and around. and the life and art of norman rockwell. in exploring the life of personal artist norman rockwell. and a public health official at yale university at the leadership institute presents a history of health care health care in america and their thoughts on reform in the american health care paradox and why spending more and giving us less. and josh ott presents the story of two american anthems. look for these titles and book stores this coming week and watch the authors in the near future on booktv and booktv.org. >> randall kennedy is next on booktv. he talks about the history of affirmative action policies and

argues that affirmative action is a morally sound idea that should not be abandoned. this is about one hour and 10 minutes. >> thank you very much for that generous introduction and for making the space available and for all of us. and i'm going to talk for a few minutes about my new book and then we will have a discussion and hopefully the monologue will turn into a dialogue and four will be open to questions and comments and by all means objection, because this is a subject about which people have all sorts of opinions and i would suspect that there is an audience like this and people have different takes on the subject. what is our subject? our subject is the controversy involving affirmative action and

this is truly a controversy and everything about affirmative action seems to be controversial and you get a little bit of a hit on where i stand insofar as i referred to affirmative action as affirmative action and as you'll quickly see, i am a proponent of making special efforts to advance the various sectors of our society that have historically been kept at the margins or kept down. so i called as affirmative action and if i were to have called this reverse discrimination, you would know that i have a somewhat different take on things. but this subject goes on a wide variety of different rubrics, some say affirmative action and some talk about affirmative

discrimination. and some people talk about positive discrimination and some people talk about reverse discrimination. and what all of them have in common, and the base and the notion and they're all talking about special efforts to reach out a hand to people who are being affiliated from the various groups, particularly within different groups. when you say it affirmative action, most people immediately think of race and we can talk about why that is so. in fact, that is what i will mainly focus on in my book for discrimination. it is mainly about racial affirmative action and the controversy involving him. but there is a lot of

affirmative action that guides us. and this includes veterans, those veterans who seek to get civil service jobs, they are given a very strong preference over others and a presence over others that has a systematic and detrimental effect on the careers of others, particularly that of women. there is gender affirmative action and women of all sorts and this includes regional affirmative action of public schools of various sorts and there is a wide range of affirmative action and when you talk about this, not only does

it involve different groups, but it has varying intensity. let's imagine that your school has a hundred seats in april of 99 seats. you're down to that last seat and you have two candidates that have the same test scores and same grades and you know, they are essentially equal and you have to choose one or the other and let's suppose it is a school in which there is historically few women or there have been a few blacks or few latinos. and with that scenario in mind, the admissions director puts a thumb on the scale for the woman and black person and that latino. and you have affirmative action.

after all, the person could flip the coin. but the admissions director thought that he or she would reach out a helping hand to advance the interests of a person in this includes one of the historically marginalized groups and that is what many people would view as a relatively soft form of affirmative action. and although it causes controversy, it views it as a harder form of affirmative action and you had one last seat, let's say, and you had two candidates and let's make this a black and white candidate thing. the white candidate's grades are appreciatively better and that the white candidates test scores are appreciatively better, let's say. that the admissions director, nonetheless, chooses the black

candidate. and that is a harder form and eight clear preference for the black candidate and i think that is -- that is what really provides an intensity and that is what i am talking about. special efforts on behalf of people associated with groups. when did the racial affirmative action really take root? did it take root in 1963? a couple of weeks ago we mark the 50th anniversary of the great march on washington, the summer of 1963, were people talking about it than? well, some people were talking about it then. martin luther king jr. was talking about it then. but we now refer to it and he

says very straightforward but for most of american history and for all of american history, special efforts have been made keeping her down and he said in order for us to overcome this, special efforts will have to be made to elevate this and he was talking about affirmative action. but in 1963 that sort of was on the margins and he was himself was harshly criticized by people including the people that marched with them for taking up position. saying that that is the use of race and obviously it's not that different use of race and jim crow segregation, but it is the use of race and it is therefore

frown upon. so in the early 1960s, even in the mid-1960s, we're talking about affirmative action and the margins of american life and it does not become really rooted. the prevalent until the late 60s or early 1970s. especially after a classical era of the civil rights revolution. why is this? why does affirmative action start taking root in the early 1970s? what tom's this rise of affirmative action? there are a number of things that prompted it in one was that people saw the end of overt

anti-black discrimination that was welcome, it was a good thing, a very good thing. but simply ceasing anti-black discrimination, it was useful and it opened up opportunities for some people and for some black people who had developed the skills and gone in education, so when these artificial race barriers were taken from them, they were in a position to march right forward. but that did not help so much the many millions of black people who had really been debilitated by the jim crow segregation and what about the black people because of this, that they did not get a good

education or were deprived of opportunities. even when the racist barriers went down, let's hypothesize that for a moment. but because they hant. but because they have been deprived of opportunity in the past, they are nonetheless at a tremendous disadvantage in competitions to move forward in american life and people said that that is not fair. that in a sense if we do not provide a helping hand to those people, we are permitting and we are simply -- we are committing debilitating effects of racist treatment in the past to live on

and we are allowing a continuation and a perpetuation of past racial mistreatment that is unjust. and that is the effort and desire to overcome the effects, the ongoing effects of past discrimination, that was one of the things that prompted affirmative action. and another thing that closely aligned with the first was social peace and legitimation. can you recall a lot of younger people -- a lot of people now don't recall, but just looking out into the crowd, some of you will recall the late 1960s and early 1970s. some of you will recall the long and hot summer. some of you will recall the soldiers and the army alert called out to patrol the streets

of the united states in the late 1960s. and it was not a matter of whether there would be a riot were several riots but how many riots were there and remember that in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, social disruption, violent social disruption, it just went up in flames and there were hundreds of people who were killed on the streets of the united states. kilter social disruption and there were many people who thought, this is really a dangerous situation and we need to do something to calm things down and we need to do something to show people who were saying that we are going to have social justice or we will burn it down. well, what do you say to those

people? you need to show them that we have had a change in regime and we really are going to repudiate white supremacist racism and we are really going to change things and make our institutions open to all people. and in order to do that relatively quickly and vividly, some people said let's reach out and make special efforts to bring black people into places where they haven't been before, that was one of the justifications and rationales for affirmative action and social peace and legitimation and i will mention two others.

another argument from affirmative action was that institutions say they have seized discriminating against people of color and what do you do if folks do not believe that? and let's suppose you have a faculty that some institution. and the faculty says that we don't discriminate against people of color, but they are nonetheless all white. well, you know, i mean, people know that for a long time various institutions have engaged in this and they say you're not engaged in this, but we see a family that is all white and we want more than that

and more than your word that you're not engaged in racial discrimination. he may be lying or practicing racial discrimination not even know it. you know, you may be engaged and maybe you are deluding yourself and you don't even know that it's discriminating, but you are. so to show us that you are not, we want some light bodies up there. the only way that we will leave this and that is the diversity and the diversity rationale says that we want to engage in special efforts to bring in

people from all walks of life. .. >> that's some of why affirmative action rose in the late '60s, early '70s, and these are some of the reasons that have been set forth for affirmative action. okay. why is it controversial? affirmative action, like all social policies, has costs. it has costs. what are some of those costs?

there are a bunch, just like there are a wide range of justifications, rationales set forth for affirmative action, there are also an array of costs. i'll mention a couple. let me start off with one, stigma. this is a very important one, because there are some people -- i think immediately of the most vociferous critic at the united states supreme court -- the most vociferous critic of affirmative action on the supreme court is the only african-american on the supreme court, clarence thomas. [laughter] and he is by far the most vociferous critic. there are other critics, other very strong critics, but there is no one on the supreme court who takes this issue as personally and who is as intense in his criticism and who is as hostile to affirmative action

than clarence thomas. and if you talk with him or you read his opinions, the first thing out of his mouth, the first thing out of his mouth is that affirmative action actually does not help its intended beneficiaries. and that's a very powerful critique because it's saying, listen, forget about affirmative action's effects on other people. his claim is that affirmative action does not help the people that it's intended to help, and one of the things he says, he says affirmative action puts a stigma on its intended beneficiaries. and what he means by that and what he means by that is and, again, he's been willing to be very autobiographical about it. he says okay, so imagine that a, let's imagine, let's go to law school. he's a lawyer, let's imagine that a black person goes to an

elite law school, graduates from that law school. he says when that person goes for a job, let's say at an elite law firm or seeks to get a job with a, in a, you know, a distinguished judge, seeks to get a job at a, you know, sort of a, at a -- any place selective what he has in mind is this, the person that's going to be assessing this candidate is going to mark down the candidate to some degree because of affirmative action. the person who's assessing the candidate knows that the school has affirmative action. and, by the way, virtually every selective law school in the united states has affirmative action. so as justice thomas says, if you have a black person who has graduated, graduated from my law school, graduated from harvard law school or from where he went to school, yale law school, they

go to the fancy firm, sure, they've got the nice brownie point that they went to this fancy law school, but what he has in mind is the person assessing the candidate is going to say, yeah, this person has the nice halo of having gone to yale law school or harvard law school, but the person doing the assessment is going to dim that halo. the person is going to say this person went to this school, but, you know, i'm not going to credit this person as much as i normally would with because affirmative action, you know, they probably -- they might not, in fact, not that might not, they are likely not to be quite as good as their peers. and he says, you know, that's a bad thing. that's a cost. justice scalia a number of years ago before justice scalia was a

justice he wrote a very powerful attack on affirmative action as a law professor. and in his article he said just imagine that you are a person who needs an operation. a very serious operation, you know? a life and death operation. and you're trying to figure out what physician, what surgeon you want to do this operation. and you're looking, you're checking out various surgeons, and then there is, you know, the black surgeon. well, a very difficult operation, you've only got one life to live. you look at this surgeon, and you say, well, this surgeon may be good, but, you know, if this surgeon has gotten help along the way, maybe this isn't the best, the best of the array of surgeons i might have. and so you might mark that, you

know, put a little asterisk, a little subtraction mark next to that person. that's a real, that's, you know, a cost. is he right or is he wrong? i think that he's right insofar that he notes that is a cost. i think it's a cost, sure, i think it's a cost. i think it's a cost. i teach at harvard law school. i'm quite sure i -- i started last monday. first-year contract. 80 students. i don't know this for sure, but my -- i suspect that on that very first day when i marched up to the very, you know, to the front of the class, you know, i'm teaching contracts, i bet that there are, you know, some students -- maybe i should just ask them at some point. [laughter] but i can't help but think there's some students who think to themselves, kennedy. [laughter] is he, you know, real harvard

law school professor? or is he an affirmative action harvard law school professor? good but maybe not quite as good as his colleagues. well, that's a cost. and that's a cost. i mean, the thinking of it is a cost. are there other costs associated with affirmative action? sure there are. resentment. resentment, that's a cost. there are plenty of people around the united states -- plenty, millions. millions. the state of california got rid of racial affirmative action. that's millions right there. there are many people around the united states who feel a tremendous sense of aggrievement

with respect to affirmative action. many white people feel, you know, this is reverse discrimination. you know, i'm really sorry about what's happened to black people, but what the heck, you know? i didn't do anything to 'em. and, you know, i don't want my kids' opportunities diminished at all in the effort to, you know, help out black people. i mean, you know, that's, you know, and then people are resentful about that. and that has had real cop -- con consequences. that's a real cost. there's another argument that's offered from the left. the arguments i've just indicated are arguments that are often made by people who are sort of on the rightward end of the political spectrum.

but there's a critique that goes something like this. affirmative action has led to a misallocation of political energy, and the misallocation is because especially be we're talking about affirmative action in, like, higher education which is where a lot of the fighting is, you know, that's the domain that has led to a lot of struggle. there are people who say, listen, if a youngster is a plausible candidate for admission to an elite law school, if a youngster -- private or public -- if a youngster is a plausible candidate to a selective law school or a selective medical school, that youngster is doing rather well. we really don't need to worry so much about that youngster. that youngster is by definition

a college graduate, that youngster is almost by definition a, has done well as a, in college because they are a plausible candidate. i mean, be you're a plausible candidate to get into the university of michigan law school, you've done pretty well. and there are people who say why in the world should it be the case that people like me or that lots of other lawyers or, you know, people in various organizations, why should people be spending a lot of time, energy, money on advancing the interests of people who were already doing pretty well as opposed to what about the black kids in detroit, michigan, who don't get out of high school? what about the black kids in detroit, michigan, who maybe get out of high school, but even after they've gotten out of high

school are functionally illiterate? isn't it a misallocation of time, energy to focus on the more elite sectors of racial minority communities as opposed to those who are further down on the socioeconomic ladder? in fact, you know, pushing the point one might say isn't affirmative action somewhat perverse in that it actually benefits those who are least in need of benefit among racial minority people and provides relatively little direct assistance to those who need the direct assistance the most. is there something to that? yes. yes. and the people who make up these -- they're not making up things, you know? they're not sort of just fashioning things out of whole cloth. those are, it seems to me, substantial criticisms of

affirmative action. then you might say, well, kennedy, ten minutes ago you said you're for it, and i am for it. i am for it. check out the title of my book, "for discrimination." i'm for it because i believe that on balance affirmative action has been good for the united states over the past 30, 40 years. i think that affirmative action has played a very substantial part in the desegregation of important institutions in american life whether it be government, whether it be private sector, whether it be in the employment realm. in all sorts of different sectors of american life, affirmative action has played an important role. and one of the things, you know,

and i think part of the proof of the power of sentiment behind affirmative action is the extent to which affirmative action has been practiced by people who say that they are against affirmative action. here i'm going to step outside of the racial sector for a moment and give you what i think to be one of the most vivid examples of this. in 1980 there's a presidential contest. it features jimmy carter and ronald reagan. ronald reagan, i'm against this affirmative action stuff. i believe, you know, individualism. let's just treat everybody, you know, on their -- an individual, an individual, an individual. i don't want to hear about, you know, gender affirmative action, i don't want to hear about racial affirmative action, i don't want to hear all about

this group stuff. let's just handle people on their individual merits. that's ronald reagan. presidential contest comes about. ronald reagan says the following: if i become president of the united states, i promise to appoint the first woman to the supreme court. i'm going to get the best woman i can find, and i tell you, if i'm president of the united states, the best woman jurist i can find will be put on the supreme court of the united states. i doff my hat to ronald reagan. he becomes president of the united states, and what does he do? he makes good on his promise. sandra day o'connor breaks the gender line at the supreme court of the united states. now, there were some people, by the way, if you go back and take a look, look at what people were writing. some people really took ronald

reagan to task. they said, hey, hey! this is like, this is affirmative action bigtime. and ronald reagan did not back back, you know? sandra day o'connor goes to the supreme court. now, in part, in part because ronald reagan basically, i mean, he didn't put it in so many words, but he basically said, you know, we can't have a supreme court of the united states that's all male, you know? half the country's women. i mean, you know, the institution's just going to lack legitimacy in the eyes of people. you can't have an institution this powerful affecting everybody's interest, and it remain monopolized by men. we've got to change things. and he did. it's that same ethos, the it's the same ethos that has really

animated affirmative action, and i think it's a good ethos. i think it has led to change, and i think it has led to good change in america. it has led to people, younger people thinking, yeah, you know, i'm going to invest in myself, and i'm going to invest in this country because i see a way forward. and i think that's, you know, that's a good thing. it's happened with women, it's happened with blacks, it's happened with others. um, i haven't talked about a whole rot of summits -- lot of subjects, i haven't even talked about the law, you know, the supreme court and affirmative action. but i'm going to subside, and we can talk about any subject you'd like. but i'd like to take the conversation further the way you'd like to take it. we can talk about the law, we can talk about anything else, but you all have been very

patient thus far, and so i'm going to subside. the floor is now open to questions, comments and objections. thank you. yes. >> i have a question about another form of affirmative action which is giving scholarships, private schools give scholarships to people who are smart kids who don't have the money to go. >> uh-uh huh. >> how do you classify that form of affirmative action, which i suspect many of us have benefited from? >> yeah. well, i think, you know, that would be viewed as a relatively uncontroversial thing because there are all sorts of distinctions made in american life, and there are many distinctions or that are made that are completely uncontroversial. so, you know, we give a special benefit to people who have shown themselves to be especially skilled. we give a special benefit

sometimes to people who have shown special effort. i think that's relatively uncontroversial. others that, you know, we give -- there are distinctions drawn that we don't even think about. so, you know, you get on an airplane, i get on an airplane tomorrow, i go to fly some airline, and i go to the kiosk or i go to the person, you know, what kind of ticket do you want? well, i want to fly first class. of course, i never fly first class, but i want to fly first class. i'm willing to shell out the money to fly first class. if i'm willing to shell out the money to fly first class, mr. kennedy, here's your first class seat. no problem. and nobody even blinks at that. of course, we would blink, we'd do more than blink if i went up and i said i'd like to sit in, you know, a special part of the airplane, the person said, oh, yeah, you can sit in the black part of the airplane, you can sit in the white part of the

airplane. you know? first class is a distinction. it's a money distinction. but the money distinction is, you know, that's just the american way. it's the racial distinction that makes us be anxious. and the fact of the matter is there's a good and a bad with that. the good is that racial distinctions, certainly the historical racial dis2006s, the historical racial distinctions are racial distinctions that have put down people of color. racial slavery. jim crow segregation. and thank goodness in america there has been a widespread, an

overwhelming repudiation of those racial distinctions. and so when racial distinctions pop up, when they sort of come up, this is this, you know, people think, oh, my goodness, you know, racial distinction. immediately people think of invidious racial distinctions, that bad stuff. and that's good. i mean, one of the great triumphs of the civil rights revolution was the stigmatization of invidious racial discrimination. you know, martin luther king jr. and rosa parks and fred shuttlesworth, and, you know, the great john lewis and robert moses, and one could go on and on and on. one of the great things that they did is make racist racial distinctions stink, and nobody wants to be associated with them.

now, that's a good thing x. to the extent that that sentiment makes people anxious about affirmative action, it's one of these ironic things. i think that's a good thing. there is a bad thing, however, and that a's something that i -- that's something that i write about in the book a good bit, and i think in the affirmative action controversy, this is often overlooked. a lot of times people don't want to hear it, but i think it has to be said. throughout the history of the united states, any policy advancing the fortunes of people of color, particularly blacks, has triggered resentment and triggered opposition. let me give you a couple, let me give you an example. let me give you an example of this. this is, i mean, let me give you

an example of this. this is a statement made by a florida slaver -- slave holder who was fuming at an abolitionist. -talking -- this was before the abolition of slavery, mind you. this is what a florida slave holder says to an abolitionist. he says you all are determined to, quote: give the nigger more privileges than the white man. now, this is when slavery is going on! and already -- this is when slavery's going on. slavery's not been abolished. but this slaveholder in confronting this abolitionist already has in his mind the trope of reversal, reverse discrimination. if you get rid of slavery, that means that you want to privilege the blacks over the whites.

and, you know, we can laugh, but let me give you another example, much more -- well, you can say, gosh, kennedy, where'd you dream this guy up? let me give you somebody else. much more consequential. abraham lincoln's successor at the white house. abraham lincoln's successor at the white house was president andrew johnson. president andrew johnson vetoed the nation's first civil rights law. the civil rights act of 1866. what did the civil rights act of 1866 say that would occasion the president's veto? the civil rights act of 1866 said that anybody born in the united states of america is a citizen of the united states, and the civil rights act of 1866 said that from now on all persons in the united states will have the same rights as

whites. not more, just the same. rights as whites to enter into contracts, to own property, to sue, to be sued. the classic civil rights. andrew johnson vetoed that act why? because he complained saying that the act afforded, quote. discriminatory protection to colored persons. he said, i object to this. he said, you know, the federal government's never intervened for anybody else. it hasn't intervened for white people. and as for this citizenship clause, the citizenship clause is immediately going to make citizens of four million former slaves. you know, want all the good white people who have been standing in line to become naturalized citizens of the united states? this is discriminatory protection.

and one could go on. i mean, to tell you the truth, i could go on for an hour going throughout american history. next summer will mark the 50th anniversary of the civil rights act of 1964. what was the debate like in the civil rights act of 1964? segregationist senators like sam irvin of north carolina and a bunch of others, what were they saying? they were saying, you know, if you pass title vii in the 1964 civil rights act and tell private employers they cannot discriminate people on a racial basis, that's going to be opening the door up wide to quotas and reverse discrimination against white people. so my only point is that i'm not -- i will say this, i'm not

saying that anybody who's against affirmative dax, i'm not -- action, i'm not call anybody who's against affirmative action necessarily a racist. there are people who i respect a great deal, friends of mine who balance the costs and benefits differently than me and are against affirmative action. fine. i disagree with them, fine. i don't think they're racist. but are there plenty of people who, in fact, are racist, who are against affirmative action truly? why? because they perceive -- rightly so -- that it advances the interests of people of color? yeah, that's part of the story too. and, you know, a realistic part of the story that i think people often deny. yes, ma'am. >> you put the gay/lesbian/transgender people in affirmative action situation, and what does that mean of difficulty in sharing, like, legally restrooms with people

you aren't sure who they are or what they are? >> well, i mean, are there institutions that make a special effort to include people of varying, you know, sexual orientations? be i'm -- i'm sure there are. >> [inaudible] >> what do you mean legally? >> i mean, are they required to? >> required to, no. in fact, affirmative action is nowhere required. you know? with respect to -- no institution has to have -- well, that's not, to be perfectly, that's not exactly correct. if an institution has been adjudged to have engaged in purposeful racial discrimination against a group, a judge could say you've got to engage in racial affirmative action, let's say, for a certain period of time in order to, you know, make amends for your past discrimination. so, for instance, the boston

fire department around for a good long time, at least for a decade, was under an affirmative action plan because a judge said, guys, you've been discriminating against black people for a good long time. so, you know, you're going to have to have a situation where for every white person you hire, you're going to have to hire a black person for a period of time in order to make amends. ab sent that, however -- absent that, however, no institution is required to have affirmative action. and, in fact, one of -- i think one of the justifications for affirmative action is exactly that affirmative action, particularly in public institutions, is subject to just regular politics. i mean, if you're in a state and the people of the state, let's say, don't want to have racial

affirmative action, they can do what the people of california did. we don't to have affirmative -- we don't want to have affirmative action. okay, you don't have to have affirmative action. if a state has institutions that have affirmative action, seems to me the courts should butt out and let regular politics do its thing. if people don't want to have it, they don't have to have it. but if they do want to have it, it seems to me they should be allowed to. yes, sir. >> we bought a house on long island, it was built by leavitt, and today had a number of different -- they had a number of different models, and i think it was open to anybody. i don't think there was any vim nation there. ..

event looked and decided not to buy and loving to sublet, we got a phone call from us neighbor. >> what did she say? >> showed how to -- a black person. yes i did. and i didn't want to continue the conversation so i said thank you for calling. it was racism hitting us

personally. >> was this in levittown? >> this is further out than when this town. this was probably more beyond huntington. going out into the island. >> leavitttown was notorious for excluding black people. absolutely. housing discrimination has been the most important and consequential types of racial discrimination in the united states, your story does not at all surprised me. were you aware that there was a restrictive covenant. restricted common in tunnel

laundering forcible. >> before we bought the house in that development those were real estate agents in the huntington area. made a comment that they allow any use for blacks or the next book of i don't know, i can't remember. that development, real-estate telling me they need other people in. it was above board. >> in fact, remember, wasn't until 1968, practicing housing discrimination was unlawful as a matter of federal law. only after the assassination of martin luther king jr. that congress was willing to pass a

law saying housing discrimination is a violation, housing discrimination. >> i wonder how you answer people. addressed the problem and need to get rid of it. >> there are many. as for what i would immediately say is one thing, let's think about the following. let's ask ourselves in the absence of affirmative-action, and the number of states got rid of affirmative action, a lot of study of this, what will classes look like and what will colleges look like in the absence of

affirmative-action, inactions of the most selective institution of higher education the numbers of latinos and blacks go all the way down immediately. the number of years ago, a federal court, the university of texas, federal court said the university of texas would no longer take race into account choosing students, what happened? what happened was there was immediate decrease, very substantial decrease in the numbers of latinos, at the university of texas. numbers went down so precipitously the texas legislature passed a law, very interesting law that we will be

confronting more and more, texas legislature said federal court told us we cannot take race into account. we know we cannot take race into account the number of latinos will go way down. therefore we have to do something. texas legislature is not talking about a bunch of reporting liberals, are we. texas legislature said you will simply be intolerable if we have a public institution and the numbers of latinos, number of blacks is minuscule. and pass a new law that says if you are in the top 10% of your high school class, you automatically get into the university of texas no matter what your test scores are, no matter how you would fare in the

competition, so if you go to let's say robert e. lee high school, i am choosing the name of the high school advisedly, if you go to robert e. lee high school and you are in the top 10% you automatically get in. at the same time, if you go to let's say booker t. washington high school. the legislators knew what they were doing. they knew that in texas. they knew it would be predominately right partner because of what you talking

about. and the black kids will be at booker t. washington high school. we will get the numbers of latinos and blacks, latino kids go to latino high schools and black kids in black high school. the top 10%, that will lead to more minority kids that are able to getin.

need could we produce the book but you leave me five pages at the end sold when the supreme court decision comes down i can work around it? no. so i said ok, i have read all the briefs, i will say what i think is going to happen and go

on. end they didn't step on my book for selfish reasons i am sort of happy about. the important point is the top 10% plan is often referred to as an example of grace neutral affirmative-action. question:is it race neutral affirmative-action? my response is no. the legislature acted with race in the forefront. not entirely bleak it turned out this 10% plan was one of these examples of legislation having strange bedfellows. and white representatives in rural texas who also like the

top-10%, poor white kids in the top 10%, they too would benefit. race in the forefront of their minds, it was. a lot say this is race neutral, this is another case of what has happened so much in american life. people engaging in word games to hide the ball. pass was race neutral affirmative-action, this was affirmative-action, doesn't have race written on the face of it. >> i look at the intersection of race, class, gender and so forth. as long as i am thinking of college admission and retention rates, finds that african-american young men are

not persisting in college at the same rate as african-american women, of find that immigrant first and second generation african consent, decent and are all so highly represented in these institutions and we also know that upper-middle-class and middle-class taking the advantage of your state of action was and policies. given all of the intricacies whether your thoughts on thinking about affirmative-action? >> everything you say is absolutely true. in my camp as i see it, definitely very vivid. a couple things. number one, seems to me it was a mistake to think that

affirmative action is going to be some sort of panacea. it is a relatively modest intervention, it was important but it is by no means revolutionary. frankly what i am talking about if we are talking affirmative-action and high ridge occasion we are talking about desegregation of elites. that is what we are talking about. the elite sector. is racial affirmative-action going to be something that is going to substantially affect for raciapoor racial minorities? answer, no. to take advantage of the affirmative-action you have to been doing pretty good. to take advantage of affirmative-action in higher education, you had to have been

a pretty good student to even be in the running. we are going to need to supplement racial affirmative-action. just because it doesn't do everything, don't get rid of it, don't say it doesn't do everything, therefore throw it away. it is a relatively -- it is my view a modest intervention, it helps some sectors of historically disadvantaged groups, but we need other things to address other sorts of inequality in american life. it should not be forgotten at all that there are millions and millions and millions of poor white people in the united states who need help. and we need to fashion interventions to provide them help. for goodness sake, don't get rid

of racial affirmative-action because what about poor white people? i get hot under the collar. there are some people who say racial affirmative-action doesn't help, doesn't help poor black people or poor white people. you would think these are raging egalitarian minded folks. the only time that they even hint at being interested in equality in american life is to get rid of racial affirmative-action. they would never say anything else. they will never mentioned poor white people ever except in an argument to get rid of racial affirmative-action. the point is do we have gender problems in american life,

gender inequality? yes. do we have in the quality with respect to sexual orientation, yes. to we have terrible inequality with respect to the class line? millions of people enmeshed in poverty, we have all of that and we are going to need to craft intelligent programs to deal with all of that. you have heard me, i am for affirmative-action. let me amend that a little bit. in my book i say i am for sensible affirmative-action. can you have of affirmative-action policies that are stupid? yes, of course you can just like you can have stupid public policy of any sort. am i for steuben affirmative-action? no, i am not forced to the affirmative action. i am not for affirmative action

that will promote people in a way that puts them in positions where they are going to fail. i am not for promoting people to positions in which they are not going to provide good service to people. i am not for that. i am against stupid affirmative-action, but i think that sensible carefully tailored affirmative-action has been a good thing over the course of our past 40 years. americans should be quite proud of. it enables older people to say i never would have thought. it is good.

we are living in a country in which we can say 30 years ago i never would have thought that there would have been, let's say, a chief executive officer of the united states who checks the black box on the census. good for the united states. >> hey, dad. [laughter] >> i was just wondering, you have benefited books on affirmative action. >> good question. it was not even a plan.

i actually begin the book with the beginning of the book, called growing up with affirmative action. that is the introduction and i was quite concerned about this because usually when i write i tried to keep myself way out of it. but this time, i figured people are going to be interested in knowing, what about my stake in the story. i decided to start off with them. i will say a couple things and make this windup after this. so i begin the book by talking about -- i have had an interesting life along the color line. i was born in 1954 in columbia, south carolina, deep south, and

my parents left the south when i was pretty young, my parents moved to washington d.c.. i don't remember when they moved. i was two four years old. i asked my father why did you move? he said the following to me. we moved because i fear that if we did not move, one of two things was going to happen. either i was going to kill a white man or a white man was going to kill me. my parents were refugees from the jim crow south. like millions of people, billions of people, you have black people you might meet from san francisco or los angeles or detroit or philadelphia, you talk with them for a little while you will hear a story like this. millions. after we moved i would go down to columbia often, spend my vacation there, my summers, i begin a book by saying i vividly

remember going to see the movie the nutty professor. the 90 professor that i saw was the nutty professor starring jerry lewis, not the ones starring what is the comedian's name? eddie murphy. that is the young people's nutty professor. one i saw was jerry lewis. i remember, i remember going to my cousin, went to the theater, went through the side door of the theater, the colored people's entrance and we sat up in the balcony. i've viewed all this from the point of view of thought 9-year-old and it shows you how funny things are from because the point of view of a 9-year-old i thought this was great. because we had a strategic position sitting up in the balcony, we would throw stuff over, and pepper the people

beneath us with candy. it was much more difficult for the people below to throw stuff back on us. i thought this is wonderful. there was other stuff that was not so nice, in fact in 1960 to, 1963, 1964, those three summers that i spent with my aunt in south carolina, i could not go to a public park. why? because the state of south carolina closed all the public parks rather than desegregate them. all of the public parks were closed those three years. let me just say this. very patient. the fact of the matter is along the baseline i have been very unfortunate. affirmative-action, i am an affirmative action baby. i have been helped by affirmative action at various

points in my mind. i went to a very fine school, best's life ever attended was my high school in washington d.c. and i had a crew of teachers, very close to, became very close, those teachers, a number of them really showed me special solicitude in part for a variety of reasons but in part because i think they viewed it as part of their mission to assist young black folks get ahead in our society. that was the same at princeton. the president of princeton, william g. bowen, very helpful to me, later, over and over and over again. i have been at harvard law

school for 29 years. i was not even on the market. i was not going to be a law professor. i was all set my third year of law school to work for the naacp. as a litigator. one day i got a call from the dean of harvard law school who said to me we heard nice things about you. have you ever thought about teaching law? my response was no, but i am game. he says good. we will fly you up. and over the course of 18 months he and his colleagues said why don't you do this, why don't you do that, they got me into it. i have benefited. i would like to think that i have put those benefits to good use and have put them to good use for myself, put them to good use for my family and put them to good use for society. you all have been very kind, very patient.