about it is it's in gridlock. lebanon has not held a presidential election since 2008. the president who was elected in, his term expired in 2014 basically lebanon is being governed by the council of ministers of the cabinet were we have different ministries controlled by different sectarian groups which limits the possibilities for cooperation and coordination of policies. the lebanese government historically has been ill inclined to attend to the needs of its own citizenry, much less the needs of refugees and so that has not changed in this particular situation. this absentee state will not feel overly compelled to ease the burden on poor refugees. so you end up with syrians in lebanon, again, the lebanese government does not allow the establishment of any formal camps for people are crammed into rented houses, into an informal settlements. many of them engage in various

forms of agricultural labor. this entity situation in lebanon is quite tenuous. there is a serious challenge from isis in the northern part of the country. there are concerns about the infiltration of radicals of various sorts into some of the palestinian refugee camps. in the context a promise by saudi arabia to provide $4 billion to assist lebanon in for the reinforcing its military, that deal was an old saddle, a couple of months ago. it had to do with lebanon's reaction to the storming of the saudi embassy in tehran where, in the, the saudis to the lebanese were not sufficiently supportive of them. this is all, it's all part of this larger regional complex in the world which has allowed a domestic political party in

lebanon and an ally of iran, and, therefore, a nemesis of saudi arabia. the saudis continue to be unhappy with the role hezbollah plays into this is all really about that. it's not really about what the lebanese had to say about the storming of an embassy .. many of them don't have the right to be in lebanon, so they end up putting increasing pressure on wages, downward

pressure on wages somewhere between 50% and 70% of refugee children are working. employers are eager to higher palestinians because they are more vulnerable and they have to pay them less. there are more refugees engaged in force labor in essence or survival or exploitation. how much time do i have left? another five minutes? very briefly because they too have faced cuts in assistance, rising poverty rates. you may know what the agency deals with refugees around the world, there's a separate agency that deals exclusively with palestinian refugees. united nations and the an area spirit they have separate funding and these cuts that have taken place recently has the acutely affected humanitarian conditions for palestinians. palestinians have since they

arrived in 1948 restrict their this type is that the economy to which they are allowed to legally work. they generally find themselves in lesser paid, poorly remembering the factors, which further increases poverty levels. the palestinian husband disproportionately affect to buy what is happened because the relations a number of palestinian factions have with the government and do not give in because of what has happened, the degree to which it is under siege, palestinian groups have found themselves increasingly under siege in lebanon are in effect they are protector to the extent you can think of any sort has been undermined. they can no longer look to syria as a major ally. let me turn finally to jordan in one minute, okay. i don't think i can quite talk

that fast, but i will try. statistics in the case of jordan vary depending whether you talk about the u.n. agency government. then a reportedly bear. there are clearly a significant impact, particularly on the northern governors in jordan, the majority of whom were not living in camps, but living in urban areas on this. border. when mckinney's defeat see the refugee crisis against a background of previous refugee influx is 1948, 1990, 91 in the golf in 2003 and the invasion of iraq. they are very different from the current crisis.

they are already greatly exceeding the number is other iraqis who came during the previous ways. the kingdom has tried to control the refugees particularly in the last couple of years so now from the highest several thousand refugees per day, the king amendment somewhere between 50 to 100. some days none at all. they are concerned about prioritizing security. if one does begin to what extent we can believe these things, contribute the third-largest number of recruits that have joined as this have come from jordan and so there is a concern about the degree to which jordanians are radicalized and what that can mean for domestic stability in the country. anyway, i will stop there. i'll be happy to pick other other issues. [applause]

>> while this is coming up, i want to ask a question, which is why is it that there are so many people showing up in europe and dangerous overcrowded boat and wraps? why did the pair in at the youngs. and boy who washed up on the beach in turkey, what is the risk of their children's lives making those kinds of decisions? it's a real serious question we started to discuss today. we learned in the first panel that only 1% of those who are designated refugees will be eligible for resettlement in a place like canada or the u.s. for the vast majority of the world's refugees, their only

hope for getting a sign on the to be able to get to a particular territory where they can ask for protection. there were 148 countries around world including the rich are both democratic countries@u.s. refugee convention or protocol that if someone the definition of a refugee regardless of whether or not they can illegally, they cannot be returned to their country of normal residents if they are going to be persecuted on specific grounds. at the same time those countries are doing as much as they can to make it extremely difficult or people in that situation to be able to reach a territory to ask for asylum. they are using non-kinds of techniques have remote control. some of those techniques include visa policy and sometimes these and sometimes visa policies deliberately target nationalities known to be prone to ask for asylum. sometimes governments pay off

governments of neighboring countries to do the dirty work of asylum control. most notoriously italy paid more market dossier to prevent people from transiting libya into europe and today in morocco, the only way for someone to ask for asylum in the european union enclave on the north african coast is to get to one of two particular dates and systematically the authorities will not let sub-saharan african get to those dates regardless of what their situation may be. together these policies constitute a classic catch-22 and the catch-22 closely this. if you set the statutory refugee definition, and the rich countries of the global market say we will let you stay if you come near, but we will not let

you come here. some of these policies have remote controller specifically targeting asylum makers and others are targeting another kind of migraines. people migrate for many reasons whether it's economics or family reunification, international terrorists. regardless of whether policies are targeting asylum seekers, they have disproportional effects on people who may have legitimate asylum claims. today i would like to extend our discussion of the european context and talk about what is happening right here in our backyard with united states, mexico and central america in cuba. my goals are to shed light on some hidden techniques have remote control and also to talk about the way they work. the way they very firm

nationalities in very thick buffering of other nationalities. turn your focus to what some people in mexico called the forgotten border. the mexican border with guatemala and belize and over the last 20 years or so, privately but now increasingly in public, u.s. authorities are calling this border between mexico and the southern neighbors the u.s. to start the southern border. it doesn't look like a buffer state order. if you go to cap order, you will see people openly crossing. the legal commerce, people who are evidently heading to the u.s. about 17% of the people across the border are heading to the u.s. and the mexican government makes no serious attempt to stop them at the border. this is a picture taken within eyesight of the international bridge with a formal crossing

point. there are train route north with many people, mostly from central america, a number of whom will be asking for asylum in the u.s., openly writing those rails. mexico doesn't have the kind of order while we see if we go to san diego. a vertical frontier if you will, where there is systematic control and transportation routes leading north to the u.s. the u.s. has been doing many things, not just beginning with the so-called crisis of unaccompanied children from central america, but back to the 1980s to make it difficult to cross the border and that includes visa policies to make it difficult for central americans to get into mexico in the first place. policies that encampment in southern mexico and less well-known policies to prevent

central americans from reaching the u.s. border. it keeps them in the south if you will. beginning the 1990s, the u.s. has been financing large-scale deportations from mexico and currently under the initiative since 2007, it is paid for a great deal of capability though they never southern border buildup. a lot of it has to do with the database construction, monitoring of biometrics in linking all of those databases to u.s. systems. and now even air passengers arriving in mexico without any destination in the u.s. peer behind the scenes there's a very tight level of cooperation between the mexican, canadian and u.s. authorities. what are the things the u.s. is trying to do from key people from reaching mexico is conduct

advertising campaigns and central america to broadcast the dangers faced in mexico because thousands of migrants have been killed in this transit through mexico including notorious cases of mass kidnappings and murder. i don't have time to get into it, but these are a couple of examples of advertisement that are financed by the department of homeland security but written as if they were produced by national governments, warning people of very serious dangers. the scale of deportations in mexico, primarily central americans is fast and underappreciated in something going on for a very long time, since the ramp up in deportations in 1989. mexico has deported more than 3 million mostly central americans from its country. you can understand the scale of

mexico's buffering if you compare the numbers that dmitry central america nationalities, the so-called northern triangle nationalities of guatemala, salvador in honduras by comparing the deportations from the u.s. and deportations from mexico. you will see in red deportations by mexico beginning in the name t. 90s, mexico has been deporting the vast bulk of central americans who are expelled from north of the guatemalan border beginning in the mid-2000, the u.s. has begun to catch up until 2015 under very strong u.s. diplomatic pressure, mexico is not doing the vast majority of the work of deportations of central americans. the mexican government estimates that between 1995 and 2010, it was intercepting and importing more than half of the central americans attempting to reach the u.s. with another 25% to 30% detained and deported by the

u.s. and 15% to 20% successfully been able to cross into the u.s. when it comes to central americans, almost all of those who are detained, are deported. which is very different from the way mexico treats other nationalities who are detained in mexico. very few are asking for asylum in mexico. mexico has an extremely robust asylum law. all kinds of human rights protections. the whole is framed within the language of human rights protection but in fact it's extremely difficult to know when it's eligible for asylum. the system i would argue is deliberately broken. contrast the situation of the thick buffering of central americans with what happens to cuba's. the distance between cuba and florida is the same as the distance between cuba and the yucatán peninsula and in the

early 2000 began using mexico as a bridge to the u.s. under the u.s. drive for policy, someone is intercepted at sea coming from cuba. if they can come to u.s. land, whether it's the beach in miami or whether it's the next go u.s. border, they are quickly paroled into the country under provisions of the 1965 human readjustment act and within a year they would get a green card in vehicle to stay permanently. the numbers of cubans at the u.s.-mexico border seeking admission in almost all of them are admitted has increased quite dramatically in recent years. more than 30,000 in 2015 and yet, this is barely discussed in the u.s. public sphere. this is not the object of political heat and smoke the way the situation of central american unaccompanied minors

ties. but mexico is doing very little to detain people who will definitely be asking for asylum in the u.s. so why is that? there is very little greece u.s. pressure to detain this population. for several reasons. one is the legacy of the cold war that gives cuban nationals they loaned. preference is in reaching the u.s. according to the website dry foot policy just described. second is the strength of the anti-castro lobby in the u.s. and third is the fact one does not create the optics of disorderly migration gymnasiums full of crying babies and so forth around the issue of cubans because they so quietly go into the u.s. even when mexico has detain large numbers of cubans, they very quickly let it out with an exit permit if you will

[speaking in spanish] , which gives the person 30 days to leave mexico and in 30 days the person will have taken the bus to laredo or brownsville. so in conclusion, we can see a very thick buffer in a americans come it didn't buffering of cubans. i don't have time to talk about it now. i'm glad to discuss in the q&a with it a much more sophisticated buffering policy has been developed around extra hemispheric migration from africa and asia in the middle east, often including large asylum seeking component. i will leave you with that answer to why is it so many people have taken incredible risks to reach the country that will offer them protection because for the vast majority there is no other choice but doing that the legally. thank you. [applause]

>> good afternoon. stefan biedermann. first let me thank you that we as a mediocre diplomat has been invited to be among those brilliant scientist about all the figures, numbers, brilliant distractions. i have none of that. what i have is i look every morning into the news and i find a new situation every morning. that is why i didn't bring a script because if i had it repaired yesterday, i wouldn't have known who one the elections and nostra. these are my opinions and not necessarily the opinions of my menace tree. there are certain overlapping factors. i have to point that i would like to talk about with you. the first is the this seminar is

under the big title of migration and not only refugees, i would like to make a few remarks on germany at the migration comp country. that sounds in many terms like a clear juxtaposition. germany has never seen itself as a country of immigration. it is very strange because we have had immigration all the time. another immigration in a regulated way, but also waves of refugees we have had them before. nothing really new after the second world war when the eastern part were occupied by the russians, it was tens of millions of germans who flooded into the other part of germany occupied bt americans, british and french had found a new home there. they were refugees.

i remember as a kid in the house where we lived, there were two refugee families in the early 60s that lived in that house. still. we have seen in the 60s when the germans were there, that we were actively looking for people coming to germany. not for immigrants who are the key for guys who went down to the southern european countries from portugal to turkey and were actually looking are young, strong male to help our economy. and they came. maybe some of you know that we didn't call them immigrants. we called them guest workers. if you think a second about that, it was quite a clear program to send you comments

gas, you work in a newer home again. if you had to ask at that time most of the turkish or italians who came would have said the same thing. i go to germany, which i don't like because this too cold and the food is not good. i work here. and make a lot of money. i go back to istanbul and buy myself a house and open a shop. that is what most of them would have said. as it goes, the money is good, stay another year. you marry, have kids, go to school and all of a sudden you reach a point where your kids speak better german than turkish. your kids would say if you go back to turkey, i won't join you. i feel much more at home here. we have had immigration with all those faces of immigration, but we did not admit it. we did not have a lot regulated not. in our public life, it was not a topic to be honest.

that has changed recently. it changed already in the 90s when we had refugees in the balkans coming in. already many, not so many as we have now. there were strong groups in society who asked for having sent them like an immigration law are better regulation of immigration and giving them, those who came better rights to become germans to integrate, to stay. this is on its way now. we still do not have an immigration law as such. we do not have a good procedure. so for most people who can't, we'll make sure that legally opens the way into germany is asking for asylum. which leads to a model as we call it. because many who can't out of

other reason, the legitimate reason supporters, but who cannot admit those reasons would ask for asylum. that is the big problem that we have to solve, which is now really a hot topic in the political world and society world in germany since we have seen last year's end plugs of immigrants. you have heard the numbers. one point a million came into germany. if you did your math, that would mean 4.5 million because you have four times more population than we have. and when you're coming in, this is a country that has the infrastructure for immigration that is used to that. we don't have that yet, so the 1.1 million is quite a big group to deal with.

but i watch from here was exciting. i think it is the greatest challenge that germany has faced after reunification. so when those 25 years since then. if you talk to germans, if i talk to my own family now, there is fierce discussions everywhere and the dividing lines go straight through the lunch tables of families. people are very excited about it. people are very strong contra or perl. it is a topic that brings out some of the best and worst of my country. let's start with the word spirit you have heard we've seen aggression, attacks, our sin against refugees, against immigrants. the newest figures came in this

year about the first quarter of 2016 and we have a strong -- the figures went up about right wing attacks on immigrants in the first three months of 2016 nr authorities would do anything to fight against that. i can't say we are still up to keeping that under control. the other consequence is that we see the emergence of strong right-wing populist party, which team he didn't come as a surprise because i did a little political science at university and dearmond political parties, et cetera. i expected it earlier to have been. if you look on the politics as the federal chance there in the last 10 years, she'd be the head of the conservative party of germany, the christian

democratic union blue turf fields of activity more and more to the left you can die, abandoning the draft and military service, marriage, the exit out of nuclear power. all of these were clear aims of the left wing and green parties in the 70s and 80s. that is why you see, by the way, better social democratic party, the big left-wing party has lost its influence terribly. it is now 19% of public support and they used to have 40 plus. so by moving to the left, she opened up on the right a void i would say. we have had in germany since the second world war a kind of taboo of right wing party. whenever one party emerge somewhere in a federal state,

the npd and some more of them, very early if their diction was a bit too radical, they were branded as neo-nazis. so they might even appear in parliament in the states, but normally they would simply make the next elections disappear. they didn't have it as he sat during even though our neighboring countries have those strong wavering -- right-wing populist parties. the point is that where we have one. they emerged recently in three state elections, very strongly and i am quite sure they will not be gone so fast. we will have to deal with that. for the first time comments and opinions that are party should move to the right and i am not

sure where it would go for that. my second big topic that i would like to comment on a little bit is the european union. last autumn this big influx of refugees came into germany. we've heard the details in the presentations before. to me it was very clear this cannot be german. this must be a problem with the european union. i personally was very shocked to see that the european union that i consider to be aided in the valleys obviously at that point when dealing with refugees did not show any more common values anymore. they almost broke up on that

line. you see if you go through the point of view of the different governments of the european union today, and the psalmist impossible to find common sense at least or thank you so much, if you go through the history of the european union, whenever there was a big challenge, they hammered out a compromise. sometimes it was a compromise that made everybody unhappy, but still it was a compromise. the european union has also developed enough a hammer in a compromise even though it was not compromised. in the topic here, we are still quite far away of compromise and that really for me is the biggest challenge now. even bigger than the refugee crisis is felt that the european union might not be able to cope with that and might break up, which would be a catastrophe for

europe, a war-torn continent. for the first time with the european union has found to a very long period of peace. for me, a compromise in the framework of the european union would have at least four elements -- core elements. the first team we would need a common immigration. it is impossible every country has its own ideas about that and whoever arrives at the european shores they just choose window shopping which country offers most and then go there. point number two, even though it is not popular, we will have to construct a robust border protection couple be part of the package. ..

>> shouldn't be a problem, we've heard that before. we will have to have a balanced distribution of refugees. those are my thoughts that i wanted to share with you. my time is almost consumed, and if you have questions, i'll be very happy to answer them. [applause]

>> so stephane ended two minutes earlier, so that gives us additional time for questions. again, if anyone is wanting to can a question, please come up to the mic on the right. again, please ask a short question, to the point. [background sounds] >> lady and gentlemen, i have a question. i actually have a request. why would -- [inaudible] or portugal or recovering spain, broken france have to pay for things that they didn't cause?

i live in europe concern. [inaudible] in poland specifically. and the poles say, listen, it's not our problem. we didn't benefit by it. why do you want us to pay for it? if saudi arabia, if iran, iraq, the united states, turkey created this incredible disaster, let them step forward and pay for it. >> [inaudible] let's hear from the panel. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] [laughter]

>> [inaudible] i guess i would go back to some of the points that were made this morning. i'm not here as an expert on -- >> [inaudible] >> okay. i'm not -- is this on? yeah. i guess i would just go back to some of the points that were made in the first presentation which are related to the question of a common humanity and the degree to which there is a sense that we have responsibilities toward each other whether something has been created by our own, you know, our own governments or not. i don't think that -- i personally wouldn't want to compare the u.s. reaction if i have to put myself many that, american citizen, i have to speak from that perspective, with the reaction of saudi arabia. i mean, i think one wants or

with qatar or any of these other countries that have played major role in fostering the disaster that syria's become and refuse to take any serious responsibility for the humanitarian crisis. so i think that, i mean, this isn't -- i mean, take off my international relations hat and put on my hat as someone who cares about a sense of belonging to, you know, a human race and a sense of responsibility toward other human beings and that that would hopefully be a motivating force. but, i mean, that's -- i don't really feel like this question is directed to me. [laughter] i'm just trying to -- >> someone else? someone else? no? >> yes. i mean, as a diplomat -- [inaudible] although i would not comment on other countries, but it's very clear there are international obligations that the polish government has subscribed to. they are a member of the united

nations, and the very -- [inaudible] of the united nations of international law, how you have to behave when refugees knock at your door can. i mean, the government is part of -- [inaudible] it has subscribed to that treatment of refugees worldwide, and you cannot say at the moment somebody knocks i didn't do it, i'm very sorry to tell you, but those are international obligations. >> [inaudible] >> one question per questioner. let's move -- >> i have another question specifically for you. >> one question per questioner. perhaps there'll be another chance. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> a question for professor brand about syria. if the refugees are relocated in other countries, what effect would this eventually on syria, on syrian society? i mean, having lost so many people? invariably, a selected group of

people, those who are able to leave the country. i mean, how will this change the future prospects for syria once the country's regaining peace? >> yeah, it's an extremely important question. it's difficult at this point to say because, you know, the outflow has not stopped. so we don't know at what point if you can call it a baseline once syria would be looking toward rebuilding. we don't know how many more people will leave, we don't know how much more destruction is going to take place, how many more people are going to be killed. longer -- we do know the longer people tend to be abroad, the farther away they are, the less likely they are to return. i'm sure there are many studies that must be in the process of being conducted now that will help us understand better exactly not just sort of regionally how these, the refugee flows occurred, because that, i think, is fairly easy to see. but to get a better handle on

the socioeconomic class of people who have left and how that's changed over time and how that also then interacts with people's employment, so to what extent are we really talking about, and which which parts of this crisis, are these primarily agriculturalists that have left and people who leave the country entirely, are they among the 5-6 million people we have who are internally displaced? how many people are still going to be in syria at the end but not where they started, and what are the possibilities for their going back to their original homes. so, i mean, it's a moving target at this point, and so it's -- i think it's very, very difficult to imagine what things will look like if this ends in two years, it'll be one set of parameters we're looking at. if it's another five years or ten years, then it's something very, very different. one of things that was also mentioned this morning which is extremely important is the

degree to which syrian children are or aren't being educated. if the future is in the children and many of them as a result of being unable because of economic circumstances to continue their educations, and you're looking at, you know, an entire generation of children who are either illiterate or who are, i mean, if they have the good fortune of actually being able to integrate9 into a surrounding society, or be accepted into europe and they actually get an education in a different language, what does that mean to the possibilities of contributing back home afterwards. so these are huge questions. they're some of the kinds of things i think about. what do these major population movements -- syria's the most dramatic one, right? but we've also had dramatic ones in iraq, and those are not necessarily ending because iraq is not yet, you know, healed by a long shot.

outpouring from libya, what's happening in yemen, you know, the destruction and devastation there, humanitarian disaster there as well. so what is this going to mean for these -- to call them failed states doesn't even begin to capture it. what does it mean for whatever structures remain going forward, what does it mean for the possibilities of rebuilding? i don't, i don't know. >> my name is -- [inaudible] in the program you are, you proposed for the management of the migrant crisis in europe. your point number two was border controls and how does that work in with the agreement where europeans travel freely? how practical would it be? >> [inaudible] the agreement was about

traveling freely in between those member states. but it never related to the outer borders of the she area. so that has nothing to do with each other. >> as a professional engaged in financial forensics, i'm interested in the economics of the corruption that's involved with this. in "the new york times" a couple of weeks ago, there was a description of the $6 billion that had been achieved by the transportation, if you will, of refugees. it was reiterated this morning. there has been no comment by any of the presenters about the endemic corruption that exists in all of these countries. and i'd be very interested in knowing your viewpoint as to what and how that may have affected this whole situation.

>> sure. well, i can speak to the problem of corruption in mexico where, again, there's always a gap between what the law says and how it works in practice. but in the mexican case, the gap is absolutely enormous. and every survey, every bit of anecdotal evidence no matter what your research method is has shown that there's very widespread corruption, that the police more than any other group or as much as my other group present a real threat of danger to migrants and that includes many asylum seekers who are passing through mexico. just one data that point, a few years ago the central authorities conducted polygraph tests on migration border agents along the southern border, and more than half of them were unable to pass those polygraphs because the level of extortion and various other kinds of

shakedowns is so extreme. so it's a very serious problem. >> just a couple of -- yeah, just a couple of things. i was, i remember when the outflow from turkey really became dramatic, and i was wondering, i mean, understood that no state is capable of completely controlling its borders or its shoreline, but it just seemed to me that a state with a capacity that the turkish state has would be able to do a better job of stopping this outmovement if it, in fact, people who were, you know, in power had control over these things were actually interested in doing something like that. and, of course, the proof of that is the dramatic decline since this agreement reached with the e.u. but i, i raised this actually in a session a couple of weeks ago where we had some people on campus who had done some volunteer work, and i expressed my surprise that i hadn't really

seen any reporting about how the, i mean, beyond knowing what it costs for people who wanted to leave turkey to get to greece and understanding that, you know, these ships are often rickety and many people die along the way and so on. but what these young men reported to us was that -- of course, one would imagine the various mafias involved and each of them specializing in different aspects of the process from selling life jackets which apparently in many cases are stuffed with cardboard which leads them then to sink as opposed to having any serious floatation device in them to shore patrol ships that would spear some of these dinghy type ships and cause them to sink presumably and let others go by presumably because some had paid for their passage out and others had not done so. the degree to which there is

collusion not just among various sort of traffickers and so op, but also among state authorities in these various populations, i think, is important to highlight. so i would say that. the other thing with regard to corruption, and this isn't specifically about refugees, but if you look at the record of the united states in afghanistan, for example, and the so-called humanitarian assistance that's poured in in the billions of dollars, same thing in iraq and stuff that just, you know, no one can account for anymore, it's not just a country like syria, it's not just a country like lebanon or turkey or jordan that's got a problem with corruption. >> [inaudible] you mentioned about rise of this right thing especially in germany, but i can, you know, from my perspective i think

there is a, you know, big rise of -- right-wing parties and right-wing supporters all throughout the world like including even here in u.s. this is really interesting because with the globalism, we all thought that, you know, it will disappear especially in europe, the nation states will disappear, it and will be all us, you know, me and you. and politics is very important, especially in accepting refugees. what do you think about this rise of right-wing -- how will it happen in the future? how it will affect -- [inaudible] and this right-wing, how will it be seen from middle east? because it -- [inaudible] because the politics is all

about anti-christianism and anti-islam and that kind of, you know, issue. thank you. >> well, this morning very short we could have had the news that we have the first right-wing president -- [inaudible] so this is a very concrete phenomenon, or look to france, how strong -- [inaudible] has become recently, and we will see what will happen in the next elections. you cannot ignore it. and on the leftish part of public opinion in my country, i always find that people have obviously a problem that accepting that democracy brings things like that. in a democracy you have to respect if people vote for those parties. i can speak only for my country.

we have, of course, clear rules. we have our constitution and our red lines that you cannot cross, but within those red lines of the constitution people have, of course, the right to vote the party that they think represents their political beliefs. i might not share their beliefs, but if you call yourself a democracy, you have to deal with that. and it's a competition. i think the other parties, the established parties now have to prove that they're up to the challenges that they can offer something to the electorate and gain back some ground for themselves. i think we are, we have reached the point where they understood that, that they have to be much more in contact with their electorate and share a little more of their concerns and then maybe get back more of that ground. >> i'm not sure how much difference i think it means in a

case it makes more middle easterners. -- for middle easterners. the difference in the way the u.s. has conducted foreign policy under democratic and republican administrations, you know, in some cases maybe, you know, it's been more violent in one part of the region than in another depending on which administration we're talking about. but the record of the last several decades is not one that is, you know, is one that seems to illustrate the values that the united states proclaims to be bringing to the world. i mean, this idea of sort of promoting democracy and so on. i think we're living, the if you're living in a place like iraq which was under the most brutal sanctions regime in history for over a decade, repeated invasions, you know, drone warfare now. so the idea -- you know, right, i mean, if this is what one gets with, you know, a democratic administration, i'm not sure

that the rise of, you know, a donald trump phenomenon really for people in the middle east who have lived with these realities for decades is something, i'm not sure that that makes a whole lot of difference. i mean, people, on the one hand they might be shocked by some of the brutality or -- of rhetoric. but they've had to live with the brutality of policy, so i'm not sure that it makes much difference. >> thank you. my question is for mr. biedermann. i was struck by your remark about how the follow-on effects of the immigration and and refugee crises in europe might even be worse than the current, existing crisis because of the stresses and divisions it's creating. might you, please, i'm interested if you would not mind speculating on the worst case, how troubling, how bad could that get in terms of the divisions within the union. thank you.

politically and so on. thank you. >> of course i'm not a prophet, and i'm not -- [inaudible] [laughter] no, i'm an optimist. i think that the project of the european union is so big after having a europe in 1945 that was completely destroyed mentally and physically to create a political body that might be able to abandon war, i mean, i'm the first generation in europe forever that has never seen a war. and this is thank you to the european union. that is a project that is so big and so important and not only for us europeans, because if it goes well, it might offer a kind of organization to other parts of the world too where people still think that wars or fighting might go on forever. we managed, now, for 70 years to hammer out compromise and to solve our problems without bloodshed.

that is a big end of it. it's a utopia that we are trying to realize there. it, i can't imagine that we give it up just for one particular topic that should be solvable, as i said. it's, europe is big, europe is strong, economy is running not so -- i mean, it's a rich part of the world, let's not be so shy about that. we could absorb, of course, refugees, and we should do so. but i pray every morning that this project survives, because it's so important. it's not difficult for a diplomat to pray every morning. i know that. [laughter] >> so i wanted to get the panel's thoughts on the questions that the keynote be speaker asked, because i thought it was an important question. i'm going to phrase it differently, but i think it amounts to the same thing. even of you have -- each of you have implied solutions.

mr. biedermann, you're the one with the four points and perhaps have proposed an approach most concretely, but here's the question, at least the way i would phrase it. one could look at your diagnosis and solutions as ones that will work only if we hold to a relatively narrow expansion or no expansion of the 1951 refugee convention's definition of refugee. or one could look at your solutions as really underscoring that that regime really needs to be dissolved or completely rethought and really ask the question who is a refugee in the first place. i'm just curious what you think about that. are your solutions a challenge to the refugee/migrant distinction, or do they require that we maintain that distinction? >> i think the distinction sill

is a good thing even though in -- still is a good thing even though in reality it poses enormous problems, as we all see. but there is a difference between somebody who flees a country where his or her life is threatened compared to somebody who is looking for an economic better life. it's not the same thing. and we should keep the red line here, i think. but as you know, in reality it's so difficult to find black and white. you don't -- it's really difficult. but just consider if we, if we opened those doors and considered everybody who considers himself or herself a refugee as such, the numbers would go up, and i am not sure about political stability then in our countries. >> i think it's important not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. i think that the biggest problems with the u.n. refugee convention are not the provisions of the convention, but things that might be added on to it.

but i think that if the convention were to be opened up from scratch at this particular moment, that the result would be much worse for people in desperate conditions than what we have right now. personally, i would like to see many more legal mechanisms for people to apply for protection regardless of where they are. and speaking now as a citizen of the world rather than as an analyst, i would be willing to trade more punitive enforcement measures, detentions, things like that in return for a serious, wide legal mechanism. >> could you elaborate? >> that is, if someone from syria in turkey or in some part of syria that's not under the control of a persecuting group, that that person be able to apply for asylum in the u.s. or canada or ca a tar or wherever -- qatar or wherever and then travel directly to that place of refuge.

>> but what's being traded off against that? >> well, so for example, if the doors are left completely open, then that means when asylum seekers come to a place like europe and if they have their refugee status determination and at the end of that are found not to be, to fit refugee criteria, then what happens? well, typically people are not deported. and generally, i'm not in favor of mass deportations, but i would rather have a system that makes it possible for people to come to europe or another place of refuge, have a serious refugee status determination than the current system which has this very, very deliberately high-cost -- high cost in human lives because of impossible transit. >> this is a question for professor fitzgerald. so about the united states, leaving aside the political

difficulties of accepting refugees, just considering economic issues and cultural issues, how many refugees per year in the coming years do you think the u.s. could accept from the middle east? what's cost -- [inaudible] that you estimate? how do you think it could be financed? >> good question. you know, for most of the 2000s the u.s. has been accepting about a million legal permanent residents per year. and right now we're just taking manager like -- something like, what is it, 30-50,000 refugees. very, very small number. clearly, the united states has a massive capacity to take more refugees. if you fly from los angeles to new york, it's a big country. and there's a lot more room for refugees.

i think we need to be honest about the fact that up front there are costs. resettlement does incur costs in the first few months and maybe few years, and it depends on the human capital of the person who comes. but if those investments are made early on, then they will reap returns in the future. but i think we need to be serious about the fact that, yes, we need more congressional appropriations for resettlement. no -- >> [inaudible] to mention some figures? i would be interested in some estimate of the costs, be this makes sense to you. >> yeah, i don't have specific estimates to give you, but what i can say is this is something that would require congressional action because it's not something that the president can do to appropriate more money towards refugee resettlement. that would require congressional action and, clearly, there's no political will to do that now.

>> well, it has been said that the refugee crisis that has started in 2011 immediately after the arab spring is not quite a crisis anymore since it has become quite a constant phenomenon. medical practitioners in the receiving countries say that the real crisis is the fact that they cannot afford to provide enough, you know, enough care, especially mental care because these refugees are suffering from ptsds, from sexualization of torture x they see this as the real crisis. some of these clinics, and they are called ethno-clinics, have their locations, you know, or their names classified because some of these victims testified to clear human rights abuse. and my question is has there

been a movement towards documenting the stories of these victims who testify to these carers, to their caregivers to build an oral history, an oral archive of the human rights, you know, abuses? hike in bosnia, you know? because whatever happened in bosnia happens now in terms of torture with middle eastern refugees. and has there been -- at least in germany -- a movement towards collecting these witness testimonies so as to persecute, you know, perpetrators of human rights abuse? >> [inaudible] >> yeah, i don't think there's a lot of work being done documenting refugee stories, but whether specifically or whether there are particular groups that are interested or focusing on

human rights abuses, that i simply don't know.

[applause] thanks to all of you for attending this event. i'm not [inaudible conversations] >> your presentation was very interesting. i could have learned a lot about our country. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the author wrote "the teacher wars: a history of america's most embattled profession" recently spoke about how to improve education. she was a keynote speaker for a national worm on education hosted by the education commission of the state. this is about 25 minutes. >> thank you very much. [applause] i hope you had a great chance to enjoy some of the concurrent sessions that we just had appeared for a closing keynote, am really excited to introduce our next speaker. dana goldstein is a journalist and author of "the new york times" bestseller, "the teacher wars: a history of america's most embattled profession" she also does many different writings and has contributed to his late come of the new republic, the martial project come in the atlantic and many other publications.

dana is known to read about education, social science, inequalities, criminal justice, women issues from the cities and. she is here to present her research on the history of the teaching profession and how his policymakers there is an opportunity for all of us to help teachers improve their practice. please join me in welcoming dana to the stage. [applause] >> good morning. thank you, jeremy for that really kind introduction. i'm really happy to be with the dcs, an organization whose research i've relied on so much over the years, to another place i can go as a journalist in the what is happening status date in our complex 50 state system has been so help well. i'm grateful to receive this invitation and thank you to all of you who are sticking with me here right before the beautiful long weekend to talk about the

history of the teaching profession. so, i wanted to begin by going back in time to 2011 when i began writing my book, "the teacher wars" about the history of teaching. at that moment i thought as a longtime education journalists that there was some may not quite right with our debate over public school teaching in america. teaching has become definitely the most controversial profession discussed in our public life. in the media, and i am a member of the media, but veteran teachers were generally portrayed as undereducated, as incompetent and insufficiently committed to closing the achievement gap. now, research showed been and still today that there are really big and there is problems with the american public's old. such as a curriculum that is not up to snuff with their international peers, too many worksheets, rope learning and in

general, the persistent segregation of her low income children of color in separate classrooms and separate schools. these are giant moral and political shortcomings. and yet, back in 2011 when i began writing my book, i noticed that predominate policy was once to these issues is very narrow. job security protection in the 90s measures of student learning, which was most often used as the medicine for children standardized test scores to identify and fire bad teachers. now, have those policies been a smashing desk and helping teachers improve their practice and make teachers inspired and i would eat here to celebrate everything in the past. but unfortunately, except for some isolated cases but there really wasn't the sort of systemwide access from the narrow policies.

now, i am a journalist and i've traveled the country reported that schools with a lot of teachers and i heard from many experienced and celebrated educators, pillars in their communities, award winners who said they were alienated and demoralized by much of the teacher accountability rhetoric floating around and pulling back. between 2008 and 2012, metlife survey found that the percentage of teachers reported being very satisfied with their job plummeted from 62% to 39%, the lowest level in a quarter-century. i had a sound that this war over teaching was new, but while researching my book, i discovered that there was actually nothing new about it. since the early 19th century and the beginning of our school movement, american policymakers have per trade teachers into

unrealistic though often well-intentioned ways. the first unrealistic or trail of teachers is as angels for superhuman. to get a taste of that, i want to move back to the mid-19th century, the father of our common school movement, which was that state-by-state effort before the civil war is to establish for all american children a justice movement. in 1853, this is how horace mann describes the ideal teacher and i want it i want you to note he's describing female teachers here. as a teacher of school is how to is how divided my -- eucom, her feet sweeping the earth on which he tried and the flat steel divinity making its work of repentance through very and via the beauty of virtue.

to translate back, arun donkey tolman -- arne duncan told me an effective teacher walk on water. not a section on realistic portrayal of teachers that i write about in my book as embattled and sometimes blamed for large social problems which will certainly an element are much bigger than schools themselves. in 1800, before the common schools movement, 90% of american classroom teachers were meant. but when reformers like horace mann wanted to scale up our educational system, they decided to hire only women teachers. why? raising taxes back then was about as unpopular as raising taxes today. so women could be paid back then totally legally half as much as land and so this was a very cost

a way to score the american public. in order to raise support for this idea of bringing women into the classroom and this is a controversial idea because it was so considered very scandalous for a middle-class white women to get up in front of a group of children and talk to you like i am today, common school movement reformers resorted to vilifying and attacking male teachers as alcoholics punishment. and one famous 1846 speech, catherine beecher is the leading female proponent of the movement and harriet close quote in common tend coarse hard unfeeling, too lazy to be entrusted with children's education. sorry for the male teachers in the room.

this panic about male teachers combined with the sort of unwillingness to have the next end the education system really worked and by 1900, fast-forward in here, 90% of american teachers in northern cities like chicago or new york were female. 1900 was a difficult time for american public education. there were huge numbers of immigrants from eastern and southern europe flooding into our classrooms, which meant class sizes of up to 60 k. and there were not enough chairs so kids are sitting on the floor in chicago classrooms and there is such a huge need for teachers that this time that girls were graduating sixth or seventh grade in entering the classroom is teachers. they were hugely underprepared. there's a lot of places we might go with a system like that retires to sanders, smaller sizes, but actually it was

thought among intellectuals at the time that the real problem is now the women were teachers. in 1800 the problem with too many men. in 1902 many women. charles william eliot, president of harvard wrote that women teachers were physically weaker than 10, more apt to be worn out by the fatiguing work of teaching. unfortunately, panax in which policymakers called for large groups of teachers to be fired continued. we've heard about men and women. during world war i and the mccarthy era, tens of thousands of pacifists, socialist and communist teachers were driven from their jobs even if they never discussed their personal political beliefs with theirs even and in an often historical interlude, after brown the board of education, 40,000 people were fired so they would not compete with white educators and newly integrated schools.

a lot has changed for the good. at least today we talk about teachers, we're focused on impacts on their student, not on who the teacher is demographically for the most part. however, the panic about that teaching at a certain i began writing my book in 2011 had one major thing in common with the past panic. it was focused much more on getting rid of bad teachers then on figuring out what good teaching looked like and how to replicate it at scale. now you all are policymakers, so you know that scale is very important in education policies. in america we have 3.3 million teachers, 100,000 to 200,000 are hired each fall and 70 thousand alone are hired and are hiding it well in rules. when i was going around the country reporting on teaching, i often ask people who are experts how many ineffective teachers do

you think there are who cannot be brought up to the levels we need them to be for our kids. i heard the estimates ranging between 2% and 15% of teachers currently working are in effect. i sat down and did the math. 2% to 15% of american teachers is 66,000 to 490,000 people. i critique something arne duncan said earlier, so now i want to give them credit for something else he said, which is we can't fire our way to the top and that is absolutely correct because where will all the new better teachers come from and what systems have we put in place to assure that new teachers coming into the profession are going to do a better job? another reason we can't fire our way to success is because research shows that teacher longevity in the classroom matters. three researchers, matthew rumsfeld, suzanne about and james wyckoff conducted an eight-year study of 850,004th

and fifth graders. this is a very large study. they found in schools with high teacher turnover or many teachers were quitting their jobs each year, students lost significant amounts of learning in both reading and math compared to socioeconomically similar peers in schools with low teacher turnover. here is something really interest him. student that the high turnover schools lacked learning even if their own teacher was not new. i want to repeat that. even if their own teacher was not male and even if overall teacher quality at the school remains constant. so, the effective teacher turnover actually crosses classroom wall. while first counterintuitive when i thought about it more, i realize this is actually common sense because schools or communities. when administrators are caused

by recruiting, interviewing, hiring, they just have less time to focus on improving instruction and in many teachers resign each year, institutional memory is lost. there's weaker ties to the community. in short, turnover means that less adult expertise is spread more thinly among children. so if we want ray teachers to send the classroom over the long-term, we have to do something that we have never done before in american educational history. they must be at education reform with teachers in debt up to teachers. [applause] and i think for policymakers, that means the starting point for improving teaching must be replicating what can be observed by watching the bad teachers work. i want to give you a few examples from around the country of how that is happening. i visited the kindergarten last room of lenora furman in new

york, new jersey. i saw lenora singing with her students and getting them super excited about books with complex vocabulary word like hydra and eight and slither and watching her teach a group of low income kindergartners these awesome words looked like magic. it was not magic. it was part of a system. lenore was a mentor teacher within a program called the children's literacy initiative which had developed research to help early learners read and write. the children's literacy initiative establishes a model classroom in every school in which it works. that classroom has been opened door. novice teachers have time to mentor teacher use their literacy strategies and mentor teachers in turn have time to provide feedback. students in chicago schools with these classrooms are

outperforming peers in reading. i want to point out this mentorship among teachers takes place outside of formal or candidate evaluation system. these are relationships of collaboration and trust between colleagues. at kingsbury high school in memphis, one third of all teachers were under the presidency model which i know we have heard about today. and which training teachers and spend their first year and a master teacher's classroom. this allows them to see everything happening to us bush discipline and report from the first moment of the school year to the last. the full experience of standard in many asian and european nations while most american teachers have 12 weeks or less is good teaching experience. teachers who participate in american residency programs as recruits are mentors have longer career longevity and in many cities have produced impressive learning gains for children. two years ago when might look

was first published, it looked to me like examples that i met this teacher residency and children's literacy initiative were isolated acts tournament that outliers in education policy. i am happy to report today and you've heard at this conference that this is no longer the case. washington has invested over $150 million in teacher residency is peers days inn philanthropies airship in their parties to something it is not easier to do because of increased flexibility. i want to tell you about two states that are leading the way. through new legislation, iowa is fundamentally rethinking the teaching profession by requiring all districts to create roles for model teachers, the teachers and mentor teachers. the teachers receive bonuses between $2,010,000 per year and they have time to do this work. that's really important. some of the rules call for 75% of the time and some of the

roles are 50/50. we can create these roles that they are not funded and if they don't have this time in the day, it not going to work. louisiana has launched the believe and prepare initiative in 2014. pittsburgh in 1000 new teachers into the classroom at the year-long classroom residency already under their belt. in both of these states, policymakers have realized that the role of the mentor teacher is key. in selecting mentors to have to look not only for teachers great with kids, they teachers who have a demonstrated ability to work with adults and linking theory and practice. these programs are experimental. it is important as we increased expectations we don't allow future teachers to get out of the crucial subject matter courses in science and history or any other subject delicate than the cons the knowledge they need to excel. as i mentioned, we cannot do this on the cheap.

still, i am cautiously optimistic if you're a policymaker, i know you've heard a lot at this conference and i'll mention a few other resources. the council at cheap state school officers have published a report called ours on stability, our promise and explains key state-level policy levers for transforming the teaching profession. they also talk about international examples, what people do in other countries. in singapore, teachers have the opportunity to conduct original research and pedagogy and policy that adds to the body of knowledge for students and allows their own intellectual engagement in their career. finland decided tonight inc. this to be very controversial here, but it is worth mentioned on the flagship universities could operate programs and they simply shut down second and third tier programs. partially as a result, they

became highly selective in finland, which many of you know is open only to people who graduated in the top 10% to 12% of their high school class. another nation i like to mention is korea. a career salary range for a teacher is 55,000 to $155,000 per year. in korea a teacher earns more than an engineer and just a little bit less than a doctor. the organization public impact also has a website. opportunity culture.org with ideas on how to redesign the teaching profession to be more collaborative. they suggest paying teachers 100% more if they're able to extend their reach by collaborating with adults. with the right federal, state and philanthropic support, we can reimagine american teaching is a much more creative and collaborative profession, which in turn will become more prestigious, academically elite and culturally respect it.

it is to be a change from our historical pattern for teaching united state who shouldn't underestimate what it did, big shift this would be. we won't get to a highly respected and effect of teaching profession with canned or test prep driven lesson plans. we look at their creating a career ladder challenging because teachers are neither superhuman maravilla and. their professional looking to grow. [applause] history teaches us in the end will educational improvement will be built not upon our fears, but who will guide their colleagues to excellence. this is how we will and the teacher wars. i'm happy to take questions. thank you. [applause]

don't be shy. >> did not, what do you think would be the most important change the federal government could do with reese back to improving the profession as opposed to dave and how do you distinguish in the policy environment? >> i think through tools for dollars. race to the top is very effective in getting dates to change their laws. there's a lot of other policies you can imagine being pushed forward through a competition like that, whether it is on career pathways, extra funding for mentor teachers, something

near and dear to my own heart, which i read about in my book which is making our school system by segregated by race and class. these are all things that there is a lot of innovative thinking on at the local level and the federal government can help with funding. what we are seeing right now is secretary kane really widen the conversation in terms of the types of policies that washington is promoting. and of course at this moment there is actually less levers for federal control. it is really up to all of you at the state level to bring these ideas forward. at this moment in history. it doesn't mean four years from now, seven years from now there could be another big push on federal string pulling, but that's not the moment we are in right now. >> hike on the thank you for research and advocacy. and michigan teacher of the year. the extent to which you saw

their role in terms of treating collegial communities of this so that is part of a culture of job embedded continuous improvement in schools across the country. >> yeah, certainly. national boards of education is a model of the type of work in speaking about. the whole staff together was going through the national board press and that is something that has been transformative for a staff that have pursed her to. have a national board certification and other ways and other systems than locally driven steps together will help move us in the right direction. >> we heard today and something i agree with increasing the teaching profession, but at the

same time we had a conversation yesterday about the civil rights desire to make sure that the best teachers go to the most needy students in schools, almost like they are to be deployed. how do those two get reconciled? how do we keep educators with the economy other professionals have also trying to meet the needs of we've got to deploy them elsewhere. >> when educators are taking -- >> within this program you can see anytime. we are going live to a district of columbia bar in washington d.c. with reporters who covered the u.s. supreme court. they will talk about major decisions this past year and was surprised them. live coverage on c-span2. >> -- supreme court. a couple before we begin. thank you are hosting us this year.

marcia tucker is pro bono coordinator and technical staff. thank you to c-span for covering us again this year. i understand we will be broadcast live this year on c-span2. if you don't want your show on tv you can slink to the side of the room. the producer of this show coordinating many requirements of c-span. as i mentioned, our major sponsor and the administration of just just focuses on matters involving administration and rules of the relationship between the bed and the power and the lawyer's relationship to the missing standards. that also focuses on access to justice. if you are not a member, you are invited to join. it is only one of 20 sections of

the bar, which cover most areas of legal term antitrust to entertainment, criminal law, real estate tax. if you remember the d.c. fire, we encourage you to join one. if you're not yet a member, then we encourage you to think about. not a member of the american civil liberties union. we will be privileged to hear the panel of journalists who discovers the supreme court for many years. i want you to spend in order of seniority. tony mauro at my far right of the national order of lawyer media since 19,791st for the service in "usa today." he joins the washington after it emerged into the national journalism at 2009.

david savage who is next to tony has been that the los angeles time and covering the court in 1986. he started at the same time and in recent years chicago wrote tribune. he recently wrote a latest addition of the guide to the u.s. supreme court which is the congressional quarterly -- [inaudible] adam liptak on my immediate right took over "the new york times" but the long history when he first joined us a copy boy in 1984 after graduating from college and then returned with a law degree in 1992 join in their legal department after advising litigation involving defamation and privacy, the right to news data in similar issues. a decade later became a reporter

of legal issues. on my last, ariane de vogue, producer at cnn politics with legal issues and guiding cnn's reporting on other legal developments. before joining cnn, she covered the court has lost the nomination were several justices for abc news and its investigative reporter she also covered terrorism, the aftermath of 9/11, bill clinton's impeachment. her bio on the cnn website tells me she grew up in indiana and google maps tell me that the population -- [inaudible] this is not a panel of litigators although we will talk about some cases. mostly to talk about his tuition; action of individuals and journalists.

we plan to save some time at the end for questions from the audience. there's microphones that can be passed around. you can think about possible questions as we go along and hopefully there will be some time at the end. so let's get started here it's certainly the biggest development this year and the most dead was justice kalina midway into the 30th term on the corner. there were obvious ways in which the departure affected the results of several cases, but how did it affect the operation of the court and the atmosphere at the courthouse? let me pose that question first to tony who started covering before justice kolya arrived. >> it is good to be here. i do remember the days before justice scalia when oral

argument at the supreme court was a much tamer affair than it is now. when you have justices like brennan and marshall and blackmun and powell, a lot of them ask her a few questions. you could go a whole hour with a handful of questions, whereas now it is not uncommon to have 60 questions -- 80 questions in an hour or half an hour. it is incredible how different it is. scully has stirred the pot. as soon as he got on the, i don't think he waited for, you know, their rookie year of deferring to the other justices. he waited right in and i think just made oral arguments much more proactive or aggressive

event. it was to the point where i would often come out of an oral argument and think boy, the supreme court is going to roll this way on this case. i would look at my notes and realized it was basically just is scalia who was going that way. but he had such an overwhelming and fluent over the entire court for the entire event. it was just amazing. he would throw lifelines to lawyers that he was in favor of. he would demolish lawyers. he was antagonistic. i remember once he asked a question and the lawyers sort of paused a little bit too long and scalia said counselor, you have four choices. yes, no, i don't know or am not telling. which is it?

i was surprised that the lawyer didn't faint at that point. i would have. he was that kind of an active participate and he got everybody else active, too. >> i sure agree with all of that. i remember when scalia started. the first couple weeks before scalia started. tony said he seemed to be nine old men and the scalia cavemen and he he was full of energy. there so many times over the years the you could go up and they are arguing in ferc case or whatever. 10 minutes into it, everybody is about asleep. scalia would say something like you think you want us -- counselor, you want us to rewrite the rules for handling energy nationwide. the attorney said no. he would say it sure seems like that is what you are arguing. he would start in on an

attorney. everybody's eyes would light up because he would have a different view of the case. eventually the other justices would wake up and try to respond. he was a real force of nature. you could immediately see this spring how different things were when he was gone. the three women justices really went after the texas attorney. it was almost like wow i've never seen this side of the court before. the three women are working the sky over. in the old days, scully a -- scalia would've been there to fight back. it was a very different face of that in as well. >> i was going to say and not abortion argument, had scalia been on the bench, he may have been able to cut it back a little bit. palisade sustained attack. had he been on the bench, he would've stepped in and he would

have me be change things a little bit. i also had an interesting conversation with somebody who had argued before the court for years. they said go in and, suddenly they have to prepare a whole different way and that was very interesting for me because as a journalist i am not preparing for arguments. without scalia on the bench, we have to look at oral arguments in an entirely different way and present the case differently. he had that ability if you are either in to watch oral arguments, way back in the chair you knew it was coming and he would come forward and he could derail even the most experienced lawyers could feel that. >> iran might set every time a new justice joins the court, that is surely true. even listen to justice completely transforms the court.

i will just say that it is less fun to cover this court. you can agree with them, disagree with him. he said thoughts of political things from the bench. one of the very famous writers who provided on the board in later years. you probably remember the affirmative action argument against university of texas. what he was trying to say so badly that it's not of racism. here's a man whose career was tremendously influential, really fun to cover even before his sudden death. >> let me follow up on something you just said. i also think it was time to say in that comment from the bench and this issue case. how much if at all did she think the journalist to explain what he thought he was really trying

to say and i'll have a reaction to that, too. >> i do think it is quite the offer. if someone says something off hand that you know they didn't mean just that way and you know from the body of their work and briefs filed in the court he was referring to a particular brief on something called the mismatch theory. it is my job to give context and analysis. >> luscious give a little background for those in the audience who may not recall. >> just a scalia asked it was during that time when the lawyer defending the university of texas was arguing isn't it the case that sometimes it's not the best way for african-americans to be recruited by a school like the university of texas, where the standards are high and it

may be that there are other schools that are slower paced. i forget the exact words he used, where the african american students might do better. as adam said, he said it in a clumsy way that made it sound like african-americans are per se going to be behind everybody. everybody else in the class. people gasped when they heard them say it. >> i did have to read it about the next day. the editors said what is that about? i thought it's a pretty good question. i try to explain the mismatch theory. as tony just that, like a general proposition , and what he apparently meant was that if

you had an affirmative action plan that gave a real big boost bb they would be going off to another school where they were more in the middle of them. he said it in a way that he have a general problem in admitting these students. if you are in our possession, you have two say here is what he said in here is what he sort of man but he didn't quite say it that way. i wrote a sort of unsatisfactory article that tried to say all those things. >> let me ask a question to my colleagues that kennedy wanted no part of this thinking and that helps kennedy even after the death of the death abandoned his earlier thinking and come out the other way and right.

>> i thought that when you wrote it and i haven't out about it before. it is so interesting to make that connection >> it was a connection to make when you think about arguments how much that would have moved an impact. i knew a schoolteacher who had brought students i didn't actually hear gas. and of course when he said didn't match up to to the mismatch filed because he hadn't so quickly that it was clumsy.

>> given the limitations of your medium were you able to try to explain all of this the way the reporter did. >> we did explain it and i think i wrote a separate peace on the whole theory in two days later of course we got the audio. when that came out, we wrote again because it's very powerful you can hear about it and i can write about it. when the audio comes from the supreme court coming in now, we cut that and released that and i think people are even hearing it. >> it's a good example of why they don't want the audio to be released the same day. every tv newscast would've had that on that evening and they released the audio during the day. maybe now that scalia has gone mobile to revisit the question.

>> it is a knocking. the arguments are monday, twos, wednesday. no reason it gets released on friday. they are capable and do occasionally release the audio the same day. i've never got the beginnings of the answer. >> in fact, we are going backward. a few years ago there were cases when we would get audio the same day and that doesn't seem to be happening. it also reminds me of solicitor general for really when he was starting the health care case, he choked on water and water went down the wrong way and it wasn't a good start. that came out in and added icing. >> just the audio you have to think the justices are thinking what if they had video and they make this into a political attack ad, something to be this harsh serious argument of the supreme court.

>> the ad did not help the cause of trying to get audio release sooner. >> you wrote an article shortly after just his scalia died about how he had made you into a magic is. can you tell us what happened. >> well, just his scalia like most didn't have much use for reporters. i guess i got under his skin in 2000 when i wrote a story with a colleague about how just his scalia and conversations with members of congress at receptions and things like that was lobbying to have the bad on pend oreille area for justices and federal judges lifted. federal judges i guess like members of congress are not

allowed to get $5000 for a speech or an article. they can get $20,000 for teaching law school in florence in the summer, which a lot of them do that kind of thing. but they can't get on a rear area for speeches he adjust his scalia was sort of jawboning members of congress to get that ban lifted. he didn't much like the article, so he wrote a letter to the editor of legal times, which himself was extraordinary. justices don't write letters to the editor as a rule. so my first question when i caught up the public information office said first of all, is this a real or is it a fake. and second, if it is real, does the justice when it printed in the answer was yes it is really nasty one it printed. and so he said among many other

things, he said that the story was gossipy, and therefore characteristically and he stalled it with my name, mauro. i became a magic to it and it was a badge of honor for a while and the "washington post" picked up on it. i'm sure just his scalia regretted having that moniker. >> in addition to asking interesting and bold questions, just his scalia was also known for his oral dissenters end of the term. this term we had both just as alito. were they harder or maybe the better question is less fun to cover that would have likely spoken. is it less fun to write about?

>> justice alito is a first rate voyeur, very good magician, not very quotable. this is a topic i know you'll probably ask us about, which is which of those so going to big days to the courtroom to see the decisions announced in the very rare oil defense. i think it might be none of that, which is a fairly recent development. it actually is a very good way to cover the court, to go upstairs, to have the person who wrote the decision in conversational turns explain it to you while you're not trying to flip through the paperwork but are paying attention and any really big case to say what is wrong with what the masters told you. 25 minutes later stroll down to the pressroom and file a story informed by the valuable knowledge. the 25 minute is no longer available to us.

i can't be 25 minutes behind the colleagues who get this piece of paper the moment the justice or it's talking. that means in my case just two terms ago i stopped going up in doing this valuable common historical thing of major decisions announced so i can be in the pressroom and start writing right away. we do have colleagues of mine, very good colleagues are in the courtroom on the big days. i will tell you frankly i miss it. it is a cost benefit where i think the benefit outweighs the cost, but the cost is real. >> when the defense is red and alito was reading in the case. i am in the pressroom off of the pressroom off of my cubby and i can hear him reading it. and i thought and i thought i

heard them i could do wrong, but i thought i heard alito say this is affirmative-action gone berserk. and then he did not say it in the written opinion. so there is an example because they obviously don't read the entire dissent. i thought that was to have affirmative-action gone berserk. >> in the opinion he said gone wild. >> so that was a little different. i remember for health care i wasn't upstairs, i interviewed donnie lit back who was up there listening, which to me would be such a joy to sit and listen to the whole thing. this is in the first health care case. she didn't have the paper. they don't have the opinion before then. she is listening and think and it is not going one way and all of a sudden when he shifted gears and went to the taxing power, i remember her saying our

heads just swiveled. that is something that you don't get when you are downstairs rifling through the paper. you miss that. i totally understand why we are not up there. i am often envious of my colleagues. >> just to follow up, and the opinion announcement is the closest the supreme court gave to spin control because it just is don't read the whole opinion. they use two decades ago. now it is just a summary and they are able to highlight the parts that they think are important and to sort of dodge or avoid the tough part. and it is very valuable to see what the justices themselves inc. is the most important part and sometimes they will use that, as the ariane that, words

that are not in the actual opinion. that is a big loss. and that is also why this is kind of deep in the weeds, but we were just saying that the oral arguments are made available at the end of the week when they appear just a few days later. the opinion amounts that are not made public until the following term, usually many months after the argument for the announcement is made. the reason we have deduced is that the justices really hate -- they don't like the opinion announcers to be made widely public because there is sort of some spin on it and sometimes just as visible here. they don't sign off on the opinion amounts to even in the majority. sometimes they will hear an

opinion and it will go off at the end of the session and say i didn't buy enough for that part. the opinion announcement are very controversial within the court and that is why they don't want us really quoting or using much of it. >> you remember when justice sotomayor got in an argument with justice lindgren and doesn't read her dissent and then she changed her mind and ended up reading the shooting opinion and of the spirit enters team. they have an opinion from the bench and then they felt strongly enough about that one to do it. >> it only happens a couple three times the term when someone really feels deeply aggrieved. >> so do you think if the media

were back together and asked the public information to distribute the opinion of the justice upstairs finished delivering they might be willing to do that and then you could all stay upstairs? >> no. we occasionally make tiny increments of headway in making it easier to cover the court. we do get same-day transcripts which is innovation when i came in eight years ago, which is a huge help. we did once ask the chief justice whether they could release orders. orders are when they decide not to take cases. the cases. he is to release those at 10:00, which is the same time an argument started in the same time they start announcing opinions. what about 9:30 we said. vader in public he said aside from the fact that the press wanted it, i couldn't think of any reason not to do it. so now we have orders at 9:30. these are tiny baby steps, but

occasionally the court does try to accommodate our needs. >> we have got three purple reporters. in a general way, ariane, your job is fairly different from your friends on the right here? >> i've only been at cnn for a year and a half and hour that i was at abc for 21 years and i never worked for print. i think the digital age has put a solid -- >> its convergence and ariane writes a lot. >> i think we all look for the bottom line, first of all come and get the bottom line out is best we can and we follow up, at least our team at cnn look for the past because people want to hear what tus