something that all speechwriters have experienced is that pressure, doesn't just concentrate your mind. it really clears away the clutter the writing. you can do something in two hours in a situation like that. it will not be of any less quality of something that you have been given a week to work on. it's just something about those kind of conditions where you don't have to strain for meaning you don't have to find a way to introduce drama into what it is you are talking about, it's all there. we also as i mentioned had been working for george w for a wild and so at this point, february of 2003, we were all of us in our fourth year of writing for president bush and there was something we knew instinctively and that was that this speech to the nation, which not just-- did not just meditate on the

tragedy, but also announced the deaths of the present-- astronauts. the speech was not about him and did not use a personal pronoun, not once. he always liked to convey his thoughts and he always like to convey his feelings, but he liked to do so with words instead of simply announcing his frame of mind. he would like to convey actual feeling with his words and that's an example of it, and instinct he kind of put into us. of course, we met with him briefly, everything was so compressed, as i say we met with him briefly before he went live at 2:04 p.m. in the afternoon. he made some changes, put some touches on it and went into the speech. it was four minutes, all very fast in the cabinet room, which i think was the first time the president ever addressed the nation from a cabinet room. no special meaning to that other than it was thought to be a good venue. then, and is always the case at

-- with george w. bush when that was over we reconvene in the oval office momentarily and as he always did said thanks guys. >> finally, adam frankel, was the speech writer for president obama in his first term. >> i was also an assistant to ted sorensen for number of years on his memoirs, which is probably the most impressive credential in this crowd and writing speeches in the white house is probably second. ted has a story about the cuban missile crisis where he was a member of the ex-con, which gathered during the missile crisis and when he was asked to produce two speeches, depending on how the missile crisis unfolded, one in the event of an invasion of cuba and the other if-- what with the blockade.

he went to write the speeches and he could not write the one about the invasion. he could only write the blockade won and he would tell the story as a way of showing how decision-making process unfolded during the crisis and that played itself out many years later as i was thinking about stories to share today when the radon bin laden happened several years back, i remember i was actually home on my couch and got an alert on my blackberry saying the president was about to deliver some remarks and i was like i did not know of any remarks. [laughter] >> i e-mailed the other speechwriters and said you anyone know anything about this and we were all totally in the dark. he had been a part of the to liberation's and a story about not being able to write that speech in advance either. that he had sat down to write it in advance and started writing,

tonight osama bin laden was killed in a raid and he said i can't write this. what if things go horribly wrong, so after the raid was successfully sort of-- he is the story of grabbing the president and say we have to talk about this speech. that is one kind of challenge. but, picking up on what jeff was saying, i think it's a mark of just sort of this tragic string of gun violence the country has faced that this president has had to speak on that topic so often. in which a right for president obama in 2007, a couple of weeks after he announced his presidency and i remember working on his speech then that he delivered in a church on the south side of gun violence and the speeches-- for anyone who speaks about this topic and for the writers i think who work on the speeches sort of a numbing

familiarity when you write the speeches at its heart breaking every time. so, you try to make them as unique and distinct as possible until the story about the individuals whose lives were lost because that's what helps them connect because they are so tragically familiar. you try-- i remember when i was working on a number of these speeches in the speeches, i mean, when people are killed with gun violence or another kind of tragedy. i would think about trying to-- the people who were suffering what in the room and how would i talk to them. how would i want the president to talk to them, just a few of them. you don't think about writing for the country, just the individuals who are suffering. one story along those lines that was probably the earliest sign to me of how talented a writer president obama is was early on in the campaign in 2008, he went to speak on the 15th anniversary of the la riots and

he didn't want a speech. he wanted notes that he would read from so as part of the research, he found a story from the "la times" during the riots that was about to pregnant women who had been shot in the belly and she was rushed to the emergency room and it turned out the bullet had lodged itself in the fleshy part of her babies arm and the baby was fine and so this was a extraordinary story. i share this story with president obama, not knowing at all what he would do with this and so i am listening to this as we had a link up, no video, but i had audio from the event while he was delivering the remarks and he weaved this into a tapestry of the american experience in the violence in cities across the country and about how we have been shot, but it's not a fatal wound and we

will take the bullet. there will be a scar where that bullet was taken out and we will always have a scar. weaving this beautiful metaphor for americans in american society and it just-- he raised the standard for me and all of the other speechwriters when i heard that and it was always, i mean, you know, one of the more -- as a student of all of the other speechwriters appear, one of the things that is particularly fun and rewarding as a writer to work with president obama on this, you know, he would check and not just on moments of national importance, but strategy and tragedies. you know, he would get very involved in the speeches and he just cared a lot about. it might not have been something that was a tragedy. it might not have been some thing of great political important issues, say, civil

rights, he would just dive in and work with you, so it was a rewarding experience. >> thank you. now, we will have a little inter- panel discussion and then we will open up to questions. i guess since we are in a room full of professional speechwriters and aspiring professional speechwriters, what advice would you give to speechwriters who may encounter in their life whether it's working for a politician or working for private businessperson might encounter one of these moments where, all rights, you have got three hours or you have got three days, but this is a huge high leverage moment, what one or two pieces of advice would you give? anyone? clark. >> one of the better pieces of advice i got while i wrote for vice president bush were three and half years and president reagan for it to an half years and in the course of that i was talking to someone while i was

with the vice president who was writing for governor and he said, you know, what we do is keep files and we keep files on all of the big issues and part of this is keeping up. when you are working for a political executive, you are working-- you want to know where the edge of the debate is, where the edge of discussion is, whether it's on economic policy, where's the press, where's the opposition am aware are your people, where's public opinion, where's the edge, and what are the arguments out there. you want to be well-versed in that anyone to have at your fingertips and of course with the president you have a view of these issues, but i remember the point of doing that and i was safe clippings from him that make good arguments or that had good data in them. i would have stories that i had collected, so that-- you know we are talking here about emergencies in a sense when

you're in the white house, everything is an emergency. there is never enough time. in another sense, if you are well prepared, when i was thinking about this, the session today, i was thinking, well, we pretty much had control of the agenda so we always knew, very rarely something like challenger or something else would come up, but there wasn't very much. basically, we were driving the agenda and there was a back-and-forth and someone would make a political run out as, but we were always prepared. and we always knew and it was-- just use the term discussion and it was part of the ongoing debate in washington. either way, i wouldn't say it feels like nothing comes of it when it doesn't go your way, but the whole point of the debate is that at some place it settles

down to some decision, so it's not fruitless. i'm just saying this to comfort jeff. [laughter] >> but, it is not fruitless. many of them, in this you plan for as much-- you plan for all of the major areas which you are engaged in and where you part of the debate and then when surprises come you have much left-- less distance to cover to deal with them. >> i agree with that and i would just-- i think that in these moments of crisis of various kinds whether we are talking about the shuttle disaster or a shooting or anyone of that number of other kind of crisis or disasters, what it is that the audience and in this case we mean the national audience or if you are a ceo running a large enterprise that is a substantial audience as well, it may have a

public element or maybe just a very large global company, a global audience of employees and investors and so forth that there is confusion in these moments. there is very real confusion at first as to what happened. i talked about that a moment ago. but, in a larger sense, i think that what people are looking for even if they can't necessarily articulate it or wouldn't is meaning, understanding and the president or the ceo or anyone else in a substantial position like this is an authority figure i know we don't always mla, but they absolutely are and i think that we look to these authority figures to help us understand, to help us connect at the very

least so we can achieve our own understanding of what this means. certainly, the president is not going to stand in a moment of tragedy and a say to you this is what this means. in fact, a lot of the speeches i reviewed when i was think about this discussion acknowledged very frankly that meaning is elusive. president clinton in these moments often quoted st. paul and seeing through the glass darkly and acknowledging that we will probably never really understand what drives human beings to do these acts, commit these acts of violence. but, that we should hold onto our faith regardless. i think that what you are looking for here to the best you can manage it while recognizing that there are limits on this is a clarifying moments and at least to clarify the issues, to clarify the fundamentals and i think that's what we are grappling with in these kinds of

speeches as to to touch that and acknowledge that and give some direction least to the way people themselves as they search their own souls, to connect them to what's really at stake. >> one thing i would say adding to that from a speechwriters perspective, that in moments like that, it's important that you don't overwrite. as i mentioned, so much of what the speechwriter does especially in the political world is try to give drama and force and special meaning to the speeches you are doing when it's your 99th speech on federal evocation-- education policy or the latest announcement about what's going to happen at hud. you try to make it, you try to give it some extra meeting or make it part of a larger story and that's really are job. but, these moments of crisis, these big dramatic tragic

moments, a speech is not going to fail unless it has been overwritten. the moment requires plain english. >> not overwriting in a case that comes to my mind as i hear this discussion after kent state, which is probably the worst moment in the early part of the nixon administration of a killed on the campus of kent skate. nixon had just given this big rather hawkish speech about cambodia. that is the only foreign-policy speech pat buchanan did write and his instruction from the president was don't show it to henry. henry kissinger would have calmed down. [laughter] clec that had a polarizing effect on the opinion and to make it worse, a statement came

out of the white house after the students were killed and that speechwriting staff swore they had never seen it. usually the rule was we would see all of the words before they went out as a final check. i don't know where the statement came from. someone said it was someone in the press office, but it got out and of course been a sends out of context can become inflammatory in a phrase was something that went out in the president's name. maybe he even wrote it. although, i don't think so. it was something like then-- when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy. that sounds okay except it seemed to be blaming the victims and it wasn't accompanied by other expressions of sympathy or regret and it just had a terrible effects on the nation's campuses. i don't think anyone does, do you? i didn't write it. [laughter]

>> what happened the next day was nixon went to the pentagon and a woman who husband was in vietnam he try to say to her synthetically you know he's a hero and then we have these bums running around the campus is blowing things up and there was a microphone and that blue things up, so the wrong word at the right time-- [inaudible] >> it just polarized everything and it was a long time i think before the nixon administration came out and it was a real turning point with the wrong words at the wrong time. >> yes, and it's not just on tragedies where one has to be careful not overwriting. one of the early lessons i learned is that not every speech is not supposed to be the gettysburg address and i remember distinctly early on writing a speech for labor audience on the campaign in 2008 and i got really into this.

it was as lofty as i could get and i remember getting a call from axelrod and it was very clear immediately that he had just gotten a call from the president and so he begins by telling a story about when he was a reporter in chicago and i knew there was a lesson. [laughter] >> there was a lesson that was about to come and he said you know when i was a reporter i remember covering the opening of an airport in illinois, and i wrote this piece and i thought it was the most beautiful piece one could read and have the opening of an airport and i talk about planes in the sky and picturesque landscape and all of the stuff and he described his editor calling him insane, when does it open, when is the date, what airlines will fly out of their. [laughter] >> so, got the message, but it was great advice and ask himself as a great writer. but, that was an early lesson for me. you have to write for the

occasion and if you don't, you will miss the mark. >> when mary kate was talking about her experience in japan is sort of this information blackout and not know what was when on it struck a that if something like that happened today there would be the total opposite. it would be information overload and people would be speculating and reporters would be tweeting about it who were there. it would be, you know, you would not have to watch the japanese television. how has the social media transformation changed, do you think, how presidents communicate with the public in moments of a great moment like this? i don't mean to pick on mary kay stomach i can give one response here, which is, one of the things that i really admire about president obama and one of the things i was drawn to him initially was that he sort of crisis that can tatian to play

into a lot of, you know, that 30 second sound bite and all of the stuff and we get knocked for it and was a counterproductive at times? maybe, but i really respected that and as a writer, that was the kind of person i wanted to work for, someone who is more concerned about telling the whole story, making the complete argument and less concerned about, you know, the other approach which to quote that aid to a governor who i will not name who i once helped out with speeches said, part of sleep-- speechwriting is slinging soundbites together and i told a story to ted sorensen who liked it so much he included it in his book as an example of what not to do, but i think surely one needs to be mindful. [inaudible] >> when your father was writing speeches it was a different deal

, but now everyone is mindful of how the speech will be conveyed in a certain environment and the speechwriter is thinking about that, but i think it's import for a speechwriter to also think about the integrity of the speech. when you start thinking about slinging soundbites together and just writing digestible nuggets, any one of which could be pulled out and compiled into a speech, you lose something i think. the speeches integrity gets lost and maybe that is a good thing for the message you are trying to deliver that date, but i don't get the good thing thing for speechwriting. >> i have a somewhat similar view. i think too many speeches are just the speaker and i remembered one time seen a senator give a talk and afterwards i went up to the podium and there was a list of soundbites and he had been given them by his staff and one of his staffers were there and said we give him this and he has got to weave them into whatever he says , so i don't think that, but

i agree with you totally on that. but, let me say something about the changing media environment, but technology environment. this is a big difference from what you have been doing and what we did. back in 88, the new republic had a cover story about the changing soundbites. and it turned out that in-- they had timing, someone had done it, someone was sitting their time in the quotes from speeches in presidential speeches during political campaigns and in i believe it was 1968, the typical clip of a speech that when on evening news was 52 seconds. now, by the time we were and this is now 1988, we were playing it was down to seven

seconds. we have three networks to get through. if they didn't cover our stuff or the "new york times" or the "washington post", it might as well not have been said. now, if you look at reagan's speeches they are a coherent argument about the character of the country, and the nature of the challenges we were facing, but we also knew that we had to get through that seven seconds for a different audience and everyone here, i will say this and everyone here will notice a maybe you will too, when you are writing speeches you at least i was and i'm sure everyone else, i had loads of audiences in mind. i cared about what the audience in front of the president was saying. i cared about what that little line of reporters back was thinking. i cared about what their editors were thinking. i cared about what the american people were thinking. and i cared about what audiences

around the world were thinking and all of them had to be collapsed into this one document. very familiar; right? lets me just finish. but, i also knew, at least for us, that the line in the back of the room was, they were a vehicle for a lot of debate and they were also not particularly friendly. so, it mattered that we understood what kind of things they liked to quote, what kind of language, what kind of sentence structure. there are all of these things that are in the tv business called good sound and in the news business are called a good quote and we made sure that we had one or two in. you do not want 10 of them because you want to control the story. so, we were under the ticker pressure to come up with one or

two of those because we weren't going to get the 52 seconds. what is it like now? your man was the leader on this. one of the few times i will say good things about president obama. that's a joke. [laughter] >> come on. [laughter] >> if you look at the 2008 campaign and his duel with hillary clinton, a battle of the primaries. we to week one or the other wins and often alternating. this is the age of cable. what is that mean when they come out? a good chunk of the speech, 10 to 50 minutes will be covered and then they will cut off a give the same amount of time to the other side. she would come out and do what politicians have been doing since martin van buren, recognizing everyone in the audience and then get into what

she had to say. that was about the time that they cut away because they were allowing her 15 minutes. he would come out and right into his message each time and by the time he was through with his 15 minutes he had got everything he needed to say to the country out. i'm sure some place later he said nice things about the people there. >> we thought about that and putting the acknowledgments later in the speech. >> plenty of people did not and you are literally a generation ahead of them and now this is the last one i will make, in that society your dad got up once and said, why are there no more memorable phrases and the answer to that was, people in the positions we had no longer have, we are now campaigns covered entire speeches-- i'm sorry, television covers entire

speeches regularly. you know you have a million people watching or at least several hundred thousand every time you get up and do so there is much more-- there is much less pressure to come up with that seven seconds because you have got as much time as you want. >> very quickly, to just sort of bridge the generations, clark, as you put it. the clinton white house, we were pre-smartphone, priest twitter, we did have these very clunky palm pilots and we had cell phones, but no one kind of you put them together. at the same time, we were dealing very actively with and is struggling with the fragmentation of the media environment and the acceleration of the news cycle and this was very much the topic of conversation internally in the white house. this was a period of the advent of msnbc, that advent of fox news and the networks did not

control the conversations to the extent they did, that major newspapers to control the conversation to the extent they did, other newspapers were disappearing and online was rising. so, how do you deal with this? one of the things that was noted as the time was that present clinton gave an awful lot of speeches and we ran our own internal analysis on this and we found that and i will have the numbers a little bit off, but pretty close, that at a similar point in their presidency, soy nonelection year late the presidency hair truman gave 88 speeches and president reagan gave somewhere of 300 and president clinton gave 550. statistics like that were wielded to suggest that president clinton was not disciplined and love to get in front of the microphone and so forth and this was kind of a trope in the media and look, it's absolutely the case and anyone that has watched bill

clinton knows that he loves to give a speech. he is awfully good at it with no help from any of us, but at the same time this was an acknowledgments of the demands on a modern presidents, that he is expected to be out there every day and during periods of time when the president has not been actively trying to drive the conversation, he has come in with a lot of criticism and i remember this very well. during the summer when the debate was heating up over the 04 to care act, and president obama went relatively quiet because a lot of the negotiations as i understand were happening behind the scene and he was not wanting to complicate things by giving a lot of speeches that would inflame the other side, the other side dumped into the breach and this was tea party summer. so, when the president finally came out there i think in september of 2010, right after the summer vacation to give a big speech to kind of take

control of the debate-- was that what was? this was seen as a great acknowledgment that he had been too quiet for too long, so presidents are expected to be seen and heard all the time, all the more so in a time of twitter and so forth. so, it creates on the part not only of presidents, but ceos and university presidents and heads of foundation this feeling that if you are not tweeting once an hour and if you don't have something to say about everything, then you have created a vacuum that others are going to exploit. there is a danger in that, of course, as well and that if you are commenting on everything come of that you are spreading yourself thin and sacrificing that opportunity at least even if it is harder to realize today that it was when president reagan was in office to control the conversation. it is harder today than ever before, i think, to control or at least for a president to

control the conversation. there are too many levers out there and it too much noise, but you have got to keep trying. >> let me interrupt quickly. after this i want to go to questions from the audience and we have microphones on either side of the aisle. >> quickly, president nixon had advised that i think would apply to people in this room and he asked us before we set a speech to him-- he called us in one day and said i want you to do this. he said underlined in red the sentence or two or three in the paragraph that you think will be the lead in tomorrow's paper, a sophisticated good journalist, look over the use and the startling thing was that we would do that and we couldn't find it. we could have find one thing that summed up the message. ..

knowing if president clinton ever referred to his 1988 convention speech, one of the great failures of the speech that he made and one of the most remarkable turnaround to become the president four years later. any comment on that?

>> he did refer to it from time to time i think he had a different perspective of it and he never argued that but he walked up there with a long list of things that dukakis people wanted to discuss in that speech so he had a set of obligations and so that contributed to the length and that was the fact he wanted us to understand. [laughter] >> in the summer of 1988, clinton is a third term governor and i was in law school in northern wisconsin watching that convention and one of my pals i grew up with was across town and he called up during the speech and he said are you watching the future president and i said i

sure am. it made both of our minds, this was an amazing talent and judging on that speech, we both thought he was presidential material. it's interesting but that's how we felt about it. [laughter] >> over here. >> thank you all for being here. one of the things that drives me as a speechwriters but i want to affect is the policy, conversations, policy debates. can any of you speak to a time you've are were down, behind in the polling come you didn't have the votes in congress, you are trying to get were trying to get a policy done in a speech or series of speeches where you felt like you turned that around? >> modesty prevents us. [inaudible] [laughter]

>> the question of whether a speech in and of itself could redirect -- >> tag used to talk about this and about how he believed in the power of the speech but also they speech was just a speech and that there had to be a confluence of circumstances that have to had to be right for a great speech to be delivered and move people. i would say one circumstance that comes to mind here is on healthcare. i worked on the speech and the american medical association when we were supposed to kick off the drive for healthcare reform and i remember talking to dan pfeiffer the then communications director i forget his title back then but he said you know, when history books are written we want to drive for healthcare reform to be seen and

that isn't something you say to a speechwriter to sort of get into this. [laughter] but i remember working on that and that was the vision of the speech was much just explain this thing as well as we know how and really lay out the policy. so i remember calling everyone who had input to give on the speech together from larry summers and all these folks to get their thoughts on the speech it has the distinction which i'm not particularly proud of him giving the longest speech president obama had given until that point and there were events in iran unfolding at that same time and i remember the next day there was no coverage for the speech at all and not only that, but they had come out with a study that bodies of the water of the reporting and it's a speech that we thought would help sort of frame the debate and explain what was at stake so

not an example of where we turned it but they can sort of foil those good plans. >> t. want to go first? go ahead. >> the example i can think of from the bush administration you may recall in the ad in the convention address there was that one line about the lights across the night sky that needed into his inaugural address and peggy noonan was responsible for both of those but once we got into office, he idea that started out as a nice idea grew and grew. there was one particular sentence that had to be in every speech that had anything to do with the subject which is from now on in america any definition of a successful life must include service to others and george bush, his last speech as he left office he said we can

talk about the treaties, the legislation committee and of the cold war come and you know, all sorts of things that happened in my administration but what i wanted most to be remembered for is the light and i am going to now become one myself. as you recall when i was that age and a community service was something the juvenile justice system and post on people as a punishment. [laughter] so common nowadays i think there has been a complete change in the idea of community service and volunteerism movement across this country has now spread overseas, and i think there are a lot of reasons for that but i think george bush deserves credit for that and i think that he threw his rhetoric over the years caused the cultural change in the way people do you volunteerism and it's been a great thing for our country. >> of these things that has been sent on an 88, vice president

bush was quite a bit behind in the polls coming out of the democratic convention. several weeks before, i'd written a speech, i do not often talk about my speeches but i will say this just to give an example. i'd written a speech in which at the beginning of the democratic convention about a week before or maybe two weeks during the platform process, ted sorensen had said they are not going to be able to pin us with being liberals. we will have to be short and bland about the platform they were drafting so i had a speech for the president that had a line in it the democrats had put have put on their political trench coats and sunglasses and wrapped their platform and a paper wrapper and will never whisper the l. word again. if you remember that campaign

later it became a note dated of it and in that speech because an event in the air on monday that it was delivered, the night before we had shot down an airbus by accident and so of course no presidential speech was going to get coverage that day but it came to the democratic convention and we went dark all through the convention. we did not i don't think that you did -- [inaudible] something you would never get away with now. >> we have teams at the democratic convention and i get the assignment to write the presidential weekly address on saturday conventions on saturdays and thursdays and i decided we had lost, but this was the right moment. you talked about moments it was

okay it might as well have never been said if it doesn't appear in "the new york times" that was never said or the network news and so, i recycled it in it defined the election. we started driving it as a term and finally after we tormented -- by the time the convention came the president wasn't campaigning because he was out of money between the two conventions but we were out there all the time and we drove and we drove and we were back even with him with michael dukakis and then afterwards, at least on our team and the president's team will feature over and we drove and finally, dukakis got so frustrated with it he said he had been trying to say he had been dodging and whether he was liberal. he said i am a liberal in the style of terry truman but nobody heard the rest beyond that and

that was back. that. that's how you can turn around something it's not just the right phase but it's also the right moment and then keeping at it. >> we are going up against the time let's see if we can get a couple more real quick. >> a question for the panel. richard wilbur once gave a graduation address and he said the function of the ceremony was to enable people to respond to great events in their life by feeling an appropriate emotion what inappropriate emotion would you say that is the duty of the president of the great events of our national life? >> yes. [laughter] good answer. >> my question is what is your advice on how you approach using humor when matters of diplomacy and the koran have to be factored in so you can come up with something that is still funny despite the fact that it's also appropriate? the >> i got pulled into a lot of humor speeches and the one rule

i would say across the board is it's very, very tricky to use humor in a situation where there will be people in the audience where the remarks were translated so you tend to not do humor as an international toast overseas or something because there's so many pitfalls with the translation so that is the rule to just keep it straight when you are in a language situation. but second, first of all we had a guy which i'm sure there are still plenty of these floating around who was a freelance joke writer who lived on malibu beach in california with a fax machine and he would just ask these jokes and i saved every one and i still have it come it's a joke file. [laughter] they are all formula jokes and he would just change the name and in fact a lot of them back then in the 80s were about donald trump which i should pull

this back out of here. [laughter] so don't be afraid to take the jokes and just change the words, change the name. but second at the white house you can't just steal from back in those days carson and leno, you can't just take it off tv and steal it especially these days. you have to write original humor and what i've learned is that the essence of the joke is to ideas being put together that have nothing to do with each other and that is the surprise that causes the laughter so we would do for the big white house correspondents dinners and all this we would have the researchers come up with lists of all the current stuff come at the top movies, the top songs, celebrity train wrecks, whatever, and then we would call in all these funny people,

whether they were professionally associated with us or not and we would put a big bottle of scotch in the middle of the table area to [laughter] this would be 6:00 at night, not at lunch or something and we would say what can we do here. i mean in those days it would be like something with michael jackson and the speaker of the house or whatever you would come up with these funny things. 95% of it completely unusable by the president of the united states. we were particularly constrained because george bush did not like humor that belittled other people or insulted people or in any way made fun especially as the political opponents. i think that was a great credit to him any reason why he got so much done in a bipartisan way because he didn't stoop to insulting his political opponents so we were left with jokes about broccoli, billy the

dog and you can't make fun of state. states. you can't make new jersey jokes, anything like that, so the list gets smaller and smaller and a pile on the floor gets bigger and bigger of all the stuff you can't use but it was great fun and it really makes you appreciate the people that have to stand up every night and a comedy monologue. president bush is to say the american people didn't elect me to be a standup comic why do i have to do this but we would come up with stuff. original comedy is really fun but really difficult. >> i gather i think one of the last things to stand between everyone and this discussion -- i'm going to do is ask -- we have two people that want to ask questions. i'm going to ask anything you throw and then you throw it out and we will all go to the reception. >> i am an undergrad here and we have a speechwriting advisory group and i think this is a more general speechwriting question. are there any that you see used a lot in speechwriting perhaps

specific to presidential administrations and then do you have any peeps? >> let's get to the other question is then we can tackle those on. >> if you are in the position that has so much pressure all the time you spoke a little bit about earlier. in the public it takes something that you wrote in the direction that you haven't intended how would you deal with disappointment or is there any way or strategy to kind of pop back up and get right back into it after you've been beaten down? >> so things that annoy you and times when you need a crutch. [laughter] you just get used to some of this stuff you need i wrote a speech on education and rope up -- woke up on a speech titled to nothing. [laughter] they are funny little speeches where you deliver great and just get hammered on the news.

>> the things that are happening, the president was going to the drug summit in columbia. first off, the speech was on reducing supply to the second half was on reducing demand come and it was a great habit of walking the hall and reading the speech are plowed allowed in order to catch him twisters and problems and things like that. will you walk down the hall with me and listen to my speech and let me know if there's anything in there? speak to [laughter] >> i don't think that is a good

segue. but we had rented out loud he never would have got it or i never would have caught it and i just think you've got to do stuff like that to avoid pitfalls. to your question about pet peeves, the one that is adding to the divisiveness into the polarization is when they say there are those who say blah blah and they mischaracterized the other side in a strongman way and then promote their own side. and to be honest and more informative to actually correctly summarize the other side is about the arguments against it are stronger because they are more intellectually coherent. >> i will not say that mary kate is wrong. but i will say that there are

degrees of this sort of thing. probably the worst thing that can happen when you are writing is peaches and a few of us told these stories when you work hard on something and it just gets ignored in is either upended by events or it's just frankly not interestingly interesting enough for anybody to cover in a lot of things presidents they escaped the notice of the nation especially when they say a lot of things so frankly you are mostly happy to get attention and we are in envious of one another. i was very involved in the humor speeches for president clinton and one of the jokes i wrote for the white house correspondents dinner in early 1998 elicited a very angry column i wasn't wounded by that but delighted. [laughter]

>> i would say that sometimes this need for the speech to get noticed and reach a kind of extreme that might be a little unfortunate after president bush delivered his axis of evil line and elicited a stronger action in iran one of my colleagues called me up and said you know, nothing you ever wrote thing you ever wrote a million people out on the street in toronto. you can hope. [laughter] this is the response that goes to the question of how berger of the speeches in the change i

think we all recognize a speech is not a work of alchemy. the moment it is uttered it transforms reality in a fundamental way. there are landmark speeches that become a kind of vivid point of history for one reason or another in the campaign. the speech that then president obama gave during the campaign is a defining moment in the campaign and if he hadn't had it right it might have been the end of the campaign. so a single speech can make a difference in all kinds of ways but i think for the most part, there's a whole school of thought where if they matter it's in the wrong way and when the president speaks they can only polarize and deliver counterproductive speeches

because as soon as their own supporters are hemmed into a particular set of ideas and the opposition is inflamed. they produced a number of works suggesting that the great works and speeches that they all think made a big difference didn't make a difference at all to look at the approval ratings for the policy they didn't remove the numbers by a single point. the way to think about speeches on the impact opinion is not as sort of an instantaneous work of an argument and its sustained in

a way that has a cumulative power and it can transform the discussion in ways that are not immediately in any given poll. it's not like flipping a switch. but presidents are in a unique position to help steer the national discussion in a search under action. it doesn't always go the direction that they want. but they have enormous influence even today. >> once in a while hate speech can move the needle. and a half hour the opinion was turned down into the and the silent majority speech seemed to make a big act. >> [inaudible] his pet peeve with president nixon when they were working with him he had a little device that he would use in the speech and say my staff told me to take the easy way and of course i won't do that sometimes he would

walk by the closed door of the office and say take the easy way mr. president. [laughter] is a great note which to end. thank you for taking the easy way listening to this panel. [applause] thank you all. a big round of applause for the wonderful panel. [applause]

the first and primary reason is to punish people and to keep us safe whether they are going to rehabilitate a person or deter future crimes i think those are really secondary concerns. the primary purpose of the present system is for people who are not interests, to keep people safe. >> saturday night a little after eight the race relations townhall meeting with elected officials and law enforcement from areas experiencing racial

tension with police. >> they go and do their job saying i am protecting the public. their idea of the public as those that gave the marching orders and it's us who need to look at all of this we talk transparency and rules that they haven't started using to engage themselves with our community. >> sunday evening at six:38 discussion on the media coverage and how they can join the national conversations and at nine young people from across the united kingdom gather in the house of commons to discuss issues important to them. >> it needs young people feeling the sting and disillusioned. as a child i think that we look

forward [inaudible] we forget while we worry. task force on in the 21st century policing at the university law school about the police police accountable police account of the become effectiveness and law enforcement reforms in the state of the country. tracy is a yale law school professor who taught law at the university of chicago. she's introduced by law school professor geoffrey stone. my name is jeffrey stone for those of you that don't know me. and i have the pleasure of introducing a core keynote speaker this afternoon, the

hamilton professor of law at yale university. it is my opportunity to do this because when i served briefly as law school i entertained the date code invited treacy to come speak and this is one of those on the surface. tracy received her jd right here at the university of chicago law school in 1991. this spring marks the 25th anniversary of graduation from law school. i happened to be there for the reception the other night for the john howard association from a wonderful organization in chicago that works to improve the quality of the illinois system and one of the guests told me the professor had just informed her that after earning her undergraduate degree from the university of illinois and engineering, she was contemplating going to law school but being an engineering she really didn't know very much about law school and she was a

planning to planning to go to georgetown but according to the story, then dean of university law school gave tracy an offer she couldn't refuse and so she wound up at the university of chicago. that is to say i was the demon. it was one of the best decisions i ever made has dean with high hearing barack obama and elena kegan. graduating from the law school and she served as a law clerk from arlington and the court of appeal and then spent several years working for the department of justice. in then return from the university of chicago law school and then later served as a professor of law and the director of director of the law school center for studies in criminal justice.

in then several years ago in a moment of just awful judgment, the professor headed to some place called new haven which remains pathetically to this day during the distinguished career in this law school, the professor has worked extensively among other things in the federal government from 2004 to 2011 for example she served in the committee on law and justice and the standing committee at the academy of sciences and in 2010 she was named by the attorney general eric holder on the department of justice newly created advisory board and last year president obama named her as a member of the task force on the policing. the research focuses on criminal procedure and the criminal policy with a particular emphasis on empirical investigations. she published a long list of influential scholarly articles and important books including

among them a legitimacy in the criminal justice and the prospective and urgent times police and the rights in inner-city communities. in the time of widespread concern about community safety, criminal justice and police practices commission some of the most thoughtful, respected and innovative scholars scholars in the field. she is truly a national leader, and it is my pleasure to present my former student and a special friend professor tracy ramirez. [applause] >> thank you for that generous introduction. i was honored to be asked by the university legal for him to give this keynote and am thrilled to become, to be able to come back home. hyde park has changed in so many ways but i admit to feeling sad

about the denies. i have a great deal of what i want to say today. my primary goal was to run back and get my prop to emphasize the hard work and great work really that i did with ten of my other colleagues who range from police chief to activists to civil rights lawyers and union representatives. we served together on the president's task force on the 21st century policing, and as you know it is created in the shooting death of michael brown and ferguson and the death of eric garner in new york at the hands of the new york city police. the president was especially concerned about the unrest that followed these incidents and stated it is a quote that is on the back of the report and i going to read it when any part of the family doesn't feel like

it is being treated fairly, that is a problem for all of us, not just for some or a particular community or demographic. it means we are not as strong as a country as we can be and when it applies to the justice system we are not as effective in fighting crime as we could be. or task force was charged with examining how to foster building strong collaborative relationships between local law enforcement and the communities they protect and to make some very specific recommendations to the president on how the policing practices can promote effective crime reduction while building public trust, the team you heard about a little bit today over today and for those of you that are in a much colder room. the first is called building trust and legitimacy and that is the place of good policing said that's what i was going to talk about today. and i going i'm going to actually hit on this topic. there's a slight detour and that comes because i was just here

last week, sadly not in hyde park but for the annual conference into their i heard the fbi director james coney speak at the executive form. they have an annual town meeting and because i heard him speak at the gathering i decided to shift the emphasis of the remark. and that meeting, he is like me in this law school and he echoed what he had said here just a few days before maybe even in this room. he worried about a national spike in homicide and said referring to the a conversation he said he had with an officer who told him he felt he was under siege because people are watching him with a cell cell

phone and this officer told the director that he didn't feel like eating out of his car and i'm going to quote a director he said i don't know whether this explains it and presumably he's talking about the national spike in homicide. and entirely but i do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind blowing through law enforcement over the last year and that when it is surely changing behavior. that is surely changing the behavior. i am going to leave aside for the moment whether there is a national surge of homicide that we need to explain at all and whether even if there were, that even if there were this national trend, whether there's any reliable serious data that is a change in police behavior as opposed to anecdotal reports of understandable changes in feeling and attitude of police

who are now being more closely scrutinized than ever before. that can be partly responsible for this change. i'm happy to return to both of these topics. but here's what i would like to focus my remarks on today and that is that i think the public safety narrative has lost its way. it needs to be redirected and reshaped and that's why i chose the provocative title. i don't even know if any of you know my title but they told me that i had to have a provocative title for c-span. my title is against public safety and for public security. now let me explain. the president's task force report makes public trust central to the mission of policing and the question is how do we do it. the public safety narrative command by that i mean the narrative that makes what police do, the number of the police

strategies, where the police go absolutely central to the crime reduction. i will will collect police effectiveness suggested that public support or the police is strictly related to the public's evaluation of the police effectiveness. this turns out not to be the case. you might find that surprising today in a world in which there is so much discussion of police effectiveness and media policy circles and the like. his remarks i think reflect this. the notion of the effect itself suggests that there is a crisis that we might need them such that we might need to sacrifice police effectiveness and crime reduction as an order to fulfill our concern about the police account ability, all fullness etc.. it might surprise some of you in this room who are under the age of 30 and jeff has totally outed me i can't even pretend i'm under the age of 30 anymore. thanks, jeff.

it might surprise you to learn that the idea of police effectiveness and crime reduction is a metric that should matter with respect to evaluation of police is actually in the church of relatively recent vintage for decades. many scholars in policing and police themselves themselves be that law-enforcement actually had little impact on crime rates. the police scholar david bailey who several in this room know well and has worked with for this very nicely in the 1994 book police for the future and i'm going to quote the police do not prevent crime. that is one of the best-kept secrets of modern life. experts know it, the police know it but the public doesn't know it yet. the police pretend that they are society's best defense against crime and continually agree that if they are given more resources especially personal, they will be able to protect communities against crime. this is a math. now today, of course, police

executives are expected and expect themselves to reduce crime in their jurisdictions. the potential to impact the crime rate is conventional wisdom actually thanks in large part to the work of the folks in this room like david, frank, there he is right there sitting next to david, thank you and other folks across the midway like steve who some of you know. however, as my colleague noted in his testimony before the task force a few months ago, while police seemingly have become better and better over time as reducing and addressing crime in the surveys indicating levels of public support for and confidence in police have remained relatively flat over the seine period of scene period of time in which crime rates have fallen precipitously. and so, perceptions of trust and confidence were grounded in assessments of police effectiveness as this isn't what we should be finding.

so one might ask them in police effectiveness if it doesn't direct public trust, what does. another answer might be all fullness. again, in light of repeated incidents of quite shocking police brutality consider here the tragic death of walter scott in north charleston south carolina who was shot in the back by a white police officer as he fled. we might think that commitment to the rule of law and especially constitutional constraints that shape engagement between the public and the police would support public trust but of course the police compliance is a critical component of legitimate state. there are a couple of problems with how to think of how to think about that relationship and public trust, one of course is whether we have an objective measure of police lawfulness. we heard a little bit about that today in the report about how we

count civilian deaths at the hands of police and he gave some very interesting data about that. i think there is a general sense and here i am not relying on data if you look at the period of time over which crime has declined, many people probably think that there is a much higher level of police lawfulness today than there used to be. there was a report that seemed to indicate that it came out about ten years ago i collaborated with some people in the room on that report. i'm not as confident in our assessment of that conclusion based on recent events but here is another issue with thinking about the relationship between the police lawfulness and assessments of public trust and that comes out of my own research again with tom tyler and jacob gartner and our work demonstrates the public judgment of the police legitimacy of assessments of how the public thinks about whether the police are doing a good job are not really that sensitive to whether the police are weather the police are behaving to

distinctly with constitutional law because the public doesn't define lawfulness or determine sanctioning for the same lens of the galilee that police and other legal of parties use. now this piece in research time talking about is forthcoming in the journal of criminal law and criminology and it's called wall for fair outcrops and lay people view good for leasing. we have semantical evidence showing that there is this juncture. so come if our goal is promotion of public trust, then we have to recognize that while both police effectiveness of crime reduction and police walter ms. are relevant neither alone is sufficient. i think the public safety narrative lost its way when many of its major advocates began to argue that police effectiveness and crime reduction has become

self-justifying that police effectiveness and crime reduction is a warrant for itself. it's not. we need a new narrative and i decided to emphasize the word security as opposed to safety. there may be a better phrase. maybe you don't like security but here's the primary point. we need a mission statement for policing that recognizes that people desire to be kept safe from each other, security against privacy and as well as be free from government repression, security against government overreach and the pursuit of both at the same time is not a zero-sum game. how to achieve both? i think the answer is clear or at least part of the answer and that is with and through a

commitment to policing that makes legitimacy and procedural justice central to its mission. you are going to learn much more about this research into these ideas when tom summarizes his paper. so i'm not going to take his thunder and also this will give us more time for questions at the end. but i'm going to sketch out a few basic points now and here's the basic theory. people's conclusions regarding their assessment of the fairness of legal actors come institutions and the law doesn't flow really or primarily from their assessment of the police effectiveness as tasks such as crime reduction or apprehension of the wrongdoers. people tend to place more weight on how authorities exercise their power as opposed to the end for what power is exercised.

researchers have studied public evaluation police officers, judges, political leaders, managers, teachers and the findings are pretty consistent. conclusions concerning legitimacy are tied much more closely to to judgments of the judgment of fairness of the actions of these actors than two evaluations or fairness of the effectiveness of the outcomes. so come in a social psychological literature literature on, judgments regarding fairness depend on for factors poorly. first, participation or voice is an important element. people report much higher levels of satisfaction and encounters with authorities when they have opportunities to explain their perspective on those encounters. this is also true as you generalize, so to participate in the strategies to have commentary on lawmaking and so forth, all these things are

general examples of the voice. second, people carry great deal about the fairness of the decision-making by the authority and by this. the neutrality and factual but he. they carry great deal about how they are treated by an organization's leaders and representatives of. the authorities that they are dealing with. by this what people are looking for is a sense of the motives of the authorities that they are looking into dealing with. they want to believe they are sincere and well-intentioned.

basically what the members of the public wants is to belief that the authority that they are dealing with, let's say a police officer b. leaves that they count. i will repeat that again. i am a member of the public and i'm dealing with a police officer, i want to be the fact that police officer b. leaves that i count even if of course that officer doesn't really. that's kind of the tricks part about this. it's all about my perception, your perception, the public's perception. if it is by evaluating how we are treated in these interactions. they are inherently relational and they are not instrumental. rather than being primarily concerned with outcomes and individual maximization of utility.

it's centered on the individual identity. there's a lot more to be said about that and why that's true. i don't have time to go into that maybe we should talk about it at the end and as i'm sure tom talk more about that. when the police generate good feelings in their everyday context it turns out that people are motivated to help them fight crime. then they can expect when they are. but this is an evil may benefit of this approach. others are treating the public with dignity and fairness is more healthy in and democratic and their communities.

when they take this approach it is better and healthier on the street. so how do we get there? the president's task force meeting number of recommendations i'm going to highlight just a few of them by but encourage you to read this report. there's a number of important concrete and doable recommendations actually come and it is going to take all of us working together to get the recommendations implemented. the task force recommended that law enforcement agencies embrace what we call a guardian mindset in order to promote public trust and legitimacy. this recommendation in caps will he thinking of another task force member whose name is sue rare who was a sheriff in washington state for a long time and she's written that officers must make a shift from a

four-year warrior mindset that we think is about the reduction at all cost. the guardian mindset is different. the guardian mindset actually emphasizes the behavior consistent with procedural justice and legitimacy among other things. importantly, this is going to be a cultural change that has both internal and external aspects to it and that police officers have had to be treated with procedural justice. that will change the way officers are trained shouldn't be subsidiary strategies include diversifying the workforce are the policing agencies need more women, more educated officers, more people of color, training

at the techniques that i think are a must and i could go on. forced consolidation is also necessary we have 18,000 different agencies many of them are very, very small. you can't implement this change so what are the recommendations we make in this report that agencies should be improved to consolidate at least 50 officers the task force recommended that they acknowledge the role of policing and past and present and justice and an discrimination and how it is a hurdle to the promotion of the community trust. i don't think this can be emphasized enough and we actually talked about it today as one of at one of the earlier panels. there have been really powerful and poignant examples of practices whereby police

officials. the past transgressions of those of in uniform. here's the one i want to make the point about. here's a police chief that is no longer the police chief anymore and montgomery alabama. his name is kevin murphy. he was born a year after the representative john lewis and the freedom writers amos lee traveled to montgomery where they were brutally and viciously beaten by a white mob and went to a church in montgomery that sits across the street from the police headquarters of alabama today. it wasn't bad but it is now. where they were firebombed in the church, electricity lines were cut and again the police

were nowhere to be found and won the spring day in 2014 the chief as part of the delegation that will come to the representative lewis back to montgomery and in front of the large crowd the chief said i want to apologize we the montgomery police failed to protect you and the other freedom writers in 1961. the police were not very good to you but today we are a better department and he went on and explained the kind of things they were doing and so on and so forth and you might think that is the end of the story but then he takes his badge and he says this is a representation of service and protection and in particular, promotion of individual constitutional rights of members of the public and in 1961 my colleague were not worthy to wear this badge that you were, and i want you to have it now so he takes off and gives

it to him. this amazing moment you could actually see it on the net. it's pretty powerful. it is an incredibly powerful act of symbolic reconciliation. the question is how to do this work in large-scale but it's necessary and we call that a critical component of procedural justice that motivates trust and it's extremely difficult for people who been treated poorly as a group and it individually to expect this treatment so extraordinary acts like apologies and repaired strategies are necessary and likely not sufficient answer to my proceeding as if it has never happened as the professor noted today in his presentation before the symposium group is not an option. third, i want to return to where i began and that is it is

imperative that the police agencies recognize the crime reduction is not self-justifying the police action taken for the purpose of making communities safer especially aggressive police action can have the counterproductive result of destroying the very reservoir of trust on which amenities and policing agencies depend for proper functioning so the idea promoted by folks like ray kelly and rudy giuliani and maybe even the former mayor michael bloomberg that we ought to somehow balance the benefits that the groups of people such as african americans and young african-american men in particular he seeped from plummeting crime rates without truly acknowledging the cost to this in terms of enforcement, and here i am not just talking about incarceration. a shortsighted and deeply flawed and it's because the arguments premise is that aggressive policing is necessary to achieve

crime reduction. that is just false and critical to understand here is the promotion of public that promotion of public trust is actually associated with voluntary compliance with the law. this means policing agencies can achieve their goal of enhancing public safety wigle at the same time, pursuing the mandate of increasing public trust through greater commitment in legitimacy and procedural justice. the process of taking the medicine is not. one might imagine the treatment for rabies and i'm probably dating myself but when i was a kid the treatment was 21 shots in the abdomen over three weeks. i understand that's no longer the case. i think now it's like five shots

in the arm. but when i was a kid we were all terrified by the specter of the rabies shots and i'm afraid of dogs and to this day because of the rabies treatment. i think that the past police reform will be something like this a narrow prescription that we all think is clear that it is difficult to endure but worth it because the alternative would early his staff. change will be painful for the policing organization. there will be resistance, there already is. the past tendency is strong and there is a sense of righteousness. change will be difficult for the affected communities especially communities of color. think of disadvantaged neighborhoods in baltimore for example who belong to the distrust of police or the kids that they were talking about today. there will be resistance.

there already is. past dependency is strong. there is a sense of righteousness so why should we be hopeful about this? is all sorts of examples on the other. in fact a foot. in fact the primary example happened just in the state in illinois. the governor as i understand it had signed the omnibus police reform legislation that was passed almost unanimously by both houses and this is 135 page bill i don't know if any of you have looked at it it's got all kinds of stuff in it. required for the police training on procedural justice come and visit bias that has the recognition of the body cameras and even requires every police officer when they start a person gives that person the person a receipt but has the officer's name on the badge number and the reason for the data. there is new recliner and in massachusetts for training like this. the attorney general of

california has required sail training of every policing agency in the state of new york police department has recently announced that it will they will begin to document every single use of force and there is a response to the national conversation. ..

>> >> that neither nor the first juror the second reconstruction and change. even though they may have provided the legal architecture for doing so. the constitution and, the reconstruction and congress through this civil-rights act a and bodenheim hold dash and voting rights act as a formal citizenship. by how we -- how we value freedom. ed article that i have written we wrote a piece for

the criminal-justice system. and i was introduced to literature that talks about how students are treated in classrooms. so i was moved by his work because it also reflected the idea with the curriculum of the one hand that it comes from these educational researchers to look at the mascots who is not in the

class? when the hidden curriculum passes we are provided with instructions to is or who is not citizens. those that are completely consistent with the formal curriculum of rights. they're headed curriculum is totally different we get instructions on the anti- citizen actually we're of the third reconstruction and i hope so. i would like to think this time we will get a right to. how do we do that? one answer might be to rely on the floor curriculum on

one hand and head of the curriculum on the other. and that is the same for everyone then we will have achieved the goal so let's hope we're on that path. thank you. [applause] id. >> your attempt to change the narrative is absolutely on target. and in such matters that is

the thinking of policy. the republic's security but it calls to mind the national security and health plans security and homeland security. the you care to give some serious thought? >> part of the reason that i am referring to a the work of deal locker. and one eye and try to do

and with that very narrative that you are talking about not only individual rights but the understanding that this constituted who we are as citizens. i do a the trio of irish if we talk about people feeling secure to the acknowledged the role that government can play through the pursuit of public safety but i get what you are saying. >> what are your personal

thoughts in the school system with us a disciplinary structure like south carolina recently and it other periods of measures ? >> primarily in was about building trust and confidence was the foundation for the five other pillars that we talk about but that there is technology and social media but samper for on community policing is what you are talking about.

and as they shed have a great deal of testimony to reduce the number of arrest that comes out of the full context to talk about the of foldable population into understand that they are in a formative relationship and in the future but there are pages and pages of this. >> i was quite taken by your notion as the police says

guardians but less optimistic of the society to reach that understanding. it seems that you talk about we just have to change culture and add items see how we do that without incentives i am not sure altruism is a notion that we cannot let things go on that our sufficient particularly if part of the concern is race. there was talk of head of the chicago police force all police officers have to have a university for your degree i would say wonderful we have taxes to pay for that? especially at the white suburbs?

it does give me some reason why i should not be skeptical of or to expand those resources. >> there are so many ways to get out that had three are four things but not necessarily in order but here is the first. trade treaty trading. asked one way is to have a fundamental change heads certainly the largest agency and the country is focused on this path. you may not be experiencing it on the streets of chicago but i can't tell you that the trading on procedural justice is very innovative

innovative, chicago is the leader they have trained officers with the first module. the new york police department is required to reform their trading and that reform is under way. and i know that it is in part to because i am working with other people to do that. and there are many recommendations about that. you say okay but resources. do york and chicago while tens of officers and the work has i said we. [laughter] i've sent chicago 50,000 that is a drop in the bucket.

if we need a change what needs to happen is the states have to adopt the changes to make the requirement. that is a legal change and also the resources to implement this kind of trading. they could be hard to do without consolidation and. that is one of the reasons why. how does that happen? you may think consolidation is to give incentives with federal dollars but it turns talking fewer than half get anybody from the department of justice that all. , so it will require an incentive to be given by the executive leadership of

every state flag a governor that encourages the municipalities. maybe there is a federal kerry given to the governor's. in order to get this stuff that you have the regular politics. so in that sense i am not super hopeful but i will say that change of the warrior mentality that happened in the context of the agency's be leaving this is what they could do. they didn't used to believe they could do that. the talk was the anecdote with of litigation and the fact every police chief of a major city of the students

-- under stevens that day shit everybody else's shit. with that institutionalizing shed can with that mental illness on the street. that is that's the other deals deals with that. so they're constantly looking for innovative responses. so there is reason for hope. >> i want to tell you november 19, our group the academy of criminology will have a forum on your 21st century report.

the also have a member of our a cabbie who will go into the history of police. if you look at that there was the posse, matatus and the institution of the police issued depended upon the sense of community that comes from the community and it will be interest-free to review the five stakes of your task force against a history that few people know about zero are looking into. our group was founded in 1950 as a sociology professor at the diversity in chicago who pioneered the application of social science to criminal-justice.

had one of the of past presidents were a bunch of old people but we like to look at these bases historically. i look forward to what happens in a report -- review of your report. thank you for your presentation. >> ha in spite of all efforts at no matter how that pose cert climate has changed there will be some officers said don't get the message. so what about the disciplinary process? so without binding arbitration is the beans to resolve disputes and day, a

pattern is for the arbitrator to say yes the officer is guilty but that is not a big deal. just recently with the city of boston and attempted to have a court first order set aside the officer was fired three times and each time reinstated by the arbitrator with civil litigations that causes substantial change. so did the commission and given the consideration to these issues that are adjudicated and how the process could be made more effective? >> without question as to

guilt or the penalty to those who took to escort her back and had sex with her and they were fired two separate cases and then a three day suspension spee back the question and was in the considered discipline and particular for the recommendations? not with that double of specificity although we did hear testimony on the relationship between a disciplinary procedures.

working for the input with certain types of accountability to be consistent with the demands they feet that leaves today's across the country so the fact and that they operate the way that you talk about for that egregious behavior to reinstate that officer that that is it example 2.0 that complication where that takes place that simply reviews these types of decisions that are not actively involved to

articulate community goals and projects. i am not sure what to call that in los angeles but that version is not just reviewing the police executive decisions. but you are pointy this issue of discipline that is a job because of a point cut -- a jumping point we did this in in 57 days. but the rest of the task force restarted work january january 13 and was an all-out sprint with 150 witnesses, hundreds of pages of written testimony putting together a pretty good

document but it is a deaf, it is not complete there are many other if they eggs and the other thing 2.0 -- 2.0 is accountability that is a critical aspect of trust you will not trust agencies or individuals who are not held accountable so we can figure that out. >> i am very interested from the perspective of guardianship and it makes me wonder that what is

necessary instead are there any policies that are played out all were considered like mental-health services? or other things that could get to the source? >> there are chew over archy and recommendations that i think i should point out right now. one of them that the president for another crime commission basically had an overall review since 1967 and it is about time. but the second to is the president should promote programs that take a look at

community-based initiatives with core initiatives and that is what you talk about. our focus is narrow but we did talk about after a bad one wide -- after an september 11 when you get a call it appears the incident is involving individual suffering and in some cities they will ship that call to a group of 911 receivers to a special treaty -- training to ask the right questions. so that the right to resources are deployed. a lot of times you have people receiving calls who don't have adequate training

who deploy people who don't have adequate trading and those that could be completely avoided if the situation where there was training but the final point is look at the u. k yes i know there is not as badly guns but thank -- the police have the overarching model about preservation and and when an officer is sent but if you had a percent with a mental stability facing an officer with a weapon and most are treated to slow the situation down.

put that is not what happened because their trade properly and though said dispatched don't ask the right questions. >> day que. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> the means they need moving forward bader their principles to operate under? fifteen or 20-point plan is great. that is great. but whether the underlying principles?

i see to remember the first principles. [applause] the declaration intel's less our rights come from god not government. [applause] the constitution and has a framework set up not as a result of bureaucratic haggling that to protect freedom.

isil and a. >> discussion not terrorist use social we have. we have teeeighteen vice president of the media research institutions and had from the the your office marco wallace ceo of the counter extremas some project. ambassador wallace? >> we are the ngo that focuses in three areas. with the propaganda or the recruiters online to focus on the economic you and social groups in you say the power of economic pressure and the me see that as a modern where fair but now you see them on the internet

to use a pot - - provide support for terrorism but we operate with social media in the economic world. >> to recent tests of rudy - - testimony you said the presence of isis is a cancer. >> i feet it is. we both testified in that hearing it to this incredible presence and their breach that it has spent talking to a foreign minister of italy wasted blue dash studied terrorism will long time ago from the '70s the end of the '80s and talk about the recruiting efforts in italy.