in secession. that's pretty good. in the dark and a savaged in the desperate middle east israel is a beacon of humanity of life and hope. [applause] ladies and gentlemen israel and the united states will continue to stand together because america and israel are more than friends. we are like a family. disagreements are always uncomfortable. but we must remember that we are family. [applause] rooted in the heritage of holding the common values sharing a common destiny. that is the message i came to tell you today. our alliances sound, our

friendship is strong and it will get even stronger in the years to come. thank you aipac, thank you america. god bless you all. [applause] ♪

♪ as the aipac conference is underway this morning that secretary of state john kerry said that he was in geneva attending an important human rights council session today and address the need to protect and advance human rights. live coverage from aipac will continue this afternoon when the national security adviser speaks to the american israel public affairs committee into the annual policy conference in washington. we will have live coverage of the comments beginning at 6 p.m. eastern. the prime minister netanyahu

will continue his visit to washington tomorrow speaking to a joint meeting in congress. you can of congress. you can watch the flight attendant:45 eastern. it will be on c-span. barbara mikulski of maryland the longest-serving woman in the history of congress is making an announcement about her plans for the future. the 78-year-old democrat in the fifth term us estimate the announcement in baltimore this morning at about half an hour.

senator mikulski became the longest-serving woman in the history of congress in 2012 and was first elected in 1976 and she served in the senate since 1987 and is up for reelection next year but declined in the past to see whether she would run for what would be the sixth term and again that announcement is set for events in the a.m. eastern this morning. wednesday morning at eight eastern during washington journal we will announce the grand prize winner and showed the winning documentary and following the announcement announcement you can see begins the old 150 at student cam.org. now a panel of law school professors look at the future of antidiscrimination law. this is from a recent boston university law school conference analyzing the 1964 civil rights act.

topics include racial justice failures affirmative action, special education, religious autonomy and employment discrimination. >> my privilege this afternoon to introduce the commissioner and i want to thank her for coming to the conference, not only coming here but being here the whole time and participating actively. i think that we can all agree that she substantially enhanced the conference for doing that and i think that it reflects the fact that at heart she is still a law professor who loves ideas. but we can also admire her career being successful and importing or connecting the realm of ideas to something she has done i think pretty much since she graduated from law

school a couple of years in the circuit of the supreme court and then at georgetown she founded the wall center federal legislative administrative clinic and she had a number of clients that led to her being instrumental in the negotiation for americans with disabilities act and for the 2008 amendment to that act as well. these are both negotiated the statutes so that wasn't just a drafting. and she played a role in drafting the nondiscrimination act which hasn't yet been enacted but more connected to the topic of the talk and without wasting any more of her time i'm going to hand the podium over to her. [applause]

>> it really has been a full and amazing day and a half conference. i did tell my chief of staff that i wanted to you know, clear the day and a half that i could be here because i knew i would learn as i have and because as a law professor for 18 years the dubious in the theory to affecting practice. so i definitely want to thank the law school for supporting this conference into supporting linda in all of her work as you heard and also the members of her committee because even if you are just going to meetings were responding to e-mails, you are engaged in helping to craft

this event. finally i have become fashion. are you in and out completely c-span junkie. [laughter] every office i've had i have required a tv in the office. i come in turn it onto c-span and that's where it stays the whole day. often on mute a little disconcerting to some of my visitors sometimes but on a serious note as you will see from my comments i want to talk about how we can achieve real social change. and an important aspect is an engaged citizenry and the engaged citizenry needs to have unfiltered information that comes to them and that is i think c-span is absolutely an

important component of that in our democracy. okay. the civil rights act of 1964 obviously as you've heard and as you know the historic piece of legislation. as you heard it is not a fully transformational piece of legislation because it cannot by its own get us to full racial quality on any number of friends because i'm tell you engage with the economic issues in the country that won't happen. nevertheless it also plays its part if people can actually now get jobs get promoted in their jobs that will definitely make a difference in their economic status. it's also dynamic particularly

as it is implemented by the equal employment opportunity commission, the commission which i serve and the commission that the congress specifically chose to set up a bipartisan commission when they passed the civil rights act they could have had the department of justice implement the law, the department of labor but instead they created a bipartisan commission and i think we have taken our job seriously in terms of being responsible for implementing the law. so for example in areas of race the abdomen point and work in terms of reinvigorating our guidance about requiring any criminal background screen to actually match up to the job to which the screen is being used.

you heard about the wallet and protect her in terms of her cornrows and that's right in terms of the court has decided just decided just to this here they filed the claim alleging dangerous code that said professional appearance means no dreadlocks, cornrows is a form of race discrimination. not only because it might be a marker of race but because for a non- african-american we don't have to do anything to our hair to have it be street and for many african-americans their hair will normally lock. that's what it does. so having a code that says you must do something unnatural to your hair in order to work here is a form of race discrimination also in terms of english only

contesting english only rules, something that is often done as well as religion the issues have changed since 1964. it's not so much that they say no jews or muslims but that's about the issue of dress code and again we have been active in that area. but for this talk i want to focus on gender equity simply because one can't do everything i'm going to focus on gender equity and talk about the advances that have been made over the past decade and how far we have to go. i do bb that anniversaries like the 50th anniversary of the civil rights act is a particularly useful moment in which to reflect on what's happened and what else needs to be done so here here is the framework i want to talk about and it's a framework i started using a number of years ago but

it particularly designates for me now because many of the presentations that you have heard have used this framework. so to achieve any social justice goals come any social justice outcome, one needs the variables to converge law policy practice and social norms. what i mean by the law is that a legislature might have, congress or state legislatures, local ordinances. of the way that it has been applied and interpreted by an agency charged with implementing the law with regulations and guidance and courts that have been applied to that law to

particular cases in front of them. in other words, lots of words. by policies and practice how and whether the words of the law regulations case decisions have actually been absorbed into the organization that is regulated. of the requirements of the law truly reflected in the dalia ordinary practices of the organization or a just barely words and by social norms i mean that the majority of people feel and think about the social justice outcome being pursued. because until one gets tipping point of where the majority of

people come a significant majority of the people believe in their hearts and minds beauty belief that social justice outcome being pursued as a truly a good social.com it will never be achieved. and these three elements are synergistic. there's there is always a dynamic dance going on between them. so for example assume it is the equity in the workplace. to get employers to put policies and practice in the workplace to stop the discrimination. the signaling and social message of the law as well as the policies and practice might foster changes in the social norm that is what the workers the beef in their hearts and find out how they should act and then as the social norms change

that can make the law and policy and practice work more effectively because suddenly employers are going to be able to understand the law that are comply with it more effectively and coworkers will begin to accept the social norms and view them as the appropriate ones to follow. we spoke right after the justice richard epstein was on the panel and i was making this point in terms of if you want to change the social norm the worst thing to do is to pass the law. and i was like okay that's not exactly what i said. i said if you want to achieve a social justice outcome, you need

certain variables. social norms are one of those. often you need some change to get the wall and acted as a political matter but it is one component of achieving that social norm and it can actually be an interactive synergistic component. let's think about the framework in the context of the antidiscrimination provision that is included in the civil rights act of 1964. as many of you may know the civil rights act when it was introduced to didn't include a success termination provision that only included employment on the basis of race, color natural religion and origin. those of you heard the presentation yesterday there was a myth that congress had never

dealt with were never even thought about the issue of sex discrimination and it was added on the house floor by a congressman who simply wanted to kill the bill. there are some elements of truth but mostly it is completely wrong as it was intuitive to yesterday and by the way when i tried to track down the first time this came up i think it came from a paragraph in a harvard law review symposium where there was one paragraph that said this and then reference the one woman from congress peter green who was opposing it for the basis of the analysis. so anyone who think what you write doesn't matter, not true. so the reality is that the congress had been having a debate about sex discrimination

for over 40 years at that point. right now it's not in the context of the debate. there hadn't been a debate in the context of an employment law that would govern private employers. it had been in the context of whether to enact an equal rights amendment to the federal constitution. and the national women's party had been pushing since the 1920s and by the 1940s the language of the amendment was as follows, a poverty of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or any state on account of sex. so if adopted it would have meant that there could be no federal law and no state law that denied or abridged quality on the account of sex. as you all know it wasn't passed by congress until many years later and was ultimately not ratified by the state.

the reason for the non- passage was that an 1952 women's groups and unions prevailed on congress to add a second sentence to the amendment. the second sentence said the provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any right, benefit or exemptions upon persons of the female sex. so the first sentence of the amendment said no law may take six sex into account and now the second sentence said yes they can take sex into account if they confirmed rights, benefits or exemptions trust for women. what was going on here? a combination of practical politics and social norms. as a matter of social norms, the assumption was that women were different to them than because their job was to be wives and mothers, not to be workers in the labor market.

and as a practical political matter coming unions and women's groups have successfully gotten the labor law and acted in a number of states and upheld against constitutional challenges by having the law protects only women on the ground that women were different than men. so for example they put a limit on the backs of the number of hours that women could work or that required the required overtime pay just for women because women were different than men. the jobs were to be wives and mothers into these balls would hope them do that. so these groups didn't want them to invalidate the law. they had no interest if it included that second sentence.

basil this they saw this as an opportunity for here is a bill moving through. let's get a sex discrimination provision added and they asked the congressman who opposed the civil rights act, voted against it to offer the amendment because he was the congressman who have been introducing the era into the house for the past number of years. they might oppose the bill and hoped this would be a poison pill but at least a number of other members voted to add sex because they thought that was the right thing to do. he led them out of the 12 then women members of congress there were only 12, 11 out of the 12 voted to add the sex

discrimination prohibition in. and again representing reasoning from race she does an excellent job of unpacking and building on the work of other scholars and the racist rationale was used to test this without gender that that in spite of women have less protection than black men and women. but the reason that estate in is because of the work of polly murray describing that it was essential to keep the prohibition into actually help african-american women. here's the interesting thing the words became part of the law but because the social norms were not get out a place where men and women were actually considered to be the same at least for employment policy purposes, the agency charged with enforcing the law and

subsequently the court found it hard to accept the title vii prohibition at face value. so here's an example. september, 1965 just a few months after they opened their doors in july, 1965 a year after it passed, the commission announced its position that the six advertisements were not a violation of the title vii. the general practice at the time was to have male and female columns in the help wanted section of the newspapers. there was a thing called newspapers. they were in print. if there were a list of jobs under men wanted, women wanted. they decided that this practice did not violate title vii because the personal inclinations of men and women was such that many job categories were primarily of

interest only to men and women for segregating ads it was simply helping applicants find a job they were looking for any way. they explained that a woman applied for a job under the column the law prohibiting an employer from not hiring the person based on their sex but the ads themselves were fine. one of the first articles i read read at lita read directly to the south was read directly to the south was by kerry franklin from texas and i remain totally indebted to her for that. again i went back and read a bee article that also had some of this. so, the decision by the eeoc and outraged the organizations that they founded the organization for women as a reaction to this.

if you go onto the website and look under history, they will explain that. so, after this start, the eeoc and eeoc emerged leader in shaping the law of sex discrimination. how did they do that? first, through the commission decisions but it issued. initially it didn't have a strong enforcement authority but it did have to did have the requirement of taking in charges and investigating. they thought there was reasonable cause and in the early years, those decisions were all issued by the commission. actually they came up to the commission. the fact of the investigation came up and the commission issued the commission decisions explaining why there was cause. all of the commission decisions were confidential for them in the statute. we cannot disclose the name of

the charging party or the respondent. the analysis was actually used by the court as they were figuring out what title vii should be in so use the commission decisions and we issued guidance to explain the view of the law as you heard congress didn't give us in in the title vii of the authority to issue substantive regulation only procedural regulations. obviously there was no prohibition on gathering all the things we have said in the various commissions and putting that out and guidance which is what the commission has been doing since that time and then finally once they got litigation authority in 1972, the eeoc started putting forth its law in the type of cases that it was bringing. so, for example through these means the eeoc said for proposition such as sex discrimination if an employer will hire married women but it

will hire married men. it's sex discrimination if an employer won't hire women with young children below school age that will hire men below school age children. now i get the propositions might seem pretty obvious now that we are very contested at the time. so for example with regards to the employers will be with entire so it's below the school age but hire men the fifth circuit held that this rule could not be sex discrimination. why? because the panel said they could not imagine that members of congress would be so irrational, so removed from common sense to believe that there was no difference between then with young children and

women with young children so whatever it was it was not sex discrimination. the supreme court reversed that ruling to say that it wasn't sex discrimination but then the court heard and said as you heard in the panel while it might be a bona fide occupational qualification not to have women with young children and leave that for the courts to decide and thankfully partly because some of the litigation did not take. not all are positive. for example in the 1970s transgender employees and gay employees brought charges to the commission. you had someone who had been living as a man and working as a man for 20 years and she transitioned it is now a woman and gets fired. so she thinks it feels like sex discrimination to me. it comes to the commission into the commission says whatever that is at his and it is and sex

discrimination. it's discrimination based on an operation. the operation is something to do with sex but it's not sex discrimination. and the same thing when gay charging parties came they say that sexual orientation discrimination. it brings up the myth of congress wasn't really thinking about this. ..

the court concluded an employer acted on the basis of a gender stereotype, that a stereotype that women should not be too macho, too aggressive, that meant the employer was inappropriately taking sex into account. and as the supreme court said, quote, gender must be irrelevant to employment decisions. gender must be irrelevant from employment decision. this may seem like a simple sentence. if you actually read all the cases in one sitting, as i did one afternoon, and then read that sentence, you realize how moment is a sentence that was. because for two decades the courts have been twisting themselves into pretzels not to accept this plane meaning of the word. you can't take six and account

just like you can't take race into account, or national origin or religion. so where are we now? is it all over? have sex and gender really become irrelevant in the workplace? not, newsflash. i mean, it's sort of mind blowing actually how much it's not over. so i want to highlight a few areas where we are not where we should be and offer some ideas for moving forward. first, sexual harassment. the amount of sexual harassment that is still going on in our workplaces is truly horrific. and it is something i did not naturally understand until i became a commissioner at the eeoc. i think that a lot of professional settings that are the settings in which we and our colleagues operate yes there's some sexual harassment. that's still there but it is not at this almost horrific almost

endemic amount. and i which would choose the case after case of sexual harassment often in restaurants, other retail stores where these were young women where it was their first job and then they were subjected to the sexual harassment or women in nontraditional male-dominated jobs. immigrant and migrant workers. now, from my perspective we need a creative multipronged strategic campaign to stop this epidemic. law is a critical variable in the campaign, absolutely it can make employers take notice, to make employers put those processes in place to take in the complaint. but law on its own will never do this work. to eradicate sexual harassment government must work in partnership with business and

advocacy groups to develop a proactive and creative strategy that will ultimately change the social norms. change what is truly experienced and believed and acted upon in the workplace. change it so that a man knows he is not okay to sexually harassed a woman in the workplace. women know it's not okay. that happens, too, to sexually harass men but it's got to be a multipronged creative strategy. accommodation for pregnant workers. sorely at the commission had concluded that if an employer discriminate against a pregnant employee because of pregnancy, that's a form of sex this commission. another radical concept. supreme court disagreed and in the dance that occurred, congress disagreed with the supreme court and passed the

pregnancy discrimination act. and that act as amended title vii to say one yes six includes pregnancy, and two a pregnant employee must be treated the same as other employees similar in their ability or inability to work. here's the reality today. there are pregnant workers across the country who need accommodations to stay on the job. we have tons of employers today he will give male or female employees who have been injured on the job another disability under the ada and accommodation of modified job duties. if they have a lifting restriction, might change those duties on a temporary basis if it's a temporary disability. but those employers will not do the same accommodations to pregnant women despite the plain language. well, this past june, as you

heard, the eeoc issued new guidance in interpreting it adequate equal accommodations in such situations. this legal approach that we took is different from the five other circuit courts of appeal who have ruled on this. but we as the agency, we are bringing case in any of the circuit would have to be giving with that law, but as an agency we have both the responsibility and authority to say what we think the law requires and that's what we put out in our guidance. as you heard indicates that young versus ups, the supreme court will now decide this legal issue. i certainly hope that they agree with the eeoc. and if they do that will have an effect in practical policy on the ground. which will ultimately help primarily low income women who are working in manual jobs. and as an interesting twist on how litigation can itself affect

policies, ups announced in its brief to the supreme court that it had changed its policy and it was now going to accommodate pregnant women. they made it clear that they were not required to do so under the law. they still wanted to say they were not liable before, but look at the effect to accompany that he's feeling just as a reputational matter to make it clear they're not discriminating against pregnant women. third, pay equity. this is a huge issue. some of the pay disparity comes from blatant discrimination, that similar identical jobs, that women make less money from him. i've seen a bunch these cases that the eeoc is brought and we needed like that straight on. but a lot of the pages but is due to the significant gender job segregation that still exist in our workplaces.

the research shows that female dominated occupations pay less than male-dominated occupations given the same skill. fleet might have the same skill needed for a job. male-dominated job will be more than e-mail. but do you know how much gender segregation, job segregation still exists in this country? not so much in the professional field, law, medicine accounting, you don't see it but 40% of women in this country work in jobs that are female dominated which means more than 70% of the people in that job occupation are women. and more than 40% of men work in jobs that are male-dominated. right, 70% of the men of the people in the occupation are mean. well that will end up with wages being skewed, women making less. galligan from my perspective changing this type of

occupational segregation, job segregation requires an overall multipronged strategic plan. because of the amount of the job segregation is the result of choices that men and women make in the siding what jobs to take. -- decided. one has to use more the law to address the. law absolutely a critical component. we have brought cases where women are clearly not even hired into jobs. we have brought cases where there's rampant sexual harassment in a male-dominated profession. obviously law is a critical component but it has to be more than that. it has to be an overall education campaign. it needs to be even things like the american job centers in this country that get millions of dollars from the federal government, they get the same credit no matter what job they find for people. they are moving women into real tear jobs and men into welding

jobs because that's -- retail jobs. that's easy. they get the same credit. what about requiring that they actually think, can i get more skills training to these women and open up for them the idea that maybe they want to do this other job? so these are just a few of the issues we are working on now at the eeoc. i want to conclude with a discussion of a final issue that does not require multipronged strategic plan and that's whether discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is sex discrimination and, therefore, currently prohibited by title vii. now as you heard i was one of the original drafters of the employment nondiscrimination act in 1993. students in the room might be interested to note that the first draft was actually written off a law school exam because i'd been hired as a consultant to work on this, there was a meeting the next day and i knew,

i didn't know if they had already developed a paper but i knew the best way to effect a meeting is to come in with paper. and i had in my computer and exam hybrid the previous year i was a bill that would prohibit this commission based on sexual orientation, legislation class had a bunch of mistakes obviously so there would be questions. i went in fix the mistakes, printed that out and that's what i brought. so here's the thing. it's what i call a funny thing happened on the way to don passage of enda. -- non-passage. i often say i don't have kids, biological or doctor. i have laws. instead of a boy it's a law. loss have lots of parents and they often take more than nine months but in a way would happen with enda is that we discovered it was this older sibling who had essentially been overlooked. not understood in terms of what

it prohibited or so the first case was important in its default is the one you've heard about already price waterhouse singh you can't act on the basis of gender stereotypes, and justice scalia writing for unanimous court said sure, the 19th 60 for congress was not, sir, so that's the gender stereotyping. the next case about 10 years later to do with same-sex sexual harassment, justice scalia writing for unanimous court said yes, you can show it because of sex, same-sex, sexual harassment is covered. in the 60 for congress was a think about same-sex sexual harassment but we are governed by the words of the law not by the intent. enterprise waterhouse and transgender folk started bringing cases arguing gender stereotyping some court started to adopt those, six circuit

11th circuit and april 2012, the eeoc issued an opinion in a case called macy's versus department justice in which we held that discrimination based on being transgender is a form of six nation. we no longer issue commitment decisions in the private sector but we have adjudicatory authority in the federal sector that is applicants to federal jobs or employees, and this was a federal sector of any but in one respect we were just catching up to the courts, right, explaining hey, it's a form of gender stereotyping if you think that some of his been designated as mail at birth should not in transition to present as a woman, that's a form of gender stereotyping. but the other thing we did what you think was quite important was to go back to the underlying point of price waterhouse which was that if an employer asked on the basis of a gender

stereotype that's evidence that gender has been taken into account. it's not that gender stereotyping is a free floating plan of action, cause of action. it's evidence that gender has been taken into account. and if you think you show correctly that gender has been taken into account that establishes the violation to so the end of macy's we said she could show that she didn't get this job when she had applied while she was a man. she told them when she showed up should be showing up as one and suddenly the job disappeared. you could say that it was an error because of gender stereotype, or you could say gender had been taken into account. they were fine about hiring her when she was a man. oddity about hiring her when she was a woman. does that sound like a gender has been taken into account? that's what we said in the

opinion. so the same analysis has been happening with regard to the comfort of sexual orientation discrimination under title vii. hear the eeoc has been even more of a leader, very much like i think the early years when the eeoc was setting forth the view of the law. post-price waterhouse, about chidester chiding a number of courts start protecting gay men and lesbians who fit some stereotypes of what a man should be gay so a man who seems too effeminate or a woman who seemed to masculine, and the habitats that indicated that that's what the harassment was based on those folks would be covered under gender stereotyping. but if they couldn't prevent a new just because they were gay the courts would say no, that's not covered because sexual orientation isn't listed in title vii and this would just bootstrap all gave people, and that can't be the case.

-- day people. with the eeoc started doing and cases issued in 2011 adventures resilient 2014 come a case that the full commission vote on, a lot of these cases we delegate efforts are office of federal operations in the issued these opinions just said it's also a gender stereotype to think that a man should marry a woman as opposed to a man. or a woman should be sexually involved with the men, not women. we had cases where people were harassed after a coworker found out that the man was marrying a man. and the agency said that's not a sex discrimination claim. came to us and said no, that is because your acting on this gender stereotype of what a man should marry. so i used to say that gender stereotyping three would not have felt a lesbian like me. how many of you who don't already know me thought when i stood up here all my god that must be the first openly lesbian commission of the eeoc?

when i say this to audience, management attorneys, all of them laugh, some of them nervously. but that's because i don't violate some of this presentation gender stereotype and, of course, a delight the most underlying gender stereotype. the courts have now begun to pick up these theories. there was a motion to dismiss based on the fact this was just a game in claiming sexual orientation discrimination, motion to dismiss and the court said no sounds like this person is arguing gender stereotyping the his supervisor didn't think he was acting as a man should act. there's also just the plain language theory, right which is, you know, if i come in and i'm saying my partner, my partner, and they think i'm talking about a guy and then i have the picture to my get married and have a picture of my

spouse and she is a woman and suddenly that's a problem that is because of sex. and what's interesting in terms of the bootstrapping argument is that courts have no trouble figuring this out in interracial couples. so if i was a woman and as my boyfriend, my boyfriend and my supervisor is just imagining a white guy and suddenly a black guy walks in that's my boyfriend and i get harassed or discriminated on the basis, the courts have it had trouble saying that his race discrimination, taking race into account. the courts did and said oh my god, that would be coming out in a category of people. instead of just men and just women, now it's women white women dating black men, a whole new category. know it's that is the application of race. so in a case that just came out a few months or so ago, hall v. bnsf there was a guy who

got married as has been asked for health insurance, didn't get it, filed suit saying if i were married to a woman i would get health insurance. the employer put in its brief the classic like of sex orientation is not covered under title vii. this is a sex orientation claim. and the court denied summary judgment instead i'm reading the claim, reading the complaint and it says if i were a man raped a woman i would get health insurance. i'm a man married to a man and so i don't. and that's sexist omission. andand the court actions that i was a senior about sexual orientation. now, there was an immediate sexual orientation because, but, of course, right? it's just now i think now the social norms have changed, the legal logic was always there. but now that social logic has changed, and in a way social logic, cultural logic had to change before legal logic could prevail and courts could

actually see the words in front of them. so last piece because i want to leave time for questions. let me conclude with this. 50 years ago congress passed titletitle vii of the sub rights act of 1964, and set us off on a journey in which sex would not be taken into account in the workplace, just as race religion, national origin color would not be permitted to be taken into account. the journey has not been a simple one, and it is not over yet. but, over time, allies increasingly be understood cover many forms of discrimination that the 1964 congress could not have anticipated. it has generated policies and practice on the ground that have advanced gender equity and the law has both shaped and then shaped by social norms. we all need to remain part of this great journey and to do

our bit in bringing complete equity to our workplaces. thank you so much for your attention. your engagement, and your scholarship. all of it makes a huge difference. thanks so much. [applause] >> okay, if the our questions you either have to come to a mic or you might get the preferential treatment of a c-span person coming to you but, such as come to this mic linda. >> thank you for that terrific address but at a guess i'd like to go back to connect your talk with some of the discussion yesterday. hearts and minds when i was talking at the debate of the 1964 act and whether congress, will it succeed you saw different people saying at least you can reach conduct and maybe eventually you might reach its hearts and minds.

i really welcoming a look at more about your vision of the interplay of these three things and how this element of hearts and minds in getting people on board, social norms. >> as you can imagine one of the reasons why i love presentation and all those quotes was i think it really reflected, number one if you haven't changed hearts and minds to some extent you're not going to get the law passed in the first place. people have to feel, number one that there's a problem. if you don't feel like it's a problem for people with green eyes are not getting jobs or you know people who tell bad jokes can get fired if the employer doesn't like the joke. they have to believe that something is problematic that is going on in society. that representative democracy should respond to right, and the backdrop is absolutely at will employment. it's got to be something. some hearts and minds have to have already changed, but not

all. representative democracy means you know it made 60 votes. it's always made 60 votes in the senate for a controversial bill. and i do think we have to accept that we cannot, not only can not, not only can we as a government not legislate morality or beliefs we can definitely decided on the basis of a public morality, that's the first thing, what do we think is right or wrong? not only can't we legislate we should not be legislating beliefs. that's the essence of religious protection. you can't tell someone that they had to stop believing something. but we can send a signal through legislation of what we think is wrong and then we can say you have to act in accordance with this, unless there's actually an exemption that we put in for

you. and then i do think ultimately it will change social norms. you need to get to a mic. don't worry, there will be someone there who is thinking of a question. >> great, thanks for a really terrific talk. i had two questions that are pretty separate but the first had to do in the beginning of your talk when you're telling the good story about the role of title vii and the civil rights act of 1964 with sex discrimination i can't wait for you to talk about sexual harassment. because my view has been actually as a legal matter the creation of the legal norm against sexual harassment was sort of remarkable coming out of the supreme court the without much supporting filling which of the law. but you were telling it is a pessimistic story because the social norm. and the continued, so guess i'm wondering if that's an accurate, if i'm reading you a great party

think there's something problematic about the law? kind of give you the second one? the second one is what's been interesting is talking all these guidance is that you issue. i'm and administered law person is my big field and a lot of people tell the story that the public the eeoc is they don't get any chevron's, they can't issue anything that's blinded by what it may be your attitude is you are freer to do what you want that will influence the law because of the fact you can't issue binding rules so you can issue guidance is which will have whatever social effect of possibly can have but he won't have the same controversy and resistance if you're doing kind in rulemaking. >> both great questions. so on the first one, no it's not that i would want to downplay the importance of the legally that much about sexual harassment. it's just that i already feel that i spoke exactly about 10 minutes too long. you know like when there's that moment when you were like flagging a little come from the audience, not me, i'm just going.

that's the main reason. i mean i think part of why the supreme court accepted it is the eeoc found that sexual harassment was sex discrimination and had put that in the guidelines. the guidelines we have not updated them since like 1979 or something, except for minor stuff, and we did put that out for notice and comment. sextus commission guidelines. but i think it helped that it was an agency that spelled it out, that there was some courts below the accepted it and even though it's not inherently in the plaintext, but you can get to it, that is because of sex then the courts all got caught up that means you have to show desire in order when it really is not about that. it's about power. so i do think that's a positive store just like i think there's a lot of other positive stories about how the words were interpreted. bikini sexual, part of what i

came up with this idea of laws policies and practice in social norms, two things that drove me in with the sex harassment story i was simply because the law is pretty clear, we bring a lot of cases but i can can't tell you how much money we make in settlements from these cases and every employer, big the employer has a policy. has been. has all the stuff and get it's like it doesn't trickle down to some supervisor, some coworker. it's not that they want to pay the money. that's why i think it's a partnership between the government and businesses the national restaurant association and advocacy groups working together. and interesting the enforcement plan, commissioner beinecke, one of my colleagues on the commission and we've done a lot of things together real i think manifestation of bipartisanship

and we really, we wanted to make it clear that we are talking about systemic harassment that we wanted an education campaign not just more litigation. it hasn't necessarily been understood in the way but we are still fighting for that. on the guidance is i think someone referenced yesterday so when a court decides a result that is actually in line with what the eeoc has said in one of its guidance is it will always say well of course there's no chevron deference but this is the agency charged with integrating the law that's got expertise. we think this makes sense. then when they come to a result that is opposite from what the eeoc is said, they said, eeoc doesn't have the power to issue regulations. so in that respect i actually think that the guidance in a sense almost does as much as regulation potentially.

but, you know right now with the rise of the office of management and budget, which reviews regulation, i think the biggest issue that agencies have with regulation is not only a notice and comment period but getting to the white house's office of management and budget. and so i think that's why a fair number of agencies, not just the eeoc, ends up moving to guidance is. and became one of the things that commissioner lipnic and i have to kind of push for is putting out our guidance is for public input. and the agency has never done that. and they don't want to do that because they feel it will just slow things down and whatever, and to me i often say look i think we are smart but we are not that smart right? might not be some benefit to put out what we say in our guidance

and get input? obviously a racist it as a political matter. i totally get the. i've been doing politics my whole life but here's the thing. i'm an optimist about politics. despite all potential signs to the contrary, i believe that representative democracy is still the best way to go, and that includes reaching out to the people. i think we have time for one more question. and you're going to get mike back to you. -- mic to you. >> okay. i wanted to ask a question about hate because i think it's great that it is back on the agenda and on the eeoc's agenda and so forth. one of the biggest barriers i've always thought to bringing more pay cases and achieving more paid equality is the lack of

information that people have especially in the private sector. so i've actually always discounted the economic studies and so forth that suggest that there's not straight out equal pay violations and that the real problem is as you suggesting this would pay equity problem. because i don't think people know. if you work for private for a private employer, many of them have rules and you can get fired if he discussed it with your coworkers. i don't think women know, for example, what their pay is relative to males. i don't. working for a private employer. i did at the university of wisconsin because you file a foia request and find out if you need to. i've always thought the biggest single thing the eeoc could do but it would cause a firestorm of course is to mandate pay information, be reported to the commission at a minimum the same way chop the ee '01 requires the reporting of job category and hiring and so forth.

i'm wondering if you thought about that at why that hasn't been done and so forth? >> well, that is actually a great question i think to end on for talk on gender equity. and i'm glad you brought up that there is you believe and so i that there is a fair amount of just straight out equal pay act violation. i might've given the of the short shrift by wanted to say we bring those cases. we see those cases but you are right. a real problem, real barry is that people don't know what their pay is. and one, i think it's been very helpful not they have been making very clear that under the national labor relations act even in non-unionized settings under the law people are getting together and talking about conditions which include wages. they cannot then be disciplined, terminated. so that's real protection in

every workplace so that's education to get that out. i also believe that in terms of just sex discrimination if someone asked about hate issues and then is retaliate against for doing that i mean how is that not a form of sex discrimination? now again a lot of people, women, won't do that because they've been told that policy is you can't discuss. and begin a policy that just says you can't discuss without making it clear what the outcome would be if he did, doesn't have the same violation, but a lot of them don't. so i do think it is important to be able to collect the data. now, as you know, but others may not come under the equal pay act we do have the authority to do directed investigation. so unlike title vii a debate where we have to have a charge come to us or i can issue, my colleagues can issue commissioner charged if we hear

about termination. under equal pay we can go out and give direct investigation, and that's often how we do get paid data. i think it's an open question of law as to whether we are committed just under our current authority to say in your eeo-1 report you have to give us a data and along those lines we commissioned a study from the national academy of science two years ago to say if we decided to collect paid data could indicated that we think we might well have that authority what data do you recommend we collect a national we collect it? that came in sometime ago. and we haven't done anything with this yet. i have to say that one of the things i learned when i came to the commission and to the federal government, things move a little more slowly than i would like. practically was a different world. i felt i should have gotten a

passport and a dictionary when they came into the government. and it's also actually why i decided to give up my tenure at georgetown and stay at the commission for a second term was because there were things we have started that just needed more time. so stay tuned for the next three years, and i hope the commission continues to be acting as much a bipartisan way as we have over the past four years, and you know, civil rights should not be a part -- should not be a partisan issue. thank you. and i thanked linda. [applause] >> maryland senator barbara mikulski is announced that she will not seek a sixth term in the u.s. senate. she is the longest-serving woman in the history of congress. when the 70 year-old democrats started their own a couple of women in congress. now there are 20. last year she chairs the appropriations committee which said federal spending. she made the announcement just a short time ago in baltimore.

the house and senate are back in session. the house meets at noon eastern for general speech appeared legislative work comes up at 2 p.m. they will debate long-term care to veterans. the senate is in it to be shunted into consider whether to negotiate with the house on homeland security spending. also debate on the keystone xl pipeline which president obama vetoed late last month. tomorrow morning is israeli premise of benjamin netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of congress. live coverage at 10:45 p.m. each and. -- eastern. >> you may not have heard you see, i would be speaking to congress tomorrow -- [applause]

>> you know never has so much been written about the speech that hasn't been given. [laughter] and i'm not going to speak today about the content of that speech, but do want to say a few words about the purpose of that speech. first let me clarify what is not the purpose of that speech. i speech is not intended to show any disrespect to president obama or the esteemed office that he holds. [applause] i have great respect for both. [applause]

i deeply appreciate all that president obama has done for israel. security cooperation intelligence sharing support of the u.n. and much more, some things that i as prime minister a visual can't even doubled to you because it remains in the realm of the conference's etiquette between an american president and israeli prime minister but i am deeply grateful for his support, and so should you be. >> you can see his speech today to aipac in its entirety at c-span.org he would is a nuclear deal with iran is a threat to this country's survival. mitten yesterday yesterday i spoke with yesterday i spoke of secretary of state john kerry was opening a new round of talks with iran in geneva and in reaching a framework nuclear deal ahead of a late march deadline. secretary kerry spoke at the u.n. human rights council and urged members to end the bias focus on the jewish state but he told a group we will oppose any effort by any group or participant in the u.n. to arbitrarily and regularly delegitimize or isolate israel.

live coverage the aipac will continue later this afternoon national security advisor susan rice speaks to the coffers the c-span3 will have live coverage starting at 6 p.m. eastern. >> the c-span city tour takes booktv in american history did on the road traveling to your cities to learn about their history and literary life. next week and we partner with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. >> the rising tide certainly drew them. they watched in amazement as both of these factors come at the time we had wooden bathhouses out over the gulf of mexico and we also had tears and we even had a huge pavilion called olympia by the seat. as the storm increased in

intensity, these beach structures literally were turned into matchsticks. in 1900 storm struck galveston saturday september 8, 1900. the storm began before noon, increase in dramatic intensity, and then finally tapered off toward midnight that evening. this hurricane was and still is the deadliest recorded natural event in the history of the united states. >> watch all of our events from galveston saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv, and sunday afternoon at two on american history tv on c-span3. >> francis "le monde" newspaper edward royce of the french them is considering internet restrictions in the wake of

january terrorism shooting at charlie hebdo magazine. this is look at preston and radicalism but it's one hour 20 minutes. >> i'm going to induce a little bit to induce a little bit choose which are everyone understands the order of the day. i'm going to ask sylvie kauffmann first question for our in his editorial director columnist and former editor-in-chief of "le monde" and a contributing writer to the new times. and going to ask floyd abrams to fall on. all of those and other going into his nose, every publisher knows if you have a problem with the first amendment you call floyd abrams and there really is no number two. you just call floyd abrams. and then i'm going to ask fred stevens to it but to talk about the old in the room and really bring us to the point of understanding what the problem is with the underlying problem

is and where things are going to open there's a lot of cross dialect or i'll ask each to speak about five minutes. sylvie first will tell us what's going on and what the problems are from her perspective. i will let floyd outlined sort of the differences and similarities between our ideas in america of free expression and perhaps the french notion which may differ in some respects. and then finally bret. so with no further ado sylvie, can you let us know what you think? >> thank you very much and thank you for having me here. it's always a great pleasure to come back to new york where i have spent five of probably the most productive and enjoyable years of my life. i will go straight to the point. we have a very serious situation in france at the moment. i would like to remind you of

the basic fact which is that france has the biggest jewish community in europe and the biggest muslim community in europe. so i used to say we have our own little middle east in france. we have had tensions at various times. you may remember in 2003 2004 during the iraqi invasion in the war, you know there were a lot of tensions in the middle east and they immediately reflected in france. there was at that time a rise in anti-semitic incidents. so there have been that kind of peer is where also during the is rather offensive in gaza last summer also. we have a lot of tensions in

france. but the january attacks have really brought us to a new level, and i think since these attacks we have reached a crucial point. i have written that these attacks were a direct assault on our identity because they targeted several periods of the french identity, as i see it free speech, diversity, the case of jews in france the targets were very obvious, the cartoonists who have drawn those drawings of mohammed. jews targeted as jews and killed as such, and security force members. also most of the victims of

those attacks over the past couple of years, most of those security forces who have been targeted in various the tax have been men and women who have diverse ethnic background, or religious, or muslim background. and this is not a coincidence of course. so we are now forced to confront the danger and threat that has been there for some time, and we knew it was there but the intensity and the overall city of these attacks in january -- ferocity -- just have made us look, you know, squarely at the problem. now, how do we confront this threats? again, i would go straight to the point.

there is a simple answer and we are struggling with it. we are struggling as a nation. we are struggling as a society. the government is struggling. the security forces are struggling. you may have read the report in today's "new york times" about how the intelligence work was a challenge by this, it is also a big investigation yesterday, two days ago in "le monde" addressing these issues. schools are struggling. teachers find themselves with a new burdens. churches are struggling you know, i mean the whole country the media is also struggling. this is the situation right now. there are positive elements. the rally of january 11 was something extraordinary by all

standards, and also the international solidarity which was expressed on that day. i was there. i was myself personally totally surprised by the size of the crowd, the behavior, you're probably all familiar with the behavior which is not only exemplary. people demonstrated a sense of civility of maturity. the spirit of the crowd also this was a national solitary but also national defined, and active resistance. it is definitely something we have to build on even though we don't know yet exactly how to build on it concretely. we had his famous slogan, charlie hebdo, which was followed by all these debates

about, and we very quickly found out that a lot of people in france didn't feel that they were. so this is another aspect of the debate. i will come back to this later. another positive element in this terrible rise of anti-semitism that we've witnessed lately is that french jewish organizations have -- the positive element they have traditionally stuck to israel policy. they have broken with this line by saying no to prime minister netanyahu's call to mass immigration for jews from france. people have been shocked by this. and the french jews, most of them, i mean, those who have expressed themselves have been

shocked by this call and every openly said that they feel that their place is in france and that they don't want that they shouldn't leave. another positive element was the much smaller, it's a sign was a spontaneous demonstration yesterday by high school students in this town where a jewish cemetery was vandalized by five teenagers, 15 year old, 16 year old. we don't know the extent of their motivations, but they have been charged with this morning they have been charged with -- i'm not sure exactly in english with the name of the charge is that it has been acknowledge that their motivation was anti-semitic. so several hundred of the school

students took to the streets to demonstrate their solidarity with the jewish people and went to a synagogue, just stood there to show solidarity. that is something worth pointing out. yet, we have huge challenges and to name just a few one is to stop anti-semitism without giving way to accusations of double standards within the muslim community. this is something which is a huge issue in france, and this was part of the je suis charlie debate. one question you hear in schools, and universities rather workplaces, everywhere is how come charlie hebdo is

allowed to publish any critical material on muslims, on the profit? and, of course, they published critical material on many other religions, but this is what is being addressed. and at the same time a stand up comedian who criticizes, who attacks the jews and it shows is being charged, is being detained and charged with glorification of terrorism. why is there a double standard? again, there's no simple answer to this, but these are questions that have to be answered and address in the public state. one thing the government is planning to do is to launch a national plan against racism and

anti-semitism declaring a national cause. it should be done they're working on it right now. this is something that was planned but they're putting taking afford to launch in february. this will involve education pro-educational programs, security regression programs also. and also regulation of the internet. i don't know exactly we don't know what does that mean can you. i think we'll go back because it is a very important one, but this is one of the things which one of the issues which are being raised. another thing we have to do in my view is to open a debate about one of the most difficult things we have to do.

i hope we succeed, but at the moment it's proving extra difficult because it's one of the main pillars of french culture and identity i think, but it was it's a drawing from a 1905 law when we didn't have a muslim community. of course, so a lot of people feel that there has come a change has to be brought or maybe some opening. but at the same time we don't want to be giving way just because there have been terrorist attacks. so this is another very complex issue. it is new. we are pretty much in uncharted territory here and you can feel that there's this feeling that something has to be done to open

this debate but it's a very, very difficult one to open. last thing freedom of speech. since the january attacks we have heard a lot about these. i will not go in depth into this because there are more distinguished analysts on this issue here -- panelists. but just to name a few issues we have been raising the context of freedom of speech, the cartoons, of course, religion, how do we address, how do we treat all these issues without betraying our face in the freedom of speech. there is a strong tradition in france of criticism of religion that goes back to the 18th century to the enlightenment. and yes there are issues of sensitivity to other religions two different religions budget we cannot be seen as going to

the threat of terror. this is an issue that the french feel very strongly about and the polls have shown it. censorship, i think there will be self-censorship. but in a choice between censorship and self-censorship i think i do prefer self-censorship, and that brings us to the dimension of free speech that i feel is important compared, if we compare the situation in this country and in europe, particularly in france. there are cultural limitations to free speech and there are legal limitations to freedom of speech. in europe we do have a lot of legal limitations, but that's, i think stems from our history. and the last thing i mentioned already the internet. the french government has been saying since the attacks that there is an issue with the

internet, with the material circulating on the internet. if you start to look at it, it is just terrifying and sickening what is going on on social networks, and you know anywhere. but we haven't had many details on what government is planning to do. you also have your, i see this debate about how to involve the high-tech companies in trying to regulate this. i think we're just seeing the beginning of this debate, but in my view it's one of the most important debates. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thanks. it's a real honor to be here and it's a special fit i think

to be at an organization that deals with french and american relations, and the like to talk about the first amendment. we probably wouldn't have a first amendment is the american ambassador to france, a man called thomas jefferson, have not written by james madison at the time of the constitution was being drafted and saying to him basically that he would not support the constitution if there was no bill of rights attached to it. and jefferson wrote that it was necessary to have a bill of rights which clearly and without the aid of soft -isms, protected freedom of religion, freedom of the press and the like. and really but for jefferson's strong view to that effect, we

very well might not have the constitution that we have let alone any bill of rights the argument to the contrary was it was not necessary and, therefore, it not at two have been added. i thought i would mention three areas of american first amendment law which bear on what sylvie was just referring to three sort of core first amendment principles. the first of which is that as one great american scholar put it, that the first principle of first amendment law is that there is no heresy no blasphemy in america. people may feel think, conclude that others have such views but

the law does not recognize the notion of blasphemy or certainly heresy, which is not to say that at the time of the founding of the country that they were not some state laws to that effect. indeed, there are still a few left, but they are not enforced and the or, as we say unconstitutional. the second is that we don't have any ban which is constitutional on what is called hate speech. some of the source of speech that were just referred to in the previous presentation. when jimmy carter was president and international covenant was drafted on political and civil rights, which was basically signed by every leader of every

democratic country. and one of the provisions was that countries were obliged to take steps, to take action to prevent hateful speech based on race religion, or the like. president carter signed it and attached what is called a reservation to it a very important reservation, which said that as far as the united states was concerned this was a core subject to the bill of rights. ..

and maybe even lead to respond violently to it is not a basis for banning it and we will not give the hecklers ultimate control over what is said and over what is not. recent literature prompted by the events in paris have sort of

ask hypothetical questions. how much do we really mean that? suppose someone were to say i'm going to kill hostages unless you could say x.. i think the odds are that our supreme court would still say we aren't going to let criminals decide what can be said and what not. that said i don't mean to address this as an easy issue at a time a few years ago when a preacher in florida said he was going to burn the koran. you might render that the secretary of defense personally called them on the phone and asked them not to.

justice breyer commenting off the record said he thought that might constitute the sort of clear and present danger which could justify even under american law a limitation on the person doing it. i don't think the court would say that that would be the law. but these are not easy issues. it's very interesting to share our law and the french law. the french law is more complicated. i use the word deliberately. a trip that she and i made it to istanbul when we were talking to a french diplomat that was the time of gary hart's running for

president and getting in all sorts of trouble because of personal activities and we were chanting about it and he said to me we don't understand why you're making such a big deal about who gary hart has sex with. our prime minister has a very complicated personal life. compared to the first amendment law france has the more complicated law with respect to this area as the last presentation makes it clear it is a country that the leaves and treasures the freedom of speech in the limitations on the speech of certain sorts that we do and sometimes those limitations make

for very difficult decision-making. after world war ii france passed legislation basically abolishing all the legislation and reinstating in 1939 the law that prohibited the racist and anti-semitic speech. it did that for obvious reasons. france is one of many european countries that makes it illegal to engage in the denial of the holocaust. french law basically distinguishes and i'm reading here because it is so difficult and complicated to draw the lines in this area but basically

distinguishes between involving as a whole and saying things that provoke discrimination hatred or violence. and of course the problem is the first can cause the second or at least be involved in the second. so it's very difficult to make the distinction and that's one of the reasons i think that the question of dual standards comes up repeatedly why are you prosecuting the anti-semitic canadian and you will allow and indeed celebrate at least after the murders with the mocking publications said about mohammed

and that is a consequence of the choice the different countries make up the difficult issues which are coming about because of our different histories, the different turmoils amid a different way we see our countries behave in one way or another. i am not here to predict how we would react here if the next paris or copenhagen event is here. usually the first place people go is to limit speech in the circumstances. it's almost easier to do that than to take the social steps which you hope will prevent

events like this from happening in the future. there are differences and there are real similarities in the basic similarities are that both countries do have and generally act as a matter of law on the basis that they care a lot about rod freedom of expression or whatever the potential consequences because there are always potential consequences. the final thought always seems to me sort of interesting that they have the legal protection for speech. we don't have the limiting free speech and people would say it's

in bad taste and it is offensive but simply often stick a finger in the eye. the journalists don't engage in hacking. they routinely behave according to the law at least better than the tabloid journalists in england notwithstanding perhaps the harder question because the more stringent law. it's stuff that's worth talking about on the panel. thank you. [applause]

>> can you take the podium and while you are going up acknowledged that he won the pulitzer prize as a columnist and a deputy editorial page of "the wall street journal". we set the stage but tell us what you really think. >> single-handedly took down osama bin laden. it is a great honor to be here to share the stage or the table with such distinguished palates. i'm going to be very brief. i agree entirely when i think of the events in paris in january as a watershed moment really not just for the french but what ought to be for all of us especially here in the united states. and let me sort of reflect on it in three or four different

senses. since at least the attacks of 9/11, there's been a long-standing argument in foreign policy of why do they hate us and basically there are the two camps of why do they hate us school. there is the camp that made the argument fairly consistently they hate us because of western policy in the middle east. that is to say because of american support for israel and for dictatorship like the regime in egypt or iran because of our policy and the saudi's and our energy policies in the middle east and our involvement in the gulf war. there is a whole list of policies that you can list and

you can say this is the problem. if you change the policy and this is what you would hear from ron paul and people on the political left if you change the policy you would largely remove the problem which is to say terrorism is a reality to the western policy in the middle eastern countries and the other side of that debate has said that no in fact it's more fundamental switches to say which is to say that you have throughout the middle east both among the secular autocrat in the regime and also more prominently the religious fundamentalists you have a set of values that are antithetical to the core concept of the western civilization not the least of which of course is the

freedom of the press, freedom of conscience all of the freedoms that we associate with the american constitution and with liberal democracies like france. i think after the attack i would hope, and i am speaking here as a columnist, i would hope that would finally be resulted because it's very difficult for me to see how murdering a dozen journalists sitting around in israel conference table who were guilty of nothing more than practicing free speech and sort of the voelker speech. it's very difficult for me to see that as a response to western policy in the middle east. i didn't track the politics of the editorial board members.

but my impression is they were not well aligned with the view of the neoconservatives were others who are arguing that we should bomb the nuclear installations or do things like that. they were people of the political left who simply insisted that to be to fully realize the promise of the liberal democracy you have to prove that you can say and print and publish anything and so i think it also would be a watershed moment in the sense that it ought to give some clarity about just the nature of the conflict which engages us now between groups like the islamic state in and the arabian peninsula and all of us in this room who share the values that we have so that would be the first thing.

the second thing the attack on the kosher supermarket also a duty of occasion for clarity. i started covering the middle east when i was based in brussels for "the wall street journal" in the late 1990s and early part of the last decade. even then and especially after the outbreak of the so-called second intifada in the fall of 2000, i sensed that there was a great deal of anti-semitism on the streets and it was a nato summit is coming in both a kind of a vulgar and high toned variety. if you walked through my muslim neighborhood in downtown brussels towards the canal but also a high toned variety that typically went by the

anti-zionist catchphrases that had a weird reflection and traditional anti-semitic trope. so just to give you an example of what i mean i will never forget shortly after the outbreak of the second intifada the columnists had a leader the columnist is a serious magazine and perhaps one of the best if not the best in the world. i will never forget there was a line that said they are a superior people not sure if i'm quoting this exactly but i'm getting the spirit of largely right you are a superior people and their talent out of the ordinary but they must curb their breed for other peoples land. i thought if that isn't an anti-semitic trope. superior but greedy. and it was very hard to sit in brussels and sort of have dinnertime conversations with

the class of commissioners and not get a great deal of them. so now with the attack on the kosher supermarket i think that it is outfield and in that sense i'm almost grateful that it happened that last euro that is coming to realize that it has a real problem of anti-semitism that can't be denied or can't be passed off as a function of a reaction to the policy. the third point i want to make is my grandmother -- trotsky is a great favorite of mine that had a wonderful wine that said you may not be interested in the war that the war is interested in you. you may not be interested in the middle east and its troubles in the turmoils and ideological fanaticism that it's interested in you.

we can't simply walk away from what's happening in yemen today or iraq or eastern syria. but they have been admirably held in front and back out in front i would argue of the american administration and the action it took him ali and its willingness to intervene in syria into the general seriousness about the nature of the threat and the fact that it has to become prompted on the marches and statements about the solidarity but it has to be confronted kinetically so to speak. i'm running up against my time limit. we are coming to grips with the fact that there's a war on the western values like free speech.

one of the best responses is to have free speech. if i were a part of the french political debate i would advocate for two things. one of which would be what i heard of as the pedagogy of insult. people have to get used to having their secret until today insulted and it's not going to help if it's left. indeed it it did left them because being in charge of hypocrisy is indeed a very potent charge.

it's for the statutory values of simply allowing people to speak without fear of the law and at the same time i would like to finish with one thing. people after the attack said it don't you don't you understand this comes in the wake of the war so people's emotions are heightened. if you try to explain anti-semitic acts by the reference what some jews and other countries did you are not explaining anti-semitism you are replicating anti-semitism, and we have to guard against this kind of mindless struggle. color was up because of what israel was doing in gaza so if they had pursued have pursued a different policy perhaps we would see the kind of

anti-semitism that we are experiencing here. i don't think that's going to work. final point. when i was editor in chief of the post i was routinely scandalized by the european coverage of the israel palestinian conflict and when too much of the european media or trade the israeli-palestinian conflict as a story of a brutal goliath simply stepping on the neck of the poor palestinians that lack all moral agency is not surprising that we should now find this anti-zionism suddenly being translated into the anti-semitism. speaking of the journalists i

think that the quality of journalism, particularly among some of my european peers, the unthinking sense of solidarity with the palestinians whether it is how -- hamas or if i for -- fatah are the one before that were so long, it's some kind of a unique double figure is not a good fix into fix into to the extent they have a responsibility above all to better journalism i would wish that some better journalism and fair and serious journalism came out with some of our european counterparts when it comes to portraying a greek obligated conflict that is in the angels on the one side, victims on the one side and demon persecutors on the other. thank you. [applause] >> just to set the stage again i would like to have ten minutes

worth of cross dialogue and i will open with one question and then we will have to the audience questions so that those questions ready. we have a microphone in the audience? drawing on something that floyd said the more you have the law that restricts the the breach of the more obnoxious speech you get. so from the french perspective is tomorrow magically the wall is restricting whether it is wearing headscarves and if it is squeaking in how hateful and obnoxious the words were what that may get better or worse in the short term without making sure they would move in the direction of lesser restrictions. >> i don't think that we are discussing were considering more limitations to free speech.

and we already have the legislation in place for the historical reasons. the holocaust took place on our continent. nazi is -- was on the european continent so this is different from here and we face a consensus on these laws generally. as a guy nobody thinks seriously that we are going to have laws prohibiting or limiting the way that you can draw mohammed or such religion or the other one. i don't think that this is being considered at this stage. what may happen and what is already happening i think is

that we would all be a bit more cautious. we already saw that in 2006 when the cartoons were first published in denmark. we had a debate about whether we should reprint them. we decided to reprint, there were 12 come and we chose them and we decided that we could not publish them at all. but we didn't want to publish the most offensive ones and also some of them had been totally uninteresting and so other papers decided not to print any of them because they were afraid or because they thought it was a

bad idea in the western press and the american newspapers took a very different road than the one we took in europe but in europe some papers decided not to publish them and they had a lengthy discussion and debate on the editorial board and came up with a very good editorial explaining the decision that he would they would give 100,000 pounds to support and on the other hand they said no we are not interested in publishing this. this is not the way of showing our solidarity. we don't find this much. >> do you agree that there would be less obnoxious journalism -- >> i think so. i think you know, you can see

what is happening in denmark over the -- some of us will take the position to say no we still have to publish this but that would be like an act of defiance and some of us would say we have to be more cautious. and i think that this is a trend generally. we have looked at the cartoons we published about catholic priests and jesus christ in france. it's not the same as it was 40 years ago so it's not only about islam it's also about a general cultural trend in europe. >> what is your response to that?

the idea that there's going to be a self-imposed censorship partly out of third he -- in opening up the dialogue and some of it is productive they have to go back. stanek there are lessons to draw from the attacks. i was somewhat depressed listening to the soviet presentation to the question seemed to be between censorship and self-censorship. that seems to me precisely the wrong debate to be having. i am somewhat shocked to learn that you would have reservations about publishing images of christ and our guests to -- and analogous to the ones the danish paper published.

that is just precisely the wrong approach. >> you would refrain from publishing things that you thought were either not interesting to the readers -- >> i wrote the editorial making the case why we didn't do print on the cartoons -- >> speak into the microphone. >> in 2005 or 2006 now i can safely say i was the author of the editorial why we didn't publish the cartoons. making the case that what you have the right to do isn't necessarily what the paper with a reputation off to. there is a distinction between what you have the right constitutionally speaking to print and what is tasteful and the appropriate wall street journal. i think the views have changed

and we did in fact publish the print cover in january after the attack because it seemed like you have to do it and i wish we had in fact published the cartoons -- i'm speaking of personal capacity -- i wish we had to publish them in 2005 and 2006 and that every newspaper had done the same. ..