happening in it. it's very interesting the sort of use of the word. i wanted to call my new book i had written on black masculinity "you my." so we can take from them the years. think about dying, think about lynching. think of all those implications behind that word and the notion that we can give it some new sexy, cute meaning is just incredibly false. you know, it will always carry with it the mark of degradation

and shame and wounding. to me it's really not a word that i need in my life. you know, i'm not really sure that anybody needs it. you know, when i went out -- [applause] to do my tour for salvation, black people in love, i was astounded by the number of black people who said to me, we can't even get to the question of love because we're still dealing with basic questions of self-esteem. and this really shocked me because in the love books -- i know many of you have talked to me about the love books -- and baldwin talks about love as a choice we make, as a will and action. if people don't have a strong sense of self-esteem, they cannot make that choice. here we are as african-americans and as people in general in dominateor culture having a

crisis of self-esteem, why do we even want to waste our time with the n-word when we have to invent so many new words that begin to articulate our reality? the kinds of words that draw out our humanity, that draw out our sense of well-being. we haven't done that so, you know, i really didn't want to give, you know, much energy when that book came out because i just find it interesting that we're still dealing with the basic questions. james baldwin had all these incredible conversations with hansbury. one thing they were both fond of saying was the shame that we should feel as black people that we have changed so little for our children, that this discredits us. i want to say about baldwin.

baldwin was so concerned with the fate of black children. deconstructing the whole notion that if you are gay, you are not somehow concerned about the well-being of children, especially if you are a gay man. if you study him and you see that concern, -- i read the letter he wrote to james, his nephew, that constant concern of what are we doing for the welfare of our children. in a nation where many black children are not even learning to read and write, especially black males. black males are increasingly among the most illiterate group in our nation. do i care about the n-word? hell no. i told people earlier that when i wrote my little bee boy buzz book which is illustrated by a white author, that when it came

to the pages where the little black boy was to be sitting still and thinking, there was no image on the page. i had to go back to the corporate structure that publishes my work and say wait a minute, what happened to the little black boy? this white man who created these images has a little boy who sits quietly and reads. i said we can't have this book where black boys are doing nothing but running and jumping. baldwin wrote about this as well that many black men never learn to be still until they go to prison. malcolm x wrote about this. if you go out there and you see that anti-patriarchal black boy, boy loving book, you will turn to a page where there is a black boy happily reading his book. now that concerns me. the fact that my little nephew doesn't want to read, that concerns me.

at 5 years old, he is already adamant that he is not going to read. where is he getting that from? so let me have another question and i'll try to keep my answers shorter so i don't take up all the time. >> thank you for coming. you were trying to address a lot of the issues -- these huge issues you are talking about here this evening. i wanted to know what you thought was the first step educators should take toward addressing students with these issues and also what you think is the hardest step that happens in a classroom, especially at college? >> i think the hardest step for all of us in the classroom is remaining open, being willing to listen to new ideas, being willing to think about things. in my new book on teaching, i wrote about the fact that i did a commencement which i don't normally do and i was booed,

very viciously booed by the masses of white people i was talking to. i had spoken about 9/11 and i had spoken against war. i was teaching a core group of professors and we were analyzing this moment. i said that i thought that part of the issue -- this was in texas -- was that i was speaking to hundreds of white people who never had to listen to a black woman talk before, let alone lecture them about something that is against their beliefs and principles. immediately a white male english professor said you're playing the race card. i thought to myself this is a good teaching moment here. because i live the life of a very upper class person in our nation. i live in a very ritzy

neighborhood in the west village of new york. i don't get to have chats with black women every day. there are very few black women in the immediate blocks of my house. if i want to talk with black women, i have to make an effort to do that. but here is a white male at the moment i say most white people are not used to black women, especially ones with brains, giving them lectures, he immediately objects and says i'm playing the race card. one of the things we worked with in that core group is why didn't people pause and think about what i said? why didn't they ask themselves, how many black people do i really listen to? how often do i look to black people to guide the direction of my thought and action in my life? black folks half the time aren't looking to black folk to guide the direction of their life. the group had to learn how to pause and think about things

rather than immediately defending. that's i think something that we face in our college classrooms and campuses when we try to shift the direction of people's thoughts. delores williams defined what a paradigm is. when we try to shift a set pattern that people have become wedded to, it's often hard. it took us days and days in that classroom which was composed of professors. let me be clear that the students didn't have trouble knowing immediately that they didn't listen to black women lecture them about difficult topics. so often we find a greater openness in students, particularly white students, than in white professors. i think it's that question of openness and willingness to dialogue. i lost some of your question. i apologize. what's the next question?

>> i was wondering if you would comment on exploitation/hip hop culture and the stereotype it presents. >> the stereotypes are obvious. the question is why are we as black people so enamored of them and the rest of the culture? have you seen the preview of the steve martin movie with queen latifah where she's like mammy, slut, ho rolled into one. why would queen latifah at this point in her career and her consciousness choose to play such a role? if you haven't seen it, it's a joke that steve martin's character is looking on the internet for a date and he comes up with this black woman and that's the whole risk. she's playing the usual, mammy, slut, ho role. it's interesting that this is how blackness comes through pop culture. but we have to hold her

accountable. i was telling people if you noticed biographically -- autobiographicalally, she's been arrested several times for drunk driving. you have to think about what is the connection between addiction and the culture of addiction and dominateor culture. people who have a lot of money. the people in "monster's ball." every ho says i did it for the money. these people didn't have to say they did it for money or fame. they had money or fame, yet they portray these roles that are so degrading to the spirit. i felt as a black woman watching "monster's ball" my spirit so degraded, so assaulted. as i have been on the road with "rock my soul: black people and self-esteem," i talked about the whitney houston interview, something that assaulted many

black people's self-esteem. it affected many black people psychologically, traumatically just to be watching that, just to be watching diane sawyer in her role as slave mistress saying does your husband beat you, does your husband love you? and then in the spirit of baldwin and wittyness, what about when she says to bobby brown, do you love her and he slaps whitney's thigh and says this is mine. i talk with my students about that image. what is the image in white supremacy culture of black people being slapped or branded, this is mine? remember there was a book called "are you still a slave? " we can talk about how the slave mentality is so deep right now

in pop culture. you know, that this man can sit next to whitney houston and he doesn't talk about her gifts. he doesn't say anything about her spirit. he says this. i was like ok, this is like a pimp saying this ho is mine. i want you to think about the impact of young black women who witnessed that, able to deconstruct what they were seeing, who knew what they were seeing was toxic and painful. it's like telling them no matter how talented you are, at the end of the day, you are mine. why is this brought to us? isn't it deep? isn't it profound to think about somebody made the decision that we needed to hear that when the most powerful thing that whitney houston said was that there is something missing in my soul. hello?

there is something missing in my soul. and does the slave mistress say wait a minute, here's something we can talk about, here's fame and wealth and talent and yet this person is telling us that she has a crisis in her soul. now wouldn't it have been interesting for young people to hear the that fame and wealth and notoriety will not save you if you have a crisis in your soul? i mean wouldn't that have been amazing? [applause] i don't think we can knock mass media because mass media can be an amazing tool for consciousness raising. that interview could have been an amazing tool for consciousness raising about addiction, about soul murder, about what is happening to children when grownups aou serp their childhoods and exploit

them for their own ends. another question over here. >> i'm currently taking a psychology course, relational psychology course on race. i'm finding it very personally troubling and so is my class. we have found this barrier, the racial barrier between the white students and black students. we're having a hard time getting past that. not sure who should move first. i was wondering if you had anything to say about that? >> i think to me what is really fascinating is the question of loving justice. because in this new book i have just written, i wanted to talk about the white people who are fundamentally anti-race cyst, who are they? where do they learn to be anti-race cyst? i have this essay called" what happens to white people who change? " i interviewed all these white people and i was so struck by the number of white people cross

class, religion, sexality who talked about learning about justice in their childhoods. i interviewed one of the big executives at disney who had been really central in publish books for black children and with black representation. she talked about the fact that she was a child of the 1950's and her mother was divorced and she was forced to sit after school with the other little divorced kids and they were black and one irish girl. there she began to formulate her sense of i must stand on the side of justice, i must stand on the side of people who are different and i must do my work. what is so marvelous is children's books are published by disney hyperion. i can go to these enlightened groups of people that i work with who make mistakes and say there is no boy reading and they go back to the drawing board.

when i bring them statements about black males and reading, that this woman cultivated anti-racism from day one. part of what i wanted to do in the book was to give images of hope, of how people transform their lives and their thinking. and so i think for places -- so many liberal arts colleges are battling with the question of difference. people still afraid, people hunkered down into the familiar. so once again, we have to tell our stories to one another. i mean, in my classrooms, we often start with a telling of our stories because that is one of the things that helps us begin to do the process of making community. one of the things -- you have to see baldwin if you haven't seen him in documentary films. he was a great storyteller. story has that power to captivate people and draw us in. i want to tell you, too, to

forgive the vagueness of my answers because a vietnamese buddhist monk always makes me remember that you can learn from something that may approach something indirectly. but you need all of you here at goucher to look with compassion at what is happening here, the legacy of this institution and what is needed. it's hard when speakers come in to have some kind of strategy because every change -- change is a very specific thing. one of the things i do in texas, i teach for a month in texas at a little white liberal arts college and part of what i do with the faculty, staff and students is teach them about their location, about how to live more humanely, more justly, more in community in the location that they're in. and here's just one example. when i arrived at this

institution, white people would say, well, there just aren't any people of color here. i would think about the fact that there's a cafeteria full of black folks and hispanic folks waiting on them. i was like wait a minute. [applause] let's start right there. isn't our academic community everybody, everybody who makes our institutions run smoothly? let's start there. and begin to look differently at the frame. we can talk about why all the people of color are on the bottom. but at least we change our perception of the frame. so partially in thinking of how you heal wounds of separateness in a specific location, you have to have the specifics of that location. i mean i know that part of kelly brown douglas and other people wanting to bring african studies here in a more firmly institutionalized way is to