that is a deep conservative truth. i'm telling you if donald trump is president things will be worse. i may be wrong, maybe he will be president and we can replay this on c-span in five years and can people can look at me and laugh but i don't think they are going to. this is a man who is erratic, he and obsessive, and crude and cruel, who is obsessed with power and has no qualms, anybody can tell, about using power to try to destroy anybody who gets in his way. in his last week he went after a federal judge who made a perfectly legitimate ruling on trump university, gone after him because he is mexican. the way he obsessed -- just invoked it. the way he has gone after megan kelly, the way he has gone after his opponents, he mocks reporters with physical disability, he curses in public,

he is a serial liar, no beliefs, he lives in his own reality. i am telling you, this is not a guy that you want. when i make the judgment on not voting for trump and i am not hillary either, i am homeless right now. because in part because i worked in the white house and in part because i read history, the issues, thinking about a president, i don't think there is any individual issue that takes precedent in my mind over what i would refer to as the public character of the president or they are public or private aspects. on that a little more, you need a person who has prudence, judgment, some amount of wisdom, and what used to be understood as character, not just how they

act, the whole of who they will are, and in my estimation what i have seen from donald trump, this is not a state secret, no erratic and unprincipled and narcissistic, the idea that that man, from the commander-in-chief, to the head of department of justice to the irs, to the fbi, should be a frightening prospect. when i get in these debates with mister trump they can't refute specific cases against trump, that i am anti-hillary and thinking so am i, but at the end of the day you got to make the case for him and i don't think it can be named. >> in the red jacket, you are waiting. >> thank you for coming today. an honor to listen to the discussion. my name is rachel, i am a rising

senior and i am focus on how millennials perceive this election being that i am one. what i noticed among my peers particularly conservative is they seem to confuse virtue with this almost perverted sense of equality that the left is trying to monopolize particularly with women, promoting equal opportunity in forms of policy for women, in general with race relations, you feel this whole push from third wave feminists and activists on the left that promote these ideas. i feel my generation sees opportunity, they are for equality, they then interpret that as being virtuous and being good people like how barack obama appealed to the youth in the 2008 election not just with

his charisma but just how he truly connected with voters. i know you spoke to how reagan truly made that connection with people then. i feel that that is not happening today particularly within the conservative party. i wonder what your thoughts are particularly with millennial voters and how they view today's political landscape. >> go ahead. >> the poor millennials have been so propagandized. from kindergarten they have been told, believe me i raise three sons at public schools and private schools and we had to deprogram them every afternoon when they got home from school. we are aware that is out there. that much having been said, even

when republicans have been successful, in those years too you had a press that was pretty liberal and a culture leaning to the left and so on and certain political figures, reagan and george w. bush were able to break through anyway. i think one of the lessons is you have to ask and you have to engage on that level. taking on the left about are you really for people who are in trouble? because if you look at inner-city schools which is one of the issues that is most pressing injustice in our society, namely if you are born in certain zip codes your chances in life are minimized because of family structure and also abysmal public school and you say you are for the progressive party, the democrats who control the big cities and control the unions and will not

allow any reform of public education. they stand in the schoolhouse door and say no. i had dinner with a member of the dc city council who said -- white guy, but he said that the reason he was against reforming schools was it was really important that teachers were not jobs programs for black people. i said wait a minute, what about the black children? you are taking the side of black adults over black children. how does that square? how is that the moral position? he didn't have an answer to that. i would say we always have to challenge their premise that they are on the side of the angels. we have to show that in many instances they are responsible for a great deal of corruption and self-dealing and are not on the side of the angels. on human rights around the

world, on human trafficking the republicans -- it was with bipartisan support, republicans to deal with human trafficking which is a terrible human rights issue right now. the democrats raise a zillion dollars every year by scaring women that roe v wade is going to be overturned and yet we have human trafficking of women and children on unbelievably vast sale and gets practically no attention, the modern day slavery. more attention to issues like that can begin a conversation with millennials, a lot of propaganda. >> the one in the flour jacket. >> i would like to thank you for coming here. this is very interesting. i would like to say donald trump and hillary clinton, one of the things i like to educate people

on is you have a flow of money, the backbone of all our elections that go on over years and even passing legislation on the hill. and opensecrets.org find out who is donating to whom and who owes what to whom? and we have a flow of money coming into the hillary clinton campaign to the clinton campaign, hillary clinton is not physically fit for the position she has now. she was fit eight years ago when she was running with obama, she was able to handle the job then, now she hasn't. she has her physical health, not enough, she has gotten the doctor to tell her she is okay, has three blood clot in the brain tumor and she is not going to make it through her presidency if she gets elected. donald trump owes no money to anybody, has no foreign money

coming and behind him. not that he is the best person but i am saying the judge that released documents from trump university, paid $620,000 to hillary clinton. and do they educate themselves what is behind the candidates. and the money flowing in, when they take off? >> let me make some responses, i don't know how we can be sure about trump's finances when he releases that. and if the judge in that case, and a big donor to hillary clinton.

>> the ethics part, thank you for coming. >> the thing that scares me the most about donald trump with foreign-policy, when he said the things he said about megan kelly, if he becomes president, if he was to be in a meeting with heads of state and there happens to be a female in the room, for example if has to go to the bathroom what comments would he make about her? does he have emails on his cabinet? what would happen to them? what would his policy be about the females? these things scare me. what would he do with things like this? if we had a summit like this in dc what would his policy be? would he support our policy? would he support wt would happen to things like that? those are the things that scare me about donald trump. i am not a big hillary fan either. i am really apprehensive about the future and i am an

entrepreneur. i am not very confident about being with -- not very confident. >> we are talking about a poster boy of an accountability and it seems to me we should be turning the spotlight on our culture and talk about accountability because yes, you have a person of high stakes situation, our culture is at a breaking point of high-stakes, and you are concerned what trump might say? look at 1 million entries on facebook today of which there is no accountability and the worst absolute degradation of women, of men, of animals, how can we say trump to be has been

created, you could say anything about anyone and not be held responsible. to create social media, and everyone talks about this. his children seem to be just remarkably well grounded. i preferred that they were running. i ask myself all the time maybe he is the child and they are the adults. he will get an advisor and the advisor will tell him tone it down about women or tone it down about hispanics or something but he doesn't do it. why? he doesn't do what i think because he is so attuned to the fact that he can say what he wants and gets more support. i am not campaigning for donald trump but i am saying i think we need to look deeper and broader

at our culture and say in particular, i had kids, 9-year-old kids, two in particular come to these talks and they said they stand up and i ask them this is great, why are you here? i want to know more about ronald reagan's character so i can be like him, quote unquote. just this past week. we need to find leaders, men and women of character, because i tell you one thing, reagan was only successful because of his character. only. the only reason reagan is in the top 5 of all us presidents in american history today by every poll is because of his character. it wasn't because -- he was a grand strategist but in a quiet way but that was the reason he is in the top 5. >> let me say something.

>> a complicated question about character and people with questionable and people with outstanding character and be bad presidents and complicated of what one is talking about. i do say one point, i am old enough to remember when conservatives used to argue for character in public leaders. that used to be important to our movement, people who spoke for our movement and now that that has been tossed aside, there is an embrace of someone so manifestly problematic on character in every aspect of the definition of character is a problem. people see this and you didn't mean it when you are going after bill clinton in the 1990s and used to talk about how that stuff mattered a lot? character in a president, now you have someone like that and you are lining up behind him? it was all a game? we is a different standard of judgment. when it is there guys and they

have a problematic character, character really matters a lot because he is a liberal, he is a democrat. when it is a republican nominee, who has a problematic character, all of us and that is tossed aside. the very same argument the defendant bill clinton made in the 1990s are being invoked in 2016 on behalf of trump. and people see that. >> we are going to take a little break after this and i hope everybody will take a few minutes to talk with the panelists. if you can each offer some final thoughts i think it would be helpful. where do we go from here and is it simply a function of running for public office is not necessarily -- not the highest good anymore. we have lots of other things, when you become an adult you want to do. perhaps there is something about the act of running for office that is creating a self select group of people who lack a

certain virtue and character but if you can offer final thoughts and we will take a break and you can speak more with our guests. >> something that rolled over in my head. george washington in his farewell address warned america about political parties. he said he was afraid they would be sharpened by the spirit of revenge and he feared a political party system would lead to the absolute power of an individual who is more successful than his competitors would turn to the, quote, purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty and i think that is a little prophetic. we have seen that over time, we are seeing that right now. for me looking at different historical figures, thinking about life today, i think how you treat people matters.

it makes me think how am i treating people, helping my son become a little more diplomatic instead of being so blunt and think how someone else might receive his words and what can i do? i can't do a lot. i can't write a column on the hill. i can write a book. i can help with my inner circle and be a presence that can be an influence whether it is at work or at home and the circles of influence the government into out that we all were part of. >> a couple of thoughts. one was sometimes a virus creates its own antibodies. these are not straight-line projections. we had a time in england in the 19th century, the great historian -- you had a real kind of renaissance resurrection of virtue. ..

and you see the human cost and the social cost and the political cost to a society for that, then maybe it dawns on us again this stuff matters because one of the great human temptations is to forget a great and important truths. but life has a way of reminding us why those things were truths to begin with. so snapshots in time are not returned in things can change. you can be a theoretical pessimist but you should be an operational optimist and that means you have to keep pushing and fighting and arguing and making your case with convicti conviction, and hope that times

change and leaders of change. the other one is, it's probably a good time to say in one of the most important things for a country, sometimes most important thing certainly in the life of parents, children and raising children to be people and good character. it's not easy. sometimes you are dealt harder hands than others. but you can't assume that political leaders are the ones who are going to do that for you. and you're going to good leaders and bad leaders and you will have leaders who are virtuous and people who are ridden with vice. i would rather have somebody who i can point my children to and say that's a person of honor, be like that. but often that's not the case. in the formation of human character, political leaders is not with us is openly decided. it's decided in living rooms and houses and churches and synagogues and mosques, and in

schools and community groups. and that's where this work has to do. actually of all the things hillary clinton said that i have some sympathy with its the idea that takes a village to raise a child. conservatives mock the and i understand why they did but there is a deeper truth to that which is it takes a tenet of adults who care about the right thing to try and raise children to be people of good character. as i said it's not always easy but that's the great task that we are called to do as parents and fellow citizens. and tell you one thing, i'm not going to look for the next president for help in that respect. >> well, not for the first time he'd wayne as to what i was going to say by tedious is everything so well. and let me only add something to that by saying that i was

thinking along the same lines that we have in recent times been turning to politics more and more both as a sort of coming together of celebrity and religion, and we've created these figures. it was most evident with barack obama in 2008 were a kind of frenzy swept over the country. the man was described as a light worker. he was a messianic figure to some. they have been disappointed but that tendency to look to political figures as redemptive continues and i think it's partly because religion is on the decline and people need another outlet for that kind of thing. and that instinct to want a king, even though we are in this country more than 200 years past that, nevertheless it's very strong. remember in the bible the israelites after they were freed

from egypt and god performed all of these wonders for them and they saw all of these miracles, and didn't he said judges over them to rule them and they said we really want a team. just like all those other people. cod was angry justifiably because they had him. -- god was angry. but that was a strong human weakness in wanting to worship somebody and in wanting to believe that somebody can solve your problems for you. that's good to keep in mind. at this moment i agree with pete again that looking for inspiration is important to. what's going on in the political world, on twitter and other social media, could not be more than edifying and effect of depressing to see people distinctive such scurrilous and disreputable and disgusting behavior, name-calling, childish taunts by presidential candidate on and on. and allies.

but there are people even in this time who have distinguished themselves by their honesty. what i don't much of it is we are trying to judge someone and you're evaluating, but they don't always take my word about what's right and what's not, what is it is look, i don't care what side of the political spectrum somewhat is. producing a whether they are an honest person. are they willing to criticize their own side or other just a partisan hack? you know, nick kristof writes for the "new york times" i don't agree with him often but he's written several columns taken his own psyche task for being close minded, for example, on campuses. that's someone who is a model of civility and open-mindedness, and that is the sort of thing we should praise. similarly on our side to our people who have stuck to their principles, even though there's

a tremendous amount of pressure to conform and bend the knee and get in line for donald trump and it said no, this violates my principles, i cannot in good conscience do that. of those are the people to look to you. and i think in the future some of them, maybe ben sasse knows not to point you to a political figure, but there may be some who will come out of this looking very good in retrospect because they did stick to principle. >> on december 16 last year i sat with nancy reagan and her library at her home in los angeles. this is just a couple of months before her passing. she was in a wheelchair but she was beautifully dressed in red, and she was 100% prepared mentally and she looked great from here on out so to speak as she couldn't walk anymore. but she was holding onto my hand

fiercely, like an elderly person at age 94, some of them might do. you know when you're at that point and holding onto so tightly and you're wondering, should you let go first or she would let go first, so finally she did and she put her hand on the maple court octagonal table that was next to her wheelchair, and she started patting it. and she said you know, jim, this is the table where ronnie got his diagnosis in 1994 from the doctors at mayo clinic who came into the house. remember 1994 by the way. in any case i said how did he really take that? and she said, jim, that way you know he always did, with optimism. and i thought to myself, could i look at a time in history that i'm experiencing with the issues i have to decide about and

confront today the way ronald reagan always did with optimism? and i thought, i spent hours thinking about how it is that he could be an optimist. because of course when he was i think the issues were not as searing but when he came on the political scene, special as he was running for president, there were difficult and challenging issues as well that would've caused someone, and many of us to be discouraged as well. we are very disturbed today. we are discouraged. the destruction that has occurred on our watch since 2008 in particular has been searing. and it's been personal. but reagan was an eternal optimist. and the reason was, is that he saw history in a long -- he saw himself in though he never wrote about it in terms of legacy in his diaries. he saw himself as a player in history. each of us is a player in history. his ability to see america's

place in destiny and america's role in the world was so strong, and the vision that he had of it was so graphic and specific to have dedicated him the ability not only to communicate it but you feel that the danger that we all feel today, that we may suffer from, both our families and our nation. we have to look at it in a long-term. we have to be optimistic and we have to retain a degree of hope that reagan always had about the future. and he said over and over again, he told the american people, he told the people of the world really, i remember standing in the bavarian alps when he was addressing what you might save the millennial high schoolers and college students who gathered to celebrate the fundamentals of democracy -- you are the best hope, you are the

people who will bring back german reunification. he called on them. and i think we are right here. we are the soldiers for the future. and we have to demand this in ourselves. we have to ask ourselves, do we have i this hope? do we have this vision about the idea of america and its destiny and its role in bringing everyone to the place which reagan referred to as the place where everyone has the ability to exercise their god-given individual liberty and rights? that's what he stood for and that is really the only thing that's keeping me on, giving me hope and optimism for the future. >> thank you to all of you for such a wonderful and insightful comments. i know we're trying to stay on schedule so you have additional

questions for the panelists i think you'll be in the lobby for a few minutes at least and we will see you at the next panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> we are going to start our next panel so you could come on in and have a seat. >> are we waiting for people outside? ready to get started?

good afternoon, everyone. we are going to get started. thank you all for coming out to the ifw conference and for this topic in particular which is very important. as you not you know the kids wen college campuses may someday graduate and join the rest of us in the real world, and so i think there's cause to be worried. that being said it turns out that i am the old person on the panel today, i'm going to offer you just a very brief history of this free speech sexual assault, faith-based discussion we are going to have today. i thought i might start by telling you that 20 years ago i wrote an article for a college newspaper in which i talked about how i thought it was important for young women to watch what they drink when they go out to parties. because i thought that self-control was on the -- one of the things that might be responsible for the large number of unwanted sexual encounters

that seem to be taking place. for the day after i wrote this article a friend of mine was on a campus shuttle and he reported back to me the beginnings of the conversation that he heard about this article. one young woman said to the other, did you read the article by that group was in favor of rape? anyway, what i wanted to do about the reason i wanted to tell you the story was sadly our level of campus discourse on the topic has gone downhill since that comment over the course of the last 20 years. i think we want to explore up to date a few of the reasons why that might be the case. so i think that the first place to start is that anyone now, it used to be anyone who was sort of questioning the prevalence of rape culture on campus, people were a by this. they were bothered by the fact

that he was a dissent from what was that, orthodoxy on the campus, even as far back as the '80s and '90s. but now it seems that people who dissent from this orthodoxy are actually themselves probably, according to some can no better than rapists. they are actually creating this dangerous space. students feel they are in danger from an opposing point of view, and the advent of safer bases to protect students from speakers like christina sommers we all know about or even some of our panelists today, if often a discussion of sexual assault that's happening in the '80s and '90s. we have gone from a place where we are talking about actual violence against women to focus instead on students experience of fear and i think we just got a place where we weren' would at students experience in any discomfort at all.

so in order to inform our discussion i wanted to bring up three instances of some campus controversy i know you're all aware of what i want to use them to focus our discussion a little bit today. the first as you all know about is thealse rape accusation at uva that happened in 2013. one of the reasons it's important focus on that is because the talked about highlight i think the role that the media has played in this controversy, something want to get to with our panelists. the second is a case of madras girl at columbia. and one of the reasons i wanted, i thought, what i found striking about the case is the faculty were actually giving her course credit for carrying around the mattress. and i thought this might be an interesting way that we get us talking about the support that faculty and administrators have offered to this new kind of wacky campus culture. and the final schools i want to

talk about his harvard which has been in the news a lot. many of you probably heard they are trying to get rid of single-sex male organizations on campus. but for those of you who didn't follow the back story, there was a survey that they did sexual assault onampus that was sort of prompted by loss of civil rights and want to talk about today the government's role in how we've gotten to this point. just say no the harvard university survey asked this question and i think it's important to understand the language that we are dealing with. they said since you've been a student at harvard, has a student or someone employed or otherwise associate with the university continue to ask you to go out, get dinner, have drinks, or have sex even though you said no? to say this is a slippery slope i think would be an insult to slippery slope.

but i think it sort of gets at some of the evolution that has occurred in the late which that we're using on campuses today. with that little bit of history i wanted to introduce very briefly our panelists since i know you have some information about them. caroline kitchens recently joined our street from the american enterprise institute. she cohosted the very amazing factual feminist blog and she was th the editor of apis fleamarket feminist. ashe schow is a commentary writer for the "washington examiner" she's worked as an editor and writer for the heritage foundation here and patrice lee who is just back from her honeymoon, she is a ifw senior fellow at a popular ifw blogger and choose even sending a blog post while she was away on her honeymoon so we know she has her priorities in the right place.

so without ideas i will start with caroline. the first questions i wanted to ask you is how big of a problem are we talking about? i mention of ivy league universities. how widespread it is the problem of free speech on campus quite specific with regard to questions about sex and gender and women? >> can everyone hear me? am i on? there we go, okay. i think it's a very big problem. i think we need to differentiate between it may seem like there's, it's just a small fringe group of activists, it does represent the views of everyone, which is true. but i think the problem is the fringe activists are being heard and have political weapons in the form of title ix and expansive ways of title ix is used to wielded authority, and they are frankly great and if i'm on campus and that is extremely hostile to the free exchange of ideas, to portray the very purpose of our universities.

is also frankly infantilizing for women. essentially i think the new safe space crusaders on campus treat women and people of all marginalized groups as fragile little birds which can't cope with the realities of what it statistics on sexual assault, wawas in songs that might offend them, as it is a speaker might think and. it's a return to the past where people act as the women don't have the agency to handle these things and can't use logic and reason to overcome speakers and ideas that they disagree with. >> i think it's interesting when we consider those two kinds of campuses are directed basic to provide entertainment. you have jerry seinfeld, chris rock talking about how they do want to before i campuses anymore because it's such, their comedy routines which are very generally funny are considered ridiculous and students don't want to hear it.

you even have examples or other comedians to look at college campuses as great place to build the network and get their feet wet and even gain new audiences, they find there are students who come an to check them out and sy you were hilarious we can never bring it to the campus because you would offend too many people. what's interesting is moving beyond just the quote-unquote rape culture or rape on campus but also when we look at racial issues, a lot of the undertones and what's driving this move to limit speech has a lot to do if people feel like they have been victimized. i'm not going to minimize past victimization or past hurts from different groups that have been marginalized young people on campus don't need, should not be held back by what's happened in the past. unfortunately, they are crybabies in the been turned into victims and it's not going to prepare them for when they leave and go to the real world. it's not going to trade anything other than just a victim mentality. nobody is going to call you when

you leave campus. >> ashe, do you want to tell us the biggest problem is in your experience? >> i want to add to the role of the media. not only do these campus cried as "the wall street journal" called them have the attention of administrators. the media is taking too big these things that. any accusation of racism confidence of being a hoax. the media writes articles and articles about the oppression of this marginalized group, or how horrible this event was, just the other day wasn't a campus issue but see how it reacted with the whole foods take folks, right? everybody does look at the hoax and they're writing about that and it was discovered it was a hoax. far fewer, you know, articles get written about that. may be a better example because we did have a federalist on that was the suny albany women who claimed that they were attacked

on a bus for being black by 20 or so white people, then the surveillance video and the 911 tape them out and it was proven that no, actually through the first punches. there's no evidence of racial accusations. but should hillary clinton coming out on twitter saying no schools should accept this. know what should be subject to do this never get it tweaked out about a nobody should be perpetrating hoaxes. you never hear that from anybody in the media or presidential candidate that wants to get a name of a faultless. think the role the media has been really important all of this, and, obviously, learned nothing from rolling stone. even now you just see rape accusations just without any attempts to contact the accused or even mitigate some of what might happen, even if the details don't add up and they don't make sense. and the want to talk about just briefly the students themselves. the other panelists have talked

about how the students, they are crybabies and everything. the problem is they think they are right. not only do they think they're right, they think they are a part of some larger movement, and that's kind of what the want to be a part of. so you had come now you students can go to an article in "the new yorker" recently that focus on overland and job in overland student and i quote also we are the generation that is more identities to encompass in our movement. no shades of civil rights but it was a little misogynistic. and that women in the back, a lot of other identities, trans folks and all that were not really included. and we are the generation that is try to incorporate everybody. so you have students on campus that are saying the civil rights movement was just okay but we are better. that's kind of the mentality we're dealing with at this point. >> i think that brings up an interesting point. i guess i want to find out a

little bit more, what's new? people have been around college campuses for a while will say 19-year-olds have always had a tendency to think that they are the beginning and the end of the world, and that they were always think that they are the cutting edge generation. so i guess i am prompted both by your comments on the media and by your comments on the students can ask all three beauty think about what is new, how do we come to this safe space point in particular? i remember even christina hoff sommers was your last year she talked about how she's been giving the same kind of speeches on campus for 25, 30 years now but it's only recently in the last couple of years she started to experience this safe space phenomenon. so what's new? >> it has to do a lot with come ons are, i am a berliner. i together on the panel is that the stereotypes of the millennial generation of wanted to be caught up, this

participation trophy were anytime anything is adversity you simply have to fix it and you need to have mom and dad to do. now you want to college administrators do that. when they get in the workplace they would be trying to get employers to do this but i think it also has to do with, i want to lay some of the plant on politicians. barack obama to his credit when he ran he was not running, i'm going to be the first african-american president so vote for me because of that. his surrogates did that. a lot of this come is supposed to be this new age of no more racial take and everything, but a cry for it just allowed and let her and no have hillary clinton who rather than letting her surrogates run this campaign she's directly running this campaign, i'm a woman, vote for me. so now she's highlighting every oppression myth out there, gender wage gap, sexual assault,

sexual harassment, just anything she can lift in order to make women feel like they are oppressed and hillary clinton will be the woman who helps them. >> i want to pick up on the point you ended on, talking about inclusion. inclusion is not a unique new topic, not indicative of something that has gotten legs over the past two decades of special on college campuses and with the generation that is the most diverse generation. the idea that i don't want anyone to be out whether the woman or a person of a different ethnicity as my self, there's nothing wrong with it. we have cultural appreciation, cultural exchange. he wen went to college to expres something you have never experienced before. going to school with people you've never gone to school with. that changed to cultural appropriation is the case for if i appreciate your culture a little too much now you have offended me. i just got married as a smidgen and my husband is nigeria. i'm from the caribbean but more a traditional nigerian carpet during the recession.

i just offended someone by sorry, did you guys do anything i said? okay. that can be considered a cultural appropriation. there's something that changed in our psyche among young people that approaching summer too much is taken something away from them to the point where now you can't do something you can appreciate and a bit of a different culture because now they feel like they've been offended and you don't want to offend. then, of course, social media plays a huge role in this. videos, viral videos which can both be redemptive for the people who have been, cannot vindicate those who have been accused of doing wrongdoing but also it emboldens people to try to go after other states and you did this wrong, you did this wrong and to try to solicit lots of other sympathizers online to join on board with you. >> i would also add, i think one of the major shifts icing just in the past few years is this

idea that activity and victimhood somehow confers superior knowledge and the people must automatically now down to listen to people just because of their status and that's kind of the whole theory behind this trend with intersectoral feminism but it's the idea that thing from a marginalized group means that you possess a deeper knowledge of things and that people must automatically defer to your opinion. that's not say these people should not be hurt. i believe everyone should be heard but in the pursuit of truth it requires using reason and using logic and not just defer to people because of an identity. so when i was in college just a few days ago i remember learning that race is a social construction. we were trying to work past identity groups, identity politics. to an extent we're going out of style. you hear people claiming to be parts of all these identity groups. if you look at the article that ashe mentioned that overlook all these people all of these labels to categorize themselves.

i made latina i don't know, all of these different words to label marginalized groups. i think that's the issue with intersectoral feminism is that it is just victomology spiraling out of control. is not if you belong to one marginalized group. people are always seeking what's the next layer of marginalization. i did anyone wins with that sort of logic that i think that it defies people rather than unites them and they don't think that is a force for social progress at all. >> we've we are looking at, as you said, it seems like i guess the foxes are, i won't go there, but i guess one thing that i'm curious about in your experience on campuses recently is how you see the reaction of the faculty and the administrator. i mean some people have said, you know, they are sort of caving in a way that it took years for administrators and faculty in the '60s did you.

and are they getting a little worried that this movement on behalf of the students is getting out of control? that they have lost the ability to any moral high ground? i guess the bottom question is sort of where are the grownups and easy to go to reassert themselves at the point on campus? >> i will start with this. college professors are scared. a lot of liberal college professors are very scared and there are many brave ones that are spoken of in the media. a good example of just one laura who is a professor at northwestern has pretty legitimate feminist credentials, wrote an article criticizing the way title ix has been completed. she faced a title ix investigation for criticizing title i. so the our brave professors are speaking up but man, can imagine being an unintended professor at a school like overly bright bit of these professors are saying

i'm always terrified that if i say 11 thing in class they are will be people coming to my door demanding my firing. so i think some universities are taking a stand. for the most part universities have always been kind of cowardly in this regard. they face a lot of political pressures i don't think they're doing everything they can. but the are a lot of professors that are terrified of this phenomenon on both sides. >> you're seeing a lot of professors that are leading this for whatever their own goals or pick something juicy the demands of the students picked up an office the mantle is coming out last fall and so many of the demands involved, hiring more gender studies or african-american studies professors. i wonder who gave him the idea for that? or more money for the specific departments. so i think that in a lot of ways that a lot of professors that of the '60s generation, the protest generation who just want, i don't know, maybe want to relive it again.

you've also seen the administrators, they are terrified, again i go back to the media but they are terrified of their school being portrayed negatively in the media if they don't cower to these demands. didn't want to look like a racist school. they are going to kowtow to any of these demands. so you see them is inviting speakers. again, not be allowed to speak, you have been shapiro have issues with that as well and been shapiro is probably less bombastic as milo, so having him disinvited to speak or jason right leg was disinvited just recently. you are seeing the administrators listening to this pressure and wanting to stop the year i will speak for my own experience.

i was just at american university about two months ago, and we were trying to just film, not even talk to anybody but basically filmed a protest outside of a milo even. the campus media relations person was at first very nice to us and then suddenly started like stop the leak of you to come inside right now. i can't be guided to protect to be with you. we never heard that before. she was trying to lick basically take the camera away from a student and follow us around to be near our sound person to kind of mess up the sound of whatever she was doing. we do have these administrators that see what's going on, and i can't speak for her real motivations but it kind of felt like they didn't want the protest to be filled. you don't want to shine a light on what these people are actually saying. >> you have the administrators

sort of almost a separate class from the faculty and a lot of the administrators have been hired on the specifically to fill these roles, the first recorded, gender studies. people who are there and they're almost there to foment a permanent kind of protest on campus. in some ways it's sort of not surprising this is what's occurred. but patrice, i want is you might get a look into this question we've touched on a little bit in the taiwan question and what the government's role in particular has been in perpetrating these? the administrators may support these goals in principle or they may not but they are being threatened. >> absolutely. we consider why title ix was created an outfit over the years has been extended to the point where it's now entering there is a language on campus that issue that could've been a mixup with feel unsafe. we begin to see how the

government have little bundle allowed the freedoms of individuals and young people the road. now we have seen on a countermovement in states like north carolina considers legislation that would remove limits on free speech. a lot of states are saying enough is enough. if this legislative body could also affect public institutions, not private institutions but it's meant to be an example to say listen, you are receiving federal or state money. your institution should be a place for all of where diversity of thought should flourish, our thoughts should be present and where free speech highlighted by, upheld, created by the constitution, it should be protected under campus and should not, and our tax money, the money of taxpayers should not be used to limit the. we are starting to see some of that. >> i would actually go so far to argue that the current safe base coat of almost a correct result of obama administration

overreach and office of civil rights overreach when it issued new guidelines on title ix that are extremely expensive, if we allow title ix to be essentially weaponize as a political tool. so 2011 without going into too much detail, and 2011 the office of civil rights issued new title ix guidance essentially the main issue was on campus sexual assaults on schools must take an aggressive action to combat sexual assault. a lot of problems with due process rights and the rights of the two students but also created this language or anything that was perceived as a hostile environment december might be a victim, that that could be subject to federal investigation. so that was only a guidance issued by the office of civil rights. it wasn't through the court. it wasn't through legislation. it's finished an undemocratic way to essentially revive the entire way to do to get cycles on to handle offenses on campus

but i would go so far to say that without that 2011 dear colleague letter and without the obama administration new guidelines on title ix, i don't think the current safe space cultural activists would have such a tool for public that they have added don't think we would be sitting the current breed of man is that we have today. >> i will have on the title ix guidance. out of we did not go to congress but as much as the education secretary tries to claim that it is just guidance and that it doesn't carry with it the force of law, if schools don't adhere to these policies they face investigations that began to report in in the media, all over as violating title ix, you are harmful to women, look at you, awful school. and also carry with it the threat of loss funding if they did not immediately get into compliance. i got activists scream at me that it has never happened that a school is lost their funding.

like of course they're going to come into compliance because it is as nancy said, i just spoke to a former prosecutor, it is much easier for the school to expel a student accused without due process than to possibly find him not responsible for it is much better to throw out a man and to run the risk of being accused of not being sympathetic to a woman who is making a rape accusation. >> i wanted to go back to bit of the conversation earlier about the coddling of these young people. my first question is all but come you guys have been on campus more recently your wing activists say that they are scared or the need a safe space, that they're somehow being traumatized by the speakers, something that was said to them, are they for real? to the look to you, i'm just curious can do to look like they're generally scared or is this just a language you think

of adopted speakers i think it's just the language, they are not actually cowering, because they go out and the protest and holding their signs and then, what was the school, was it christian effective and safe space with the puppies in the crayons? >> georgetown had one. >> there was, a great this is a space where they could literally act like children would have coloring books and plato. so now when i give speeches i just bring the play dough just in case. so you have the students added don't think they are really sitting there like i can't get out of bed because like christina hoff sommers is talking and i disagree with there. most students, i just won't listen to her talk or some students would want to. this idea that words are now violent is permeating college campuses. if your something you don't like, that's the same as being

punched in the face. they are adopting this language because you do the same words over and over again, a space, trigger warning of micro-aggression and i feel unsafe it's always my feet expect it's not the expect it's not that actually advocate evenf anybody who's gone to secrecy because they want to secrecy, is going to get pilot. it's just that they want to get that attention, stop somebody from maybe spreading word that they disagree with and then they just kind of retreat back and they force themselves to be afraid. spent i think what bothers me a lot about the safe space movement is that it's under the guise, under the very noble guise of being sensitive victims. we all know the are victims of all sorts of discrimination. they need support. there are people struggling with poster back stress disorder at all sorts of things like that but they use that as a guide basically to assert power and control over others do i think the safe space, though safe

space culture isn't really about being sensitive victims. it's about being able to silence critics that disagree with you politically and essentially do a search for power and control. a city i think it's often a big charade of self-righteousness and i don't think it's helpful for victims. to give an example of what i mean, if you look at trigger warnings which one of the most common buzzwords, the idea that professors come on top of news articles or on top of speeches you need to issue trigger warnings to essentially announced the people that might become to what you're reading to give them a heads-up this could be dramatic for sexual assault or a bloodsome, you name it. but when you look at the research surrounding trigger warnings, and there's a harvard psychologist richard mcnally, who looked at research surrounding ptsd and he's included that if anything trigger warnings are harmful to

people struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder. because of people with this disorder, quite often the best treatment is systematic exposure to things that might trigger you, not avoidance. people at trigger words on the top of all of their material. essential just to signify look at how informed on them. look at how righteous they. i know how to talk about these issues so i did not think that does this have to victims and to think it's also rare in self-righteousness. >> what's interesting is, going back to initial question, this is a great on every single campus. when i visit on campuses that are community colleges or schools and universities that are focused more on specific industries or skills, those students tend to be experienced with a very different unique college experience. for them their top issue is not whether a word has agreed to do. it's how am i going to juggle work and school and make it to

my family. on some campuses i do that which can be liberal arts colleges, that's when you tend to see kids have a lot of free time, have a lot of challenges that are not traditional real-world challenges to find the time to find himself a victim. i would reduce something interesting. this was in the region diversity, trigger warning, these things were protesting and once as you are not listening, come speak to us. we are in big i'm supposed to be a functional and safe. at another university at claremont created a group of black the most to create an online safe base -- safe space and resources to do so, therefore, people of color, pro-black and anti-white supremacist. quote-unquote while you may what to invite a white friend or ally, to make this a safe and comfortable space for other people of color, we ask that you do not. sso there's this idea we are creating a unique space for just you and the person who looks exactly like you.

but isn't college those the place where your id and being, and mingling with competing kill people with positive cultures to learn more about yourself as well as other people five. [applause] but to go back to the point, this is not a great on every single college campus and i get to visit lots of college campuses and it's on those campuses where students have a lot less on the plate and really think and they want to be victims and if you think that gives him a leg up in the real world but employers will tell them no, it doesn't. >> thank you. we're going to open it up for questions. i just did whatever topic i topic i want to introduce and maybe you can think about at his you're asking the questions which is what does this space culture thing for the future of feminism? i'm not going to go to you guys know that if want to incorporate that into your answers that would be great but we'll start with taking questions from the audience. there's a microphone.

>> i'm a 2012 graduate of a women's college of the intercollegiate studies institute as a train wreck college. >> congratulations. >> but i'm going back in the fall to be the token conservative speaker. >> good luck. >> i was when it get any advice or suggestions? i'm already having nightmares last night. >> i honestly wouldn't worry too much being the token conservative speaker, unless you're at the level of christian hoff sommers or milo or ben shapiro. you don't really get protested like i don't get protested. like i was at an event and was a couple people make comments on facebook that i dislike how dare you invite this person with these ideas that we don't like. when i showed up to the event, there was not a single protest. so now that your first one, right? but maybe after a couple of them and your note, then it woul wone

a problem. if that's the case, then make sure that somebody is with you that assuming these people. that is, is filming what is happening. so we have this documentation. i don't know, this may sound like no, but that's what i would do personally is to make sure that there is filming because then that goes viral and it's always turning it back on them where they are supposed to be above this hate, about this violence but look how they treat people. >> i don't think you need to worry as much as you think. what's interesting is your people on the left who agree with us, the college should be placed where it is thought to be free but even president obama. i don't agree with them on very much but he recently during his commencement speech has said listening to accept, listen and not shout down or shut out the points that are different from your own. so when thinking, i accept

oppression on my side on this, and then be willing to make you a life jacket but depend on the cause quetta shura plan to, you know you of the truth on your site and know you're just exposing students in the two different things to ideas that you to bring with you. >> thanks for coming. you guys bring up some good points that i had to think about my question, but i really do appreciate the thought about going outside your bubble. as you can see i am a white woman with blond hair. we all see that. i ended up being an associate member for southwest of black student leadership conference. it was an action about this going to a meeting to go to the conference because i believe that you're supposed to try to go out of your bubble to understand the issues and not just talk about them or think you can sympathize that i will never fully understand the least it's an effort.

but perchance not a good sonic and now have to apply and that'i managed to get on the board. but the point is that was a really good experience for me because there were people who were not okay with it being on board but there were others that really were very happy to see that someone cared about going to this. you talk about freedom of speech. there is a difference between blatant hateful comments that i think we should know the difference but what happens is people say that's offensive as you brought up and it's really not. what i worship not necessary that you. it's my freedom of speech us what i'm not offending someone with the intent of offending, right? so my question is how do we encourage people, we are so global, so interconnected and yet we are in our bubbles and went to be, or we are a sensitive culture. you are going to offend someone somehow without even realizing it. so how do we encourage people to go out of the bubble to have

their beliefs in the face and be vocal about it but also do not fear going out into the world and being who they are? >> i'm not quite sure i know the answer to that, but i would underscore the that diversity is a really important thing. like we all learn. we all do better when we can learn from people all different perspectives. adversity isn't just a buzzword. it's important to the pursuit of truth and to the pursuit of knowledge. it's important that we don't lose sight of the fact that diversity is important. obviously not just cultural or racial diversity but also ideological diversity, which is something that truly lacking on college campuses. and to your comment about hate speech, i think if there's one kind of overarching lesson i hope we can learn from this is that hate speech isn't combated by silencing it. you have to defeat wrong ideas with the right ideas began to

use logic and have to use reason. it's never the answer to just shut things that the if you believe that your ideas like what are you afraid of? why did he decided other people point the the way we progress as a society is by am on the right ideas to prevail over wrong headed ones. >> one of the roles for adults on campus is certainly the encouragement of rational debate, bringing together opposing points of view rather than silence that is going on. >> that's what i was going to say. administrators, educators have to bring this up, and also so do we. we have to be not afraid to stand up and say no. after the to protested everything kind of broke last fall the right couple newspapers that into the writing articles that he's you know what? we have been afraid to speak out on these issues and now we are not. so it takes students that stand

up and stop being afraid that these protesters are going to shout you down or that they're going to call you a racist or rape deny or or a sexist, any number of names because the only way as carolyn said, you have to defeat their ideas with but i guess it will have to be brave. >> one more question. i want to get cathy young in your was written about about this topic. anyway, she has -- >> first of all, great panel. i wanted to comment, as you he , on something that wasn't really touched on which is a transgender and sort of gender close politics on campus because that sort of a new thing that is acting a whole new dimension to counter feminism. where now there's this idea that gender is completely self defined. it's not just about the sort of

old-fashioned transgender person who undergoes actual gender reassignment or it can be someone who literally labels himself as mail on mondays, wednesdays and fridays, you know, female the rest of the week. a lot of colleges have actually have policies where professors are required to respect people's self defined identities, that they're required to address people can refer to them in the classroom, i mean, i think there's a process of open every class by having everyone in the class say what plan now and they are using today. ..

>> this might also be a future of feminism question. what does feminism mean when anyone can decide their woman or not a woman it's actually created a lot of tensions within feminism because there are some of us who are saying that basically these are women being literally erased from the discourse because now you have these, this new generation of intersectional feminists amending that when you talk about a portion, you should be able to say for women you have to say for all people. what it does to transgender men. >> i have a couple comments on that. one of them, it was always interesting to me to see the

rights within feminism over this issue so after caitlin jenner became bruce jenner you actually had some feminists come out and right know, is not a woman. he didn't grow up with the difficulties that i had that was specific to being a young girl. he didn't have to go through puberty and go through getting your first. like i did and all this discussion so i found that very interesting to see the struggle with this and i think on the broader question, this is all discussion that we are just now getting into so there's some who look at it as, this is a little ridiculous. your axes in their that didn't happen next before oral why before they didn't have a wife, or a disease. and everybody is like, i'm a pansexual polyamorous, they just have these strings of words and we might think of it as ridiculous but i also think it's also a discussion

that you know, america is just kind of having and maybe college is the best place to have it. some of these things i find ridiculous and childish but at the same time a lot of transgender issues, it's still a discussion america needs to have as in how many decades ago were most americans against gay marriage and now it's kind of wet but we are just now being introduced to this whole transgender idea and most americans haven't met someone who can't transgender, know much about it so we really need to have aconversation at this point . and i think that's really lacking and it's also difficult to find when you have humans that want to self identify as so many different things and expect everybody to not offend them by accidentally getting it wrong one day. oh my god, i said he when i should have said the. >> college is the one place that you just cautions. >> it could be quite with the

current state of discussion, unfortunately i think were going to have to do in there so i want to thank everybody for participating and make ground for the next panel. [applause] so now everybody can take a brief break and then if you will come back, i think you will really enjoy the next session, it's going to be a live radio broadcast that everybody gets to watch and it should be a lot of fun. >>.

>>. >>. >>. >>.

>> a reminder that if you missed any of this daylong summit with the independent women's forum you can watch it online in the c-span deal library anytime. go to c-span.org. now coming up tonight here on c-span to with congress out this week we are featuring booked td in primetime at the eastern. tonight it's books about the finding fathers time and citing historical books on george washington, john quincy adams and thomas jefferson. that's tonight starting at the eastern here on c-span two. >> i think today we in effect sort of catch up to the 20th century. we've been the invisible half of the congress the past seven years.

we've watched our house colleagues with interest, at least i have with interest. and the tv coverage of members of our colleagues in the house. today, as the u.s. senate comes out of the communications dark ages, we create another historic moment in the relationship between congress and technological advancements in communications for radio and television. 50 years ago, our executive branch began appearing on television. day marks the first time when our legislative branch in its entirety will appear on that that medium of communication through which most americans yet their information about what our government and our country does . televising the senate chamber proceedings also represents a wise and unwarranted policy. broadcast media coverage recognizes a basic right and need of the citizens of our nation to know the business

of their government tonight, c-span marks the 30th anniversary of our lives gavel to gavel coverage on c-span two. our special program features key moments from the senate floor from the past 30 years i would show to you the body of evidence from this question, do you trust william jefferson clinton? we had just witnessed something that has never before happened in all of senate history. a change of power during a session of congress. >> the american people still don't understand in this bill is, there's three areas in this bill that in the next five years will put the government in charge of everybody's health care. >> is an interview with senatemajority leader mitch mcconnell . >> i'm sure i've made number of mistakes in my political career but voting against having c-span televised the senate was one of them. >> hosted by donald ritchie and senate parliamentarian emeritus that dan shuman,

last 30 years of the u.s. senate on television beginning tonight on c-span and to see more of our 30 years of coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span two, go to c-span.org. tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some programs watch for. on saturday night at 10 eastern on afterwards, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell discusses his life in politics and his book, the long game: a memoir. he's interviewed by tennessee center mark alexander. >> all majorities are fleeting and depending upon what the american people decide this november, i could be in the minority leader next year and the majority leader position does present a real opportunity even in a body like the senate which is very difficult to make function. there are advantages to setting the agenda and what we call the right of first

recognition, to move the country in the election we would like it to go on sunday, in-depth lives with guest steve forbes, author and editor-in-chief of forbes magazine. he will join us to talk about his life and career and latest book, reviving america in which he argues for repealing obamacare, replacing the tax code and reforming the fed. other recent book titles include money, freedom manifesto, how capitalism will save us and power, ambition, glory. joining the conversation. we will take your calls and emails live from noon until 3 pm eastern. then sunday night at 11:15 p.m. eastern, dds minutes correspondent leslie stahl discusses the science behind grandparenting in her book becoming grandma, the joys and science of the new grandparenting. missed stall interviewed colleagues, friends, doctors

and scientists about the changes that occur in women as they transition to the role of grandparent area go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> and now, national conference looking at new voting reform across the country, automatic voter registration. for states including oregon, california and more recently vermont and west virginia have lot to automatically register citizen to vote when obtaining a driver's license. 28 states having considered the policy which can include millions of new voters nationwide. speakers include the secretary of state, the 2012 obama campaign national field director and an experienced political's science expert who studies the rates of registered citizens. >> good morning. we will try that again, good morning. all right. welcome. i am michael waldman, i'm the

president of the brennan center for justice at nyu school of law.we are thrilled to welcome you all here for this wonderful event . a gathering of activists, leaders, of scholars, of citizens from all over the country that marks, we think, a signal moment. a breakthrough in the long fight for american democracy and we are so grateful to all of you for being here. anybody who thinks by the way that you are smoke-free at the nyu commencement you're in the wrong place. you are allowed to look out the window. only a few times during the course of the day. it's going to be a rich and exciting and substance filled conversation for all of us. at a time in our country, a troubled time when so many people feel anger and disaffection.

at a time when so many of our fellow citizens are having their basic rights to vote challenged. at a time when vast members of people feel that government and public institutions simply cannot meet the challenges of the moment, we are here to discuss and celebrate and advance a breakthrough in how we run our elections and in how american democracy works. and this is, in so many ways, the core american story. it didn't start last year, it didn't start 50 years ago . we've been having these debates about how to make our democracy real for 240 years. the nation was founded in 1776 in the declaration of independence. committed to the idea that as he said, government is legitimate only if it rests

on the consent of the governed . and from the beginning, americans understood that the vote, the meaningful ability to vote, was at the heart of that consent of the governed. in the federalist papers, james madison asked who are to be the electors for our new government? he said, not the rich more than the poor. not the learned more thanthe ignorant . not the haughty heirs of famous names more than the humble sons of obscurity and upper business fortune. the electors he said are to be the great body of the people of the united states. that was the ideal from the very beginning. they didn't live up to itthen , we don't live up to it now it's been what we've driven towards and our best moments and it's been a struggle.

we stumbled, we move forward, we move backward. when voter registration systems were first put in place, all around the country at the beginning of the 20th century, they brought some significant improvements in how elections were run but they were also implemented in a manner that made it harder for poor people, for working people, non-english speakers to vote. we sought to expand that right, we sought to improve it but my 2001 , in the wake of the fiasco in florida, former president jimmy carter and gerald ford dishes you and they will then that the registration laws enforced through the united states are as they put it among the world's most demanding and are a big reason why voter turnout in the us is near the bottom of the developed world. challenging, chilling diagnosis. as many of you know, many of you have been part of this, there has been progress all over the country since then. moved to modernize our election systems so that

things such as online registration and a host of other ways that made real progress and the lessons learned from those incremental steps have created this opportunity for a big breakthrough, or a bold reform, or something that can actually transform the way we run elections, automatic registration. this is a time where we are seeing a breakthrough for this change and it's very, very exciting. as so many of you know, automatic registration, what is a question mark it represents a paradigm shift in how we register voters and how elections are run. the first time in a meaningful way, the government takes the responsibility to ensure that all eligible citizens are on the rolls if they want to be. for the first time, the right to vote for all americans is guaranteed in that way. every time a citizen who is eligible interacts with the

dmv or eventually, other government agencies, they will be automatically registered to vote unless they choose not to be. we move past the paper and error filled records that clog our system today to take full advantage and harness the digital revolution, to transfer the information and make these lists real and for the lifetime of the voter. it's a big deal. it's a big deal. a fully implemented nationwide. this would add 50 million people to the rolls. it would cost less. and it would curb the potential for fraud and abuse and error. it solves in a lot of ways the problems of left and right. it's a breakthrough and it's happening and all of you have so much to do with it and we are thankful to all of you for being a part of this area and its the wave of the future but it's not only in the future, it's actually

something that's happening as we speak. as so many of you know, over the last year and a half, or gone, california, west virginia, and vermont enacted automatic voter registration at the dmv. yesterday, in connecticut, election officials announced that they will be implement an automatic voter registration by 2018 at the dmv's. we know also and you are going to hear in greater detail with this policy works. the first test from oregon where voter registration rates are as many as three times higher under this system and under the previous system. it's hard to think of a s positive, is as hopeful, is as imminent and is as tested as this is. and that's why this

conference couldn't come at a better time. this is the first national conference on this topic bringing together people from all over the country and all backgrounds in this field. states. election officials, activists, scholars, experts in technology and immigration . in voter mobilization and citizenship. ordinary people who want to learn more and be part of this broad national movement. in the morning, we are going to focus especially on why this matters. and what the benefits are of this kind of change. we will be hearing later in the morning from the former attorney general of the united states, eric holder we will be having in the afternoon working session where we are going to be as we all day learning from each other. learning the lessons of how this reform has been acted, what works, what are the pitfalls to avoid.

how can we on this burgeoning movement? and i should say on behalf of was at the brennan center how proud we are to not only post you today but to be a part of this effort. the brennan center for those of you who don't know is a law and policy institute that works to reform and revitalize the systems of democracy and justice in america. we were started two decades ago by the family and clerks of the late great supreme court justice william brennan and are dedicated to his ideal that the constitution needs to be a document that works for every generation for the challenges of its time. we've been proud to be very much a part of this effort for the past decade, it was almost a decade ago when we first issued our reports and proposals for automatic registration and allowed these things to be available out in the outside area.

and i want to introduce several of my colleagues who not only work on this issue day in and day out but who made this conference possible. they are the names on emails if nothing else but i want to thank them and introduce you to them . wendy weiser, nita perez, jen clark, and so be sure, stand up and wave your arms around so folks knew who you are. [applause] way back there. there is a hashtag, i've been told to tell you. i will not try to explain to you what you're supposed to do with it but it is hashtag avr for for those of you tweeting or posting about this. there is wi-fi. i declined the opportunity to read to you the very lengthy password but they are awaiting pieces of paper around so it must be

important news. oh, they have a wi-fi password and anybody who wants access to it, it's back there and we willbe happy to share it . and we are easier to work with you to continue as we do providing expertise, to work with the incredible coalitions from states all across the country who have made this happen, with the officials were bringing this to light, with the funders, so many of whom are here to have been supportive of this effort so on behalf of the brennan center and our board we say thank you to all of you and we are thrilled to begin our conversation by hearing from one of the leaders in the country on this movement and in this breakthrough. the honorable alex padilla, the secretary of the state of california. secretary padilla is one of the rising and bright stars in our country, not just on this issue. he is a graduate of mit engineering, he left his job

writing software and use electronics to enter public service and it turns out you don't have to actually be a rocket scientist to understand automatic voter registration. it turns out it doesn't hurt . [laughter] age 26 he was elected to the los angeles to the council. by age 28, he was the president of the los angeles city council. he served in the state senate and now elected statewide as the secretary of the state of california. he was the architect of that states reform. drafted it, we were thrilled to get the chance to work with him, led the fight and persuaded the legislature, the public and the governor that this was the right thing to do and is now charged with implementing it. he is the chair of malaya, the national association of latino elected officials and on the board of overseers of mit and several other things.

we will be hearing more from him in years to come and we are thrilled to be hearing fromyou right now secretary padilla . [applause] >> good morning everybody. i've heard that introduction and thought to myself oh no, now comes the expectation. thanks to michael for the very kind introduction. and for all of you, for your commitment to the issue as your commitment to the work of this brennan center, it's a honor to be with all of you this morning. before i begin with my presentation, a couple of knowledge mints, just sort of colleagues in the effort. my colleague from west virginia natalie tennant, we will be hearing from her later today, it's always good to see you. amber mcreynolds who i visited in denver and i will talk about some election reforms, her talk is part of my remarks as well but most

importantly, please welcome, nice new york welcome welcome and give thanks to my wife who lets me do all this stuff, angela was here today. [applause] i stand for all of you and i still get goosebumps in audiences like this because i feel like so much of my life is really living the american dream, frankly. my parents are immigrants to the united states. they came to california and los angeles specifically in the late 60s from different parts of mexico, they actually met in los angeles and fell in love. decided to seek residency and start a family and someday maybe a disney movie about that but in the meantime, they raise three of us. they have an older sister the who is an education space, she got from principle to administrator.

the younger brother who works for the los angeles city council so you can see there's a public service theme that runs through our veins but my folks who are now recently retired after working for nearly 40 years, my father is a short order cook in dinerthroughout los angeles . mymother used to clean houses .for that same amount of time.hard work, humble work but like so many immigrants, they do it in pursuit of a better life and not even so much for them but so that the next generation the hassle better opportunity and hopefully a better life and so coming in one generation from our family being immigrants and cooks and housecleaners to now me standing before you as the secretary of state for the most popular state in the nation, what a story. the american dream is alive and well and i know that our family has been blessed in large part because of what this country makes possible.

that opportunity for education, that opportunity for being able to be whatever you want to be only possible because of the strength of our democracy that should never be taken for granted. so it's a tremendous privilege for me to work in this space at this time to try to not just depend this democracy but to advance this democracy and keep those doors of opportunity open for generations to come. you know, when i think about democracy we know that there's some very popular metrics, right? some points of measurement we refer to whether it's voter registration numbers and rates or voter turnout numbers and rates but i see a little more broadly than that. if we look at participation in our democracy is more of a pipeline or a flowchart we can point to things like

immigration and naturalization and of course voter registration and voting as actions by citizens in that democracy but i think on a day in, day out basis it should also include things like parents being involved in their children's school or citizens testifying at the city's planning or land-use or zoning hearings and all these things that keep our daily democracy alive and well in between the elections but elections are clearly critical and i take my message of participation to every audience that will have me, not just here at nyu but to high school throughout california, to community colleges throughout california, to every naturalization ceremony that will have me. by the way, if you've never observed or witnessed hundreds of thousands of people becoming united states citizens at one time, you should. it will move you like very

few other experiences will. but it's in those audiences and in places like the high school that i speak in california where i'm reminded that not everybody grows up with the lessons being instilled from one generation to the other about the importance of being a registered voter and the importance of voting in each and every election. and there's another as we all know by not everybody registers but not everybody votes. chief among them and not well enough understood among them is poverty. whether it, we can debate whether it's correlation or causation, the consistency between communities that don't register or vote as high as at high rates with communities that are on the lower sales of income. we can chalk it up to commutes and job schedules or having to have multiple jobs and why working in this day

and age doesn't align anymore with how we run elections in this day and age but wewill get to that in a minute . you know, because before we get to the voting part, there's voter registration piece. voter registration as a process. it has been put in place to clean up the voter rolls and ease administration but far too often in our nations history has served as a barrier to participation because the burden is on the citizen to sign up. the burden is on the citizen to register and to vote. and unfortunately, it has created a scenario where too many people are left out of the election process. in a year and a half, i've been secretary i traveled this state talking to as many groups as i can and there's an obligation to kind of like a ton of bricks.

as i was talking to one of the high schools in salinas california not too far from monterey, most of these events i get introduced by somebody, right natalie? the local mayor or school board member or the school principal will introduce us and for more often than not i hear their story of growing up in a household where their parents instilled in them the importance of being a registered voter and voting and they would talk about who's on the ballot and what's on the ballot at the dinner table and they went to every november or every other november to the polls oftheir parents , they were brought up with this tradition. and then i looked into the eyes of the kids in the audience . and i see a little bit of a disconnect. and i feel a disconnect because i was not brought up with those traditions. i was brought up with that experience. not because my parents didn't want to instill that in me or teach me that , but as you recall and mentioned a few

minutes ago, my parents were immigrants to the united states. they didn't vote because they work eligible to vote. it wasn't until years later that they became citizens and they never missed an election sense. but growing up, we didn't talk politics at the dinner table and we didn't go with them to the polls in november. so many young people today, so many young people today, not just in california but through the nation have that in common whether their parents are eligible with their parents just aren't as active and clearly we need to do more than rely on parents teach their kids about the voting so i know my experience is not uncommon. you know, in california, there's this magic number that i tried to rally the legislature around. it's 7 million. 7 million is the number of californians who are eligible to be voters but can't because you are simply not registered.

and aside from just being a big number, it's important to think about who they are. as you know, it's disproportionately working families like the one that i grew up in. disproportionately communities of color. disproportionately young people. and it you look at what happens in the communities where we live, arguably the most pressing public policy challenges we face from education and quality of our schools to income inequality to air quality to health and chronic disease challenges, there's that consistency again. there's that correlation again between communities with low registration rates and lower voting rate and the most acute challenges to our quality of life. and so i can't help but conclude this in here in me that the very communities that are registered and are participating are the very communities that need to speak louder in our democracy

but don't have that voice because they are not registered. so how can we empower them? how can we do a better job of including them in our democracy? it begins with voter registration. and voting. but you can't vote unless you are registered. we have a fundamental right to vote and as president johnson put it, without the right to vote, no other right really matters. because voting in our democracy that we advance policy in our nation. but voter registration as we all know currently exists as a burden on the citizen to opt in. to register. to sign up. and therein lies the barrier. through most of our history, voter registration has taken the form of not just filling out a card but has included things like literacy tests , poll taxes, how many jellybeans in the star, and we may not have that today but voter id, purging the

voter rolls, it takes on different forms. when we stop and think about our right to vote, what are other right can you think of that we are required to sign up for? freedom of speech? anybody fill out that form? the right to not be discriminated against? can i do that online? our right to gather here today, this peaceful assembly . no other rights do we have to practically sign up for so why for the right to vote? especially in the digital age where this information, this data to know who is eligible, who's not and to register people and administer elections is that much more easy. to paraphrase governor jerry brown from decades ago, he was speaking to the democratic convention and he sends us a video clip.

he says well, if government can use its computer things to find us and get us to pay our taxes, then surely we can use this computer thing to find people and register them to vote. and i couldn't agree more. you know, literally just weeks after i was sworn in as secretary of state, the bill was cleared by the board on legislature and landed on the desk of former secretary of state, now governor kate brown and she signed or gone to automatic registration bill into law. when i made the announcement that if it's good enough oregon, it's good enough for california, we ought to do it here too and so i spent a bold of my 2015 pushing this piece of legislation rated maybe 1461. and i think and credit to the brennan center for being a huge partner in the drafting of it and messaging of it and the rallying of support around it in front of the legislature and to the governor, it was a big part

of our success and i give oregon a lot of credit for being the pioneers on this and they estimate that over time, they will register literally hundreds of thousands of previously unregistered voters in the process. in california, we are going to register millions. that scale alone makes this a historic shift for our democracy. the opportunity to systematically give voice to millions of new voters is truly transformational. and perhaps more importantly by doing it in california, it's not just that we want to ourselves on the back that weekend any and every excuse for every other state in the nation to do it. california, the most populous state in the nation can do it, in california, the most diverse state in the nation can do it, if we can figure out the technology of how to do it with how many dmv

branches and online renewals and this and that, there's no reason it can't be done anywhere else. now, it's important to remember for those minutes that are out there say why should we be doing this anyway? it has been federal law, required federal law for more than 20 years that every state through their popular department of motor vehicle facilitates the ability for somebody to register tovote or update their voter registration . national voter registration act that most of us referred to as motor voter. more than 20 years we have this responsibility already. all we are talking about is doing better. doing better, given the technology that we have today and is dmv officials will tell you, an estimated 90 percent of the public, the 90 percent of eligible voters interact with the dmv at some point. most of us have applied for or renewed a drivers license or a state id and so i detest since new motor voter is a technology project that captures the information of

people who are otherwise eligible to vote and have two state agencies share this data, the department of motor vehicles and the secretary of state's office for purposes of voter registration, that's really what we are talking about. building on information that's already being shared, by the way. levels of government, federal state and local, share data for the advancement and improvement of public policy already, whether it's in help the healthcare arena, whether it's in public safety, or as governor jerry brown once said, for the collection of taxes. we already do it so why not do it for voter registration because we are capturing the same information over and over again. name, address, date of birth and a signature on file. and so if we are already doing this, it made perfect sense to use it for voter registration and like oregon did, but voter registration

on ted. if we know you're eligible, the default will be we are adding to the voter rolls but this is america. you have your freedom of speech and the right to not be a voter but let's make those who don't want to participate in our democracy have to do the work for the change and have been out of the system and that's what we created area the california law will go into full effect next summer, may 2017. by legislators, signed by the governor last year in the year of implementation and the regulation setting and the training employees and working out some kinks, or don's law that went into effect in january of this year is averaging 12,000 new registrations amonth . 12,000. whereas in the past when it was old motor voter, the opt in, not down they were averaging 4000 registrations a month with the dmv. a 300 percent increase. how's that for success?

in california, let's look at the numbers. 24, 24 million eligible californians, only 17 million registered, 7 million+ eligible but unregistered. if we capture 90 percent of them over time , with a little bit of opt out factored in, more than 6 million people added to the rolls in california and becoming a new voters. that is awesome. imagine the impact we are going to have. [applause] so i've been asked to share some insights of the experience of getting this through the legislature and maybe some of the uniqueness about california that would be of value as other states take this on. first, one of the fights that we had to get over is well, there's going to be voter fraud. right? we hear that far too often. are you going to make sure you are not registering systematically somebody who's

not eligible to be a voter? you heard in california, we passed this law again and you're gettingdrivers licenses to undocumented individuals . this is a conspiracy. no, no. yes, california does provide drivers licenses to undocumented but as dmv assures us and written into our bill, that's a very silent process and that information never gets shared with us for purposes of voter registration and by the way, even if another state doesn't provide drivers licenses for undocumented individuals, they do provide drivers licenses for people like my parents who for decades were legal,permanent residents . there are over 18, they're not citizens so you just build it into the protocol. it's a firewall that's been in place for the past 20 years and their motor voter remained in place under new motor boat. what about 16 and 17-year-old

may be citizens but have a drivers license. >> do the age filter so there's no barrier that we can't, no challenge we can't work around. we heard a concern him some immigrant rights groups on behalf of legal residents and even some undocumented that well, hopeful for that comprehensive immigration reform coming sooner rather than later, how do we make sure that if somebody is registered inadvertently that they are not punished later or the crimes that they didn't commit? government automatically registers them possibly, we're pretty sure were not going to do that but just in case we will language into the bill, thank you brennan for your guidance on this, that would put the fault on the government side, not on the individual side so that it doesn't create issues later. for them. we also wanted to make sure that we are working with the