it is being run by -- [inaudible] the vehicle on the right is a cadillac that we are able to drive today. so that the vehicle is created by the project that i lead with support from general motors through department of transportation. so because of our close working relationship with gm we are extremely sensitive to the aesthetics of the vehicle, the exterior and injure as well. it looks very normal, that's something gym would be proud to sell. >> host: how far along armed with this technology? >> guest: the technology has,

very rapidly in the past several years, since it has come very far. the 2007 challenge, basically outcome was 16 concluded and carnegie mellon when the competition. once and for all, the notion of a vehicle can drive itself is no longer science fiction. it's only a question of when, not if. so since then google hired key people from carnegie mellon, key people from stanford university which i was a runner-up in the competition at that so google launched its project. google basically publicized this technology, and then when car sharing companies like uber came into being, they have a

financial economic incentive to basically have the vehicles drive themselves. and meanwhile, the carmakers, general motors and ford in the u.s., audi, bmw and daimlerchrysler, nissan, honda, toyota in japan, carmakers want to have an market. meanwhile, in south korea, i'll been investing the time and the space. and meanwhile, big automotive suppliers have been investing time as well. so we have a lot of action in terms of investment, research and creative technology portfolios from carmakers, a supply chain and companies like google, uber, so progress is

very rapid. >> host: is it competition course by the developing their own systems just like your? >> guest: so thanks to capitalistic forces, that is a lot of competition. this market is expected to be huge in about 15, 20 years or so. so all these companies that we just discussed are pushing their cells own big piece of technology, if not be completed industries. so that's what the competition is all about. it's not about sharing. it's about a starting one's own leadership. >> host: what about the city of pittsburgh, hasn't been supported? >> guest: it has been a top notch support of this technology. we've been driving myself driving cadillac on the public roads of pittsburgh since 2011. so we do this all the time. the state of pennsylvania has been fairly to this technology as well.

the loss of pennsylvania allows to basically drive vehicles with this technology as long as there's a human licensed driver in the driver seat, and that person can take over control at any point in time. time. decides that if you can drive itself. if something goes wrong, because there's a human in the driver's seat, a human would be liable, if you will. >> host: what has surprised you since 2011 when you bought it is cadillac? >> guest: so what has been satisfying if you will, is we were able to build a vehicle that for the most part looks normal on the outside, and inside but it still able to package all the technologies sentencing for computing and basically steering the real and pressing the pedal so the technology can be made aesthetically pleasing as well in addition to its technological category. >> host: what he taught the computers or the entire system since 2011, what additional

information has gone in? >> guest: so the system, the vehicle to drive itself, needs to have centers like cameras, blazers and radars. basically motors of some kind that steered the real and to basically invoke the breaking and the activation actions. but the end of the day all those data being collected by these centers have been processed by a bank of computers. all the data processing happens by software. so that literally hundreds of thousands of lines of software that basically passes as the data streams apply the roots of the road, and then sends commands to the steering wheel into the paddles. sal the intelligence, if you will, is really incorporated into the software. so all the magic at the end of the day is in the software and

i, artificial intelligence. >> host: tenures from the article to look at this cadillac and go that was a nice black and white tv? >> guest: yes. 15, 20 so now people talk about look at how point that little vehicle was. >> host: what's the difference between an autonomous car and a connected car? we were in ann arbor recently as well estimate a time as car is a car that is capable of driving itself, typically using sensors and computers that are built in to the vehicle. so depends only on itself, uses sensors to sense what's happening in the environment and finance computers that has a the data coming in from the centrist and since local commands for steering and braking and so. so that's an autonomous vehicle. a connected vehicle is something that is capable of communicating

with the cloud on the internet, with traffic lights that are properly equipped with traffic signs as those with other vehicles. your smartphone, your laptop and desktops and communicate wirelessly with each other. if they can, why cannot a vehicle with computers talking environment? it can. it can wirelessly communicate with the environment. so connected car is capable of communicating wirelessly to others in the environment come with a traffic light, who it is, where it is, what it plans to do. and similarly the environment that submits committee can wirelessly that says the traffic light just turned red, and basically say there's a stalled vehicle on the lane ahead and other information can be received wirelessly and can generate warnings to the human driver. even if a human is not able to

see there is a stalled vehicle in the dark, the wireless communications will let the human now that there's a problem, slow down. that the roads are slick ahead, slow down. exactly this is considered to be a huge safety measure. studies indicate up to 80% of accidents can actually be prevented by using connected technology. so connected technology can be generating warnings and alerts to a human your that it's possible it can actually combine the two, had a connected autonomous vehicle, so they get the benefit of both conductivity and automation. >> host: would it take a big investment in u.s. infrastructure to get connected cars on the roads? >> guest: great question. connectivity requires a small wi-fi like device which uses the essential wi-fi technologies all of us use on a regular basis. and that sends messages and receive messages.

one of those devices actually costs only about $100 volume each. it's very, very inexpensive. and it sends out messages for 600 meters, which is a lot more than anything that the lasers, the raiders and the cameras can see. so for $100 you see much farther and it can literally see around corners as well because radio wireless waves can bounce off buildings as well so gives you this superhuman mission, if you will. so the connectivity capability compared low prices compared to rest of technology. the u.s., each of state, has its own jurisdiction. they can come up with her own local laws that operate within the state. you get a license from the state that you drive. we have a license from pennsylvania, you can also use

the same license to drive in ohio or california. the states at the end of the basically have the final say. if each state comes up with its own rules and regulations for automated vehicles, for connected vehicles, that would be a complete nightmare for car manufactures. once you cross a state border, new rules apply. the national highway transportation safety administration is looking to do is provide a set of guidance, if you will, to all the 50 states so that they can be homogenized or harmonized. so if i can operate in one state, hopefully the same technology can be used in a neighboring state. >> host: professor raj rajkumar, have you gotten to the point you put maybe 20,000 was on the cadillac driverless, or autonomously, have you gotten to the point where you wil you wouk away from the windshield while it's driving?

>> guest: yes. we have a cumulative 20,000 miles. it so happens that when we do demonstrations that we have sometimes public, sometimes the ip, sometimes with others in the car and cameramen typically watching it all the time at that i take the ice off the road or my hands off of you are close to any control, they immediately get it and highlighted the that happens subconsciously, yes. >> host: what's the main reaction you get from people riding in the car with you? >> guest: it's remarkable sequence that happens. most if not all people directly writing and driverless car, for the very first time the typical reaction is one of anxiety, angst, fear, and occasionally even panic attacks. but then they basically watch as

the vehicle is able to drive, is actually stopping when it should stop come is actually taking the road comfortably and so when. they built a degree of comfort. we are watching the vehicles very intently. what is it doing? didn't see that bicyclist and someone? after a while you realize that it seems to know what it is to the a few more minutes go by, they start conversing with other people in the car. and after a while they stopped noticing what the car is doing. so this transition between iq anxiety to in terms of what the vehicle is doing takes anywhere between five and 15 minutes, depending on the person. so the concern that researchers like me i should have is not that people are fearful. the concern i have is that people become too comfortable to quickly.

so technology has ago, and counts on a day-to-day basis. so the human still needs to pay attention. >> host: it seems all of a sudden all of this technology is kind of wishing towards us. is that just a perception because of the media? >> guest: because of the huge market potential that exists for these vehicles, many industries are interested. number two, thanks to all the dances made during the challenge and since then, people know that the technology is viable. everybody wants a basically -- benefit economically from that so that a significant amount of investment on the technology side. basically a lot of aggressive marketing to get the word out that each company is working on a particular piece of technology and such. so the combination of technology

advances, the potential for economic gain for the future and marketing is basically cursing today. >> host: what about security and privacy? so much of this technology is healthy on the airwaves? >> guest: because these are driven by computers and hundreds of thousands of lines of software code, we have to be cognizant of and cautious about possible stressed political technology. this could include cybersecurity a tax, particularly for autonomous vehicles. if i can send information out, i can also receive information back in. those entry and exit points become potential portals for attack. we need to be careful where a tax literally come from across the street, the country, the continent or globally. i guess besides cybersecurity

threats, one also has to be worried about what can be done in the physical context. for example, you can jam gps. and possibly even spoof gps. you can use, for example, simple laser device you can vibrate cheaply to confuse the lighter centers, so that cybersecurity threats, and are also physical attacks that are possible. 's woulwould like to combine tho and refer to these as cyber and physical security problems. >> host: finally, doctor, what's the next generation? are you working on the next generation of technology for this vehicle? >> guest: yes. we're focused on the next-generation set of capabilities. i think of the first generation as being in 2007, and then if you look at those, they all have

very similar sensors if he will of spinning light out on the roof of car, for example. generation two, the cadillac you see behind me, google has built in, generation to pick the next generation -- focusing on what basically use -- they will be able to do with a lot more scenarios on roads than these vehicles can. and they should also be able to drive on roads that they have never seen before. >> host: what is your biggest frustration with this technology? >> guest: i guess it's been very satisfied that it's not that i've many frustrations. the challenge of dealing with the inherent silliness of the computer. what is obvious and silly and basic to human needs to be taught painstakingly to a computer.

so that just takes time. >> host: dr. rajkumar of melon university, thank you for your time. >> guest: it has been a pleasure talking with you, pet peter. >> if you would like to see some of our previous communicators program, go to c-span.org. >> on c-span, created by america's cable television companies and brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. >> our campaign 2016 coverage continues on c-span with live debates for u.s. house, senate and governors races. tonight at eight eastern utah's fourth district congressional debate.

>> watch our complete campaign 2016 coverage on c-span and online at c-span.org and listen

on the c-span reader app. >> now and look at whistleblowing, grass-roots organizing and combating civic apathy. former presidential candidate ralph nader recently hosted the breaking through power conference sponsored by the center for study of responsive law. this portion is about four hours. >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome back after lunch. we have a great lineup for the afternoon, and our first speaker is going to be talking about the importance of whistleblowing. he is professor emeritus at american university, ma

washington college of law. he has been a scholar in residence with the law faculty of the king's college of university of london. he has also been a visiting professor in australia, and he s taught at university of san diego school of law as will as visiting professor at the school of law in kyoto japan. please welcome robert vaughn. [applause] >> thank you very much. as a teacher i was always a little concerned when i was assigned to first class after lunch, but we can move from there. one australia observer, whistleblowing, include whistleblowing is the legal regulation, and i quote, most crucial to integrity,

accountability and organizational justice in all institutions, end quote. even if you might be a little skeptical about that statement, by the way i am not, we've recognized that whistleblowing is a powerful technique for holding the powerful accountable. i with this guide the importance of whistleblowing law by examining several different perspectives that are linked to different frameworks of accountability. these perspectives are a reservoir of arguments and proposals for change. through them we can consider the history and the expansion of whistleblowing laws and breaking through power but i'd can't begin this discussion without mentioning those whistleblowers who have changed the perception of the public of whistleblowing, and who have established a context and content of many whistleblower laws. but without an appreciation of these persons, whistleblowers

become kind of insubstantial legal creations. in appreciation of their accomplishments and sacrifices make whistleblowing concrete rather than abstract, personal rather than statistical, and emotional as well as analytical. i will not forgive him as i speak, and i ask that you do not. we are going to discuss these four perspectives that is employment perspective, the open government perspective, the transparency or market regulation perspective, and human rights. than you do you labor reforms in the 1950s develop an anti-retaliation principle that prohibited retaliation against employees for disclosure of violations of labor laws or workplace protections. in the 1950s a few chords, particularly those in california, used the anti-retaliation principle to restrict dismissals of at-will

employees and those dismissals would be against public policy, because those employees reported violations of law either employers, violations of both regulatory and criminal law. this history helps to explain why whistleblowing laws are usually treated as a subset of employment laws. the character of modern society also explains his conception of whistleblower laws. the activities of contemporary society rely heavily upon the activities of government through government agencies, and the activities on private organizations through corporations. both private and public sector organizations can vary in size, but except for the smallest, they require employees to carry out their activities. these employees possess information not otherwise available regarding misconduct, incompetence, corruption and dangers and risks connected with the organizations that employ

them. employees and employers, therefore, may properly see whistleblower laws as changing the relationship between them. if whistleblower laws restructure the workplace, this reduction in the power of employers invites widespread and lasting opposition to these laws. this perspective invites the consideration of the interests of employers who can argue that it is in public interest, not the interests of employers that must be considered. it is the employer must prove the entire put to protection and the employee does this in a setting where they normally face better resources of the employer a loan. the other perspectives our information-based. the employment perspective is not. in the employment perspective, the emphasis was on the employment relationship and that relationship incorporates interest in bureaucratic secrecy, secrecy that is asserted to be justified because of the need for rational

decision-making and the preservation of management prerogative. this perspective contains other difficulties as well. it incorporates the procedural and administrative mechanisms of employment. these administrative and procedural mechanisms usually, usually benefit employers. it requires the determination of who is an employee and it requires the determination as to whether retaliation takes place through an employment-based action. both of these requirements invite subterfuge and abuse. it is less likely than the other perspectives to draw on international law and international organizations. international labor standards are ambiguous as to whether employees who make disclosures that do not involve violations of workplace laws are protected. and the international labor organization lacks the status and influence of international

human rights and anticorruption organizations. because of its pervasiveness, the employment perspective is a powerful alternative to the others. the open government perspective, this perspective emphasizes the public right to know about government policies and practices. freedom of information laws offer the justifications for disclosure of information held by the government. a principal justification for this disclosure is sustaining democratic accountability. democratic accountability involves both political accountability and legal accountability, and open government laws support both types of accountability. as to political accountability, ignorance of the action of government officials makes criticism of the government less likely. ignorance doles outraged and reduces the likelihood that civil society groups who organize for and use democratic

procedures for change. as the legal accountability, the accountability of government officials on the one hand requires an understanding of the standards and practices that are to guide their conduct. and on the other hand, requires information about the content of those officials. the open government perspective introduces a dispute about the role of government. one view of the role of government is a limited you that in order to preserve the realm of private activity and choice, the other more activist view of government says that the democratic state must address societal maladies that individuals are unable to resolve. the activist of you sees the individual at risk not only from government but from the concentration of private power from which the individual must be protected by the government. both views and identified corruption as a threat to the mission of government. the open government perspective affiliates whistleblower protection with international

anticorruption movements, and also advocate democratic accountability and disclosure. in contrast to the employment perspective, the open government want is information-based. nothing in this perspective necessarily requires that protections apply only to employees. the market regulation or transparency perspective. this perspective evidence is concerned with open market. for example, with the flow of capital internationally, it requires an assessment of political risks your and argues for knowledge of the frequency of corruption. the lack of transparency of markets or of government can be a surrogate for the likelihood of corruption. corruption distorts markets. for example, corruption in government contracts distort not only domestic markets, i can

distort international markets as well as whistleblower protections our information provisions that help to support efficient markets. such whistleblower provisions thus become anti-corruption efforts in many countries and international conventions and an international economic organization such as the world bank and the regional development banks. although concerned with protecting of markets, this perspective implicates misconduct by government officials as well. as the open government perspective can apply to non-government disclosures, the market regulation perspective can't encompass information about government. these protections need not apply to employers because a number of individuals, a number of individuals possess -- [inaudible] >> hello? it's back on, okay. either that or my voice suddenly disappeared i wasn't sure which. the protections need not be limited to employers because a number of individuals possess

information relevant to the evaluation of markets. for example, the convention against corruption exit its protections to disclosures to quote public servants and private citizens. the breach of fiduciary duties by corporate officials often involve the suppression of information or the presentation of false information. this concealment of falsification of information distorts markets, particularly markets and corporate securities. while the open government perspective can be seen as an information-based approach to the accountability of government, the market regulation perspective can be seen as an information-based approach to the accountability of markets. in response to the great depression of 1929, the new deal used information disclosure as a method of market regulation. two recent examples emphasize this approach and the increasing importance of whistleblower protection.

the sarbanes-oxley act responded in the whistleblower provision to the failure of enron and worldcom, failures that were caused by accounting fraud. one of the best known whistleblowers of the period, sharon watkins, was named a time person of the along with cynthia cooper who was another corporate fraud whistleblower, sought to inform corporate officials of these fraudulent practices. unfortunately, for her all of the officials she approached were deeply involved in the fraud. the legislative history of the whistleblower provision of the sarbanes-oxley act refers to this role of sharon watkins. the financial crisis of 2008 led to whistleblower protections in the dodd-frank act. the provision in the important innovations and reflected the importance that it was attached to whistleblower protection as a regulation of markets. health and safety regulation.

in the view of many reflect an important beyond the integrity of financial markets. the loss of human life and human suffering of these deaths and injury demand effective regulation of health and safety. the inadequacy of industry standards and industry after industry has generated a wealth of statutes. the information disparity between regulators and regulated industries is accepted as a principal reason for regulatory failure. this information deficit disables regulation. beginning at least with the mind, health and safety act of 1977, was overprotection has been used as a tool for ensuring adequate information regarding workplace risks of public safety through protected disclosures the regulators. many environmental and health and safety statutes containing whistleblower protections. important whistleblower provisions are included into

consumer product safety improvement act of 2008 and the food safety modernization act of 2011. .. the public employees who made disclosures to the public. the provision of the civil service reform act that covers millions of federal employees start to vindicate these rights but it substituted statutory

standards for the bag balance in the first amendment. in this sense, u.s. whistleblower law rests on the human right of freedom of expression. this perspective gives whistleblower protection a strong protection to international human rights law. for example, both article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights and article 13 of the american convention on human rights protect freedom of expression. that rate has been interpreted by the core of human rates and they held this gives the individual the right to receive information about the government imposes upon them an obligation to provide them to citizens. international human rights contains a large body of ideals, principles and arguments, powerful international organization support, the development of human rights.

under many human rights conventions, signatories are bound by the judicial decisions of bodies were charged with interpreting the convention. for example, decisions of the european court on human right have helped develop human rights in britain. , excuse me whistleblower rights in britain. a human rights approach rest relying on information is more likely to encompass opinion. therefore, this perspective supports a broader scope of protections and under more lenient standards been reasonable belief. the freedom of expression applies to public disclosures and this perspective, more than the others, is likely to protect public disclosures. the principles of the indivisibility of human rights would protect disclosures with other fundamental human rights.

with them, protection protection is granted to serve some other value or interest. of human rights analysis focuses less on human rights as a way to implement other values or to accomplish worthwhile goals but asserts that these rights represent basic human values worthy of protection. breaking through power is not an easy one. whistleblower law is often seen as a way of doing so. to understand the weaknesses of whistleblower law, but more important to appreciate their possibilities requires an understanding of these perspectives. the cause of these perspectives matter. examination of them helps us to see the weaknesses of whistleblower law and to appreciate possibilities for change. each of these perspectives enables and limits whistleblower protection and examination encourages us to seek significant change.

for the students here, i would like to give a little warning. that warning is, be very careful what you do when you are 26 years old. when i was 26 years old, i turned down a couple jobs and took a job with ralph nader in washington. one of the tasks that he charged me with was looking at a federal civil service, and one aspect of it that i came to particularly focus on was the need for whistleblower protection for federal employees. now some 40 years later, i am still working on the same topic that i was assigned then. just an alert, please be extremely court careful what you start with when you're 26 years old. thank you. [applause] >> thank you robert von.

maybe there is still hope for edward snowden. before we move on, i wanted wanted to just to a couple of housekeeping notes. after the next beaker we are going to be circulating these notecards to members of the audience. if you have questions, please write one question. card. write legibly and we will collect them and ralph nader will address them during the last session on the agenda. after that, he will be available out of the book table to sign copies of books that people may have bought. our next beaker is going to address public sentiment and social change. he is professor politics and chair of the urban environmental policy department at occidental college.

hugh ranks widely on american politics for the nation, american progress, dissent in huffington post and numerous op-ed pieces in the paper. he is author of the 100 greatest americans of the 20th century, a social justice, and he has also led the successful minimum wage campaign in pasadena california. please welcome peter dreier. >> i want to first address the students that are here. i want to particularly address the women. the women from hood college, could you raise your hand? okay put them down. now i'm going to ask a simple question. how many of you played sports in high school? raise your hand. okay.

how many of you didn't play sports in high school. okay. around the country i asked was question all the time. it turns out, somewhere between a third of all the women in college that played sports in high school, it's usually more than that, but many of them now play in college. they take that for granted, that choice. it did depends on their talent and there will but they determine they have the right to do that. that right is something that is relatively new, the right to play sports for women in high school and in college. the me ask you another question. this is for any of the students from hood college but how many of you know who billie jean king was? raise your hand. one person. okay. so that to me is an important reality that we take for granted

the achievement of movements of the past to the extent that we take them so that we don't even know who the people were that were responsible for making those changes. for those of you don't no, he was one of the greatest tennis players of all times and she was active in the minutes woman's movement and testified behalf of congress for title ix which made it possible for young women today to play high school and college sports. many of the radical ideas from the past were once considered utopian, radical, socialist, crazy, impractical, they are now things that we take for granted. those things include social security, minimum-wage, the right of workers to unionize, income tax, environmental protection act, government subsidize health care, same-sex marriage, a black president and a woman president. all of those who were once

considered radical ideas. those ideas are often the common sense of the next generation. in order to understand that we have to understand where we've been, where we are and where were going. for those those of you who are somewhat demoralized by the current city situation, have no fear, this too will pass. the movement makes change, movements make it possible to dream dreams. movements make it possible for people to think that radical ideas today will be taken for granted by our children and our grandchildren. doctor king forgot to say one thing. who's going to bend it? who's going to make it possible for the universe to bend. those of the people i want to talk to you about today. very quickly, a big review of the movement of the 20th century that made our lives a

lot better but whom we often forget. he got one vote for the bill and it was his own vote, but 25 years later, during the new deal of the franklin roosevelt administration, they adopted social security. the radical ideas became the common sense of our ideas today. these were part of the leader ship of the movement that created the movement against slums and chop shops in our big cities. they fought for the rights for immigrants and unions and consumer groups. they created things like the minimum wage for women and the laws protecting people from slum

housing. the factory fire mobilize the big movement, 145 young teenage girls who were killed in this fire in new york but there was a protest after it, frances perkins smith, voted the governor of new york were the three activists of that movement. one of the people who was one of their supporters was and morgan. she was the daughter of the richest person in the world, j.p. morgan but she decided she wanted the working-class women so she shared up with her rich friends at the picket lines and she couldn't believe this upper-class woman was out there in the middle of the winter. she called them the mixed brigade. that's how eleanor roosevelt became political iced. there were people fighting.

[inaudible] there was a woman's right movement in 2016, exactly 100 years years ago next month, two important things happened. one is that margaret open the first birth control clinic in america for which he was arrested because it was against the law to do that and the first woman was elected to con congress in 1916. these are things we take for granted, birth control and women in congress but they were revolutionary hundred years ago. workers rights, in new york in the detroit flint factory to get the right to unionize, the sit in movement which took its idea from the workers movement, brought us civil rights, the right to vote, the right to

accommodations, the environmental justice movement, challenged challenged and changed the law and introduce the clean air act, the water act, the epa act of 1970. these are all radical ideas at the time. the consumer protection movement led by mr. nader but also by a woman named francis, without whom, many of my generation, she protected, she was a doctor at the fda and stop the drug companies from allowing the drug companies to sell this very dangerous drugs that would save millions of lives. if you haven't seen the movie about karen starring meryl

streep, you should she was an activist that help to fight for workplace safety. more recently, you still have the right to protect the right of women to have abortions and women's equality in general. there is the movement for immigrant rights and the dreamers movement. they very gotten a number of states to allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition and a popular law of those states but we still have to get the dream act passed in congress. the voting rights act of 1965, were still fighting for voting rights all over the country. there's been a movement for gun protection, gun control over the last few years black lives

matter has helped to alert us to the reality of racial profiling and police violence. in number of shooting of african-americans have not gone up in the last ten years but our awareness of it has because of cell phones embody cameras and increasing media coverage and now there's a change for police practice. occupied wall street disappeared and now their opinions continued, you can't kill an idea. they have lasted much longer than the movement. there's not a monarchist that doesn't understand what the 1% in the 99% means. the power of the rich has stayed with us and has helped to shape our movements.

the hearing last week where the ceo of wells fargo bank took a grilling from both democratic and republican senators, the ceo was the modern or the most recent version of occupy wall street, the movement to raise the wage, if you had told me five years ago any city in america would have a 15-dollar an hour minimum wage i would've thought you were crazy but at the upper left-hand corner is the mayor of seattle signing a law two years ago to have minimum-wage in that city of $15. hour. there are now dozens of city around the world including my own city of pasadena including our neighbor pasadena and other cities in california that has adopted 15-dollar minimum wage because of the movement of walmart workers in fast food workers and janitors and many other researchers around the country fighting for improving

the minimum-wage. the big issue of the next ten years will be student debt. students are now sitting in, protesting, organizing senator warren has a bill to address the issue. both democratic candidates for president, hillary clinton and bernie sanders both say you should do this because it resonates with a lot of people. this is a big one around the country to stop sweatshop later by having students refused to buy shirts and t-shirts and sweatshirts with the name of the college on it. there is a factory that was created by the students to get t-shirts in the dominican republic, you should make sure your bookstore sells the products from the factory where they paid three times the minimum-wage and they have a

union in good health and workplace safety conditions. one of the few factories in the world that is like that but it shows it can be done. there's a movement around climate change, dozens of colleges have voted against fossil fuels. this was all a result of protest and activism not because the arc of the universe was going to bend for justice automatically. five, 1010 years ago, the idea of same-sex marriage was considered crazy and now 70% of the american public believes it should be legal. this is a dramatic change in public opinion in a short. of time as a result of litigation, protest, organizing and changes in public sympathy. >> all of these movements have three things in common and those are things that are true of

movers of the left or the right. number one, every movement has organizers and activists who think strategically and large number of people who take their advice and follow their guidance and just a few of them out of the suffrage movement, secretary of labor, the highlander school in tennessee, the catholic worker movement. [inaudible] two incredible women who are active in the civil rights movement, but they also had have people who can inspire us with their poetry, their artistry, the writing, their philosophy, they are using their athletic ability to promote social justice and social change.

they wrote the first feminist short story called wallpaper, there is a a photographer who went around the country exposing violations in child labor, there was a crisis in the meatpacking industry in his book the jungle, john steinbeck's book about farm workers grapes of wrath raised our consciousness when he got to what should be the national anthem, this youth land is your land, the great poet, great singer and athlete and broadway and film star, the playwright, the weaver who introduced his songs from around the world, jackie robinson use his athletic ability, rabbi, martin luther king, the the singer from

vietnam, the p singers, spring sing, muhammad ali and marvin gaye who sang about plaque freedom through his folk singing. michael harrington who exposed poverty in america through his book the other america, dr. seuss whose books were about moral outrage and if you read between the lines you will see lots of radical ideas and carson who exposed the exposure of dangerous pesticide and very, the great scientist to oppose how we produce our products, billy g king and leslie gore, most of you under 50 who have never heard of leslie gore, she was iraq 'n roll singer, people

think i'm crazy to put her up your. she wrote this incredible song and sing the song in 1963 called you don't own me. that's an early feminist song that people don't recognize. she's most famous for it's my party and i'll cry if i want to, but i think she should be most famous for you don't know me. the singer from race against the machine and our friend michael moore. these are all people who every movement these people inspired us or wrote about to give us hope for the future. finally we all have to have political allies. those are people who are in government and work with activism, from people in office, the governor of illinois who is willing at the behalf of jane addams and frances perkins to

introduce factory legislation in illinois in the 1800s, johnson, the governor of california in the 1900s introduce the minimum-wage law and the women's right to vote. franklin roosevelt, the mayor of new york played often in unsung. [inaudible] iconic senator from minnesota, harvey mills, the first openly gay elected officials, bernie sanders, john lewis the iconic civil rights leader and elizabeth warren. all of these are people have changed our lives. they've changed our mind, they've changed, they've helped us understand. i just want to give you a portrait of where are we now. what are americans thinking today?

77% think there is too much power in the hands of a few rich people in large corporations. 74% 4% think there's too much clinical influence in large corporations. many think they favor the wealthy and 84% takes money has too much influence in politics. 85% think we need to overhaul campaign finances. 64% want stronger regulations on greenhouse gases. 82% field corporations don't feel their fair share of taxes. 79%. 79% of wealthy people don't pay their fair share. 78% favor raising taxes on the richest people in the country. 90% think we should have less income disparity. 69% think the government should reduce the gap between the rich and everyone else. 64% thinks the government should reduce poverty, 75% we should increase minimum wage to 1250 by 2020, 63% think we should increase minimum wage.

80% think we should require employers to provide paid family leave. 71% favor a public option for health and insurance to be with a private insurance company. 67% favor lifting the income tax cap. 70% believe the federal government should fund high-quality preschool programs for all children and 62% support debt-free university tuition. welcome to finland. welcome to denmark. welcome to sweden. of the american people have their way, we would lose in a social progressive democracy. how are we going to get from there to another world that's possible, that's the lessons of the movement of the 20th century. dare to struggle, dare to win. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you peter dreier. i hope we are feeling motivated and reenergized. before i move on, i would like to ask that we pass out these notecards for anybody who has a question. please raise your hand and we will make sure that you get a card to write your? and i will be choosing a few of them at the end to respond to.

our next speaker is going to be talking about training for change. he is the senior strategist with the national people's action he has been a community organizer for 15 years on the neighborhood city state and national levels in both the united states and the uk. he has organized successful campaigns on neighborhood infrastructure immigrants rights , workers rights and wall street reform. he is serving as bank accountability campaign director at national people's action and i'm informed that he has built a bridge over a moat surrounding a

jp morgan chase shareholder meeting and has stormed across dressed as robin hood. please welcome jordan. [applause] >> clearly someone found my bio on the internet from like five years ago and ran with it which is great. thanks very much for having me. my name is jordan, i am a senior strategist at people's action, formally known as national people's action. we are a network of people powered organizations around the country. there are some 15 member organizations in 30 states collectively. we have organizers in 100 cities

, about 600 professional community organizers working in those cities put people on issues with housing, justice, climate, environmental issues, mass incarceration of policing and about a million members across the country. we aren't peoples issue economic organization and we feel there are three simultaneous big crises happening on this country and on this planet. one the planet is in crisis. every summer is the hottest summer ever and that continues. the economy that we are living in is based on extraction, it's based on runaway inequality. that's getting worse and worse every year.

their democracy is broken. number of people who have real influence in our politics is shrinking all the time. one of our assumptions is that we believe the people who are affected most by these issues are the experts on these issues. their voices are too frequently this thing from the decisions that are made that affect all of our lives. i started with nationals people's action running our accountability campaign work. in 2008. sometime previous i had been working with an organization in chicago called the northwest neighborhood federation. two members of our organization

was sonja cruz who were cousins. they knew each other, they had a fine relationship. they were working on things like getting the parks cleaned up, getting neighborhood training, job training center built in the neighborhood, things like that. the organizers who were working with them built deep relationships with these folks. they learned around the same time that both of them were in foreclosure. their stake in the community was under threat. they stood to lose their homes. what's interesting about that, they they didn't know that about

each other. they were so buried in debt and in shame about the fact they were so deep in debt that they screwed up, they made a mistake, they had bought outside their means. we learned they had taken predatory loans that we know now they were concentrated in low income, latinos, blacks and elderly folks. they did this systematically. have all paid big settlements

because there were leaders on the line. more more people in their network started telling stories like this. it was payday loans and debt loans they were targeting our communities. you can call this reverse redlining. this was not new to us but those of you who don't know that redlining is a practice that has a long history, but in the 70s before there was computer mass there was actually literally draw a line around the black community and not make loans there. it stopped black folks for generations from building their

communities. that campaign spread throughout the organization and prior to the big financial crash in late 2007, we had already protested at ben bernanke's house and got a meeting with him. we told him, thousands of people in the neighborhood are losing their homes. every other house is a banding and some of our community. later that year they got a bailout and the rest was history. this is to say, back to my earlier point, the people who are affected by the issues are the experts on these issues. they saw this coming and if we invest in their ability to work

together, to organize, to come together and build power and actually listen to them, then we can make a lot of good things happen and prevent bad things from happening. these conversations between people, they don't happen by themselves. it takes organizing, especially when the trend is the social fabric is toward more isolation versus individual action versus collective action. we need to fight that actively. after the crash in 2008, a eight, a lot of us were kind of frozen. tell me if you remember it this way. like a good year, there was no protest, nothing visible, nothing major, there's a

narrative brewing about the financial crash that was the fault of brown people trying to buy too much house. that narrative starts to really take hold and we said, we need to say we cannot let our own people believe that. we need to move people from private shame and frustration to anger. in 2009, we learned that the american bankers association was going to have a convention in chicago. it's a super hard-hit city by the financial crash. we said we can't let them get away with that. we called thousands of people

across the region and across the country. they answer the call and came in from iowa, new york and from all over and we decided we will have our own convention across the river from theirs. were going to have the conversation about who is to blame and who's to blame for all these communities for being decimated. we will invite elizabeth warren and she talked about regulating banks on behalf of consumers. we took those lessons.

we did actions on bank of america downtown and all the bank offices and so the first day we had a thousand people. second day we had 2000 the third day we had 5000 people we also had a few hundred people hidden in hotel rooms at their conference who, during the conference were actually able to get inside the hotel and disrupt their conference and get in their faces and tell them what was really happening in our communities. what's key about that is, nothing like this has happened since the crash. all the media, for years, after after the fact, we saw our people, folks like josé and

sonja on news clips to show that people were angry at the banks. it was this very simple thing that was missing from the conversation, actual evidence evidence that people are up in arms. that's where we saw the change of narrative, the beginning of the change in the narrative from this is the people's fault to this is wall street's doing. i wish there were a timer here so i knew how much time i have left. five minutes? cool. the j.p. morgan chase action was also a great one. it turns out, lots of folks had mortgages and got predatory wattages with j.p. morgan chase. we decided to let them know of their shareholder meeting, which, when we went to see the location where was going to be held, turned out it wouldn't be in new york for the usually had it, they would have it at their corporate headquarters in

columbus ohio which apparently, we learned learned is the largest office building in the world after the pentagon, second largest in the world. there's this giant building surrounded by a giant parking lot surrounded by a moat. i kid you not. it was like a drainage ditch around the parking lot. so as the person introduced me stated, we built a drawbridge and we dress like robin hood and we said were to take back what's ours. again, it generated lots of news and visual evidence that people are angry at the banks. there is another note that i want to make about this which is, there's a rich and important

interplay between what you call organic social movements and professionalized community organizers. we see that play out again and again where the big splashy and very resonant movement isn't enough by itself. it doesn't last by itself. that organizing also isn't enough by itself. you need focus. you see this with the previous speaker and the wall street movement how there are others running with those idea and have been able to turn those 99% into things like real traction like

the fight for 15-dollar minimum wage in multiple states. you see it in the huge amount of political space that was opened by the people's climate march in new york city, 400,000 people taking to the street in new york to fight against climate change. it created tons of momentum for organizers on the ground working on those issues. black lives matter is another. i will give a very brief anecdote about that. back in illinois, anita alvarez, for years was the state's attorney there. she famously arranged the deal with the murder of. [inaudible]

she was responsible for and cards reading tens of thousands of black folks in illinois and she had an opponent who grew up in the projects in chicago who believed in restorative justice, wants to work to heal communities rather than punish them and the black youth project did amazing direct actions and got a lot of media attention because it was young black people fighting for their own rights and at the same time our members in illinois, the people's lobby, illinois people's action, the community of liberation, they establish community groups and they were out there on the doors, knocking on doors for anita alvarez. they produce more volunteer hours for campaign than any other organization and we won

that election and kim fox is now the states attorney in illinois. both the movement and the organizing were critical and insufficient for that moment and we think there are really important lessons to learn from that when we can take movements and organize them and bring them together. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you jordan. reminding us all to have a little fun while were at it. our next speaker knows how to do that and he also knows a little bit about overcoming specific apathy which is the topic of his speech.

we are here to commemorate the publication 50 years ago and it led to the establishment of the national vehicle safety act. he was also instrumental in the creation of the occupational safety and health administration, the of of our mental protection agency, the consumer product safety commission and the national highway transportation safety administration. his recent books include unstoppable, return to sender, the good son and the bestseller, 17 traditions. he writes a syndicated column, he has his own radio show and he gives lectures and interviews year-round.

please welcome ralph nader. [applause] thank you. i have an awesome subject. it's called overcoming civic advocacy. obviously we haven't been able to find the various answers, although there are some exceptions. that includes yours truly. just look at all the elbowroom you have today. i want to start with what i call the civic personality. you know how they say in sports there are a lot of super athletes but just a few really make a difference at the end of the game. it isn't because they have superior physical quality. they have qualities others have

and they have the will to win. they have the athletic victory, personality. in the civic society, we have to develop that kind of civic personality. it's something we all know in terms of talent. people who have certain perceived sense of injustice, that's a good start when they don't have to abstract about certain changes that need to be made to better society. right where they live, they are being victimized or oppressed or harmed. i would like to start with three very short stories involving isaac newton, william blake and albert einstein. at one time, at a gathering, isaac newton was asked by an a admirer, why are you so much more. [inaudible] than other scientist. he looked at her and said i'm not really that much more

brilliant than my fellow scientists, i just have a greater ability to concentrate longer on a problem in my mind. concentration. pull that out. william blake in the 18th century and early 19th century, a great artist and poet, he was at a social gathering and someone came up to him and he looked at the person and said with whom in my living? i am living with my imagination. pull that out, imagination. then albert einstein once said, a typical understatement, i have no special gifts. i just have a passionate curiosity. pullout the curiosity. you ask yourself, people usually

have those traits at one level or another. they are curious because they show up. all over the country, people are telling me we can't get people to vote and we can't get them to rally and deal with other neighborhood problems. these people are living in virtual reality when they're not busy trying to make ends meet and surviving. they are looking at screens, young people especially, looking at screens and that's not quite the way to get people out. you get them informed and tell them about meetings, but getting people to meet people is when things get done and that's extremely difficult. i was at a gathering once a massachusetts on the civic organization and the young man,

in his early 30s stood up and said i'm from new jersey, 14000 people a depressed area of empty factories and so forth and things in disrepair. i couldn't believe how this town government wouldn't do anything about it so i decided to go to a town meeting. he gets up and goes to town meeting. he's the only one there. he thought maybe it was super bowl night so he goes to the next meeting and he was the only one there again. i said to him, we have 10000 adults and you seem to know what most people in the city want. they want a functioning city. they don't wanna break their on potholes that been there for two years. what if we had a hundred people there that had your motivation he almost fell down. he said we would change the whole town.

a hundred people would be 1% of the adults in weehawken new jersey. apathetic people have always fascinated me. i actually dream about them. i try to understand them. number one, they are are clearly in the majority. number two, a gripe a lot. they complain a lot. sometimes it seems cynical. they complain about a lot of things. quietly. they don't go out in the village square but they have a sense of injustice like everyone else thirdly, there almost unwilling to break their routine. they have their routine, they have their hobbies, they wake up, raise their family, they, they do a lot more difficult things in life than spending a few hours a month under civic responsibility. they raised children.

try that one for difficulty. they take care of an ailing parent or grandparent. they have two jobs. they have to pay daycare. they have to commute. they overcome accidents that they weren't anticipating and yet, when communities come to a town meeting, you agree with me, you want something changed, you want the school repaired, you want the drinking water cleaned up, i'm not trying to persuade you, but can you come and show up. no. well, do we discuss it, will why don't you show up. you think because i'm apathetic i'm stupid. here's why i don't show up. number one, i don't have time. number two, i don't know all those rules when lawyers for townes tell us to shut up and sit down and i just don't know. number 3i don't want to be slandered or talk down to. i don't want to be libeled in

all that and get in trouble with my boss because i'm seen as a troublemaker. number four, even if i have the time and i didn't care about what others thought about me, it wouldn't make any difference because the big boys are going to decide anyway. those are the four iron rules of apathy. i decided in the campaign during 2000 to take it to the next creative step. i proposed on the website, and it still ralph nader.org. i left it up for these purposes, the creation of the american society of apathetic. i am by the people to join. i said in the interest of being as inclusive as possible, the nader gonzalez campaign is inviting membership in the new american society of apathetic. membership is free and simple.

there's no rights because of the society's dedication to know exertion's whatsoever except to recite the solemn oath of the apathetic to yourself. here's the oath of the apathetic quote as a member of the american society of apathetic's, i solemnly swear and declare that i will into her any injustice, except any abuse, absorb any disrespect, suffer any deprivation, concede any exclusion, inhale any toxics and avoid public responsibilities in order to defend my inalienable right to apathy, so help me, my descendents and my country. ". we got no takers. someone told me we put them in the conflict of interest. if they made the oath of the apathetic, they would no longer

be considered apathetic. they have standards, you know. let's find out what worked in the past in terms of civic engagement. people are people everywhere. they all have their burdens and pressures. why do some people show up. why did six women in 1840 show up at a form entry and farmhouse in upstate new york to start the woman suffrage movement. what was it about then? six women? do you know what they were up against? all these industrial businesses that didn't like women because they fought to end child labor and they were consumer advocates. the price of food, so on. why do people show up to vote against the liberty party against slavery in 1840. that was was the first party of any side to be against slavery. why did all those workers have sitdown strikes in michigan in

1930s, putting all their livelihood on the line. there was no social security no unemployment social security to support their families. why did people march as farmers and sign-up 600 farmers to start the populist progressive movement, the most fundamental reform movement in our country. one reason was perceived injustice to themselves. the farmers were being policed by high interest rates by the banks, crops and by high railroad trade rates to get their crops to market. the women felt deeply disrespected and felt the men weren't addressing a lot of the

issues the women were concerned about. the workers could live on what they made, working 50 hours in the auto plant is not easy and the hazard in the occupational death and diseases, we take the first motivation that was perceived self interest. they weren't abstracting. they hadn't reset level yet. some of the socialist innovators in those days who would try to get them to a higher level of political and economic transformation. the second motivation that got people to do things was they had leaders who formed political movements.

: full health insurance, unemployment compensation, 40 hour week, progressive taxation. and the like. so you can see the political movements often match civic movements, and almost always civic movements precede formal political movement. underneath all our citizens citn groups. that's a pretty good generalization. the third i got people going is more current. how calm there are people pushing for a restored minimum wage for a higher minimum wage and nothing happens?

2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 we push obama and say you wanted $9.50 minimum wage in 2011, as the labor unions were supposed to be for it and nothing happened. it started happening in 2012. you know why? it's called money. justice requires money. and the labor union put it up i'm put it millions of dollars and suddenly there were buses full of protesting workers. there were marches in front of wal-mart, mcdonald's, burger king and so on around the country. that will was there, but the facilities were not being paid for. and so money was behind a good deal of the success of the women's suffrage movement. rich women who come from philadelphia and elsewhere, put

the money in. rich hostility was put money in. the more civil rights and the environment movement, they were accelerated with contributions from wealthy people who were enlightened. another approach is to give people a sense of small victories so they get their morale up for bigger victories. so it is important to develop sort of a sequenced movement whereby there are victories along the way but the major goal has not yet been achieved. another way is steel. unit, people have hobbies. i'm really amazed by how much time and brainpower people spent on hobbies. they spend three to 500 hours a year, and they know their hobbies beginning to end, poker's players, bowling,

classic car collectors, stamp collectors, you name it. they really know their status. they spend the least $500 a year on their hobby. they enjoyed the more they are skilled at it, the more knowledgeable they are. so move into the civic arena. obviously, if you don't have any civic skills, if you were never taught it in undergraduate college or high school or middle school, you're going to be less likely to become an active citizen. it just stands to reason. if you know how to do something, you are more likely to do it and if you didn't know how to do something. and so what our school spending all their time on? computer literacy? why don't you start with civic literacy? that would be a good idea. is there any reason why 100% of all high school graduates should not now be used the state and federal free information on? information is the currency of democracy. we teach it in our high school

in connecticut. takes a couple of hours. to file a letter to a government agency, i want to meet the poultry inspection reports are about the nursing home reports, i want this, i want that. that's a great breakthrough actually. we had a good part of in the 1970s in the federal freedom of information act. it's so easy to teach ethics -- six goes because when you -- vitamins and motivator it's a real. it's not sitting in a classroom with the computer in front of you or if you don't have the computer in front of you, the process is memorization, regurgitation, education. multiple-choice tests. next memorization, multiple-choice test. we are basically training young people to be ineffective and i'm interested citizens. we are training them to be

called incorporate and other bureaucratic wheels. and as a result they don't live very happy life. they don't live lives where they can meet the necessities of life to begin with. look at health care. look at the lack of any adequate public transit, so many places in the country or inadequate housing and so forth. so we have to say why don't we start afternoon civic skills classes for students and parents who volunteer? you don't have to change the curriculum. that's very difficult to it would be good if he did but he didn't you can still start these afternoon classes, a lot of schools that into classrooms, and at least it will start the ball rolling and you will see how much more motivated students are in the regular classes, how much more challenging and questioning they are. now, there's another aspect

here, that relates more to young people. but during the anti-vietnam demonstrations on college campuses, we learned something very interesting. and that is if you are a part of the risk as a citizen, you are more likely to be part of the solution. one of the reasons why big business executives never proposed solutions for the people where they are employed or customers or communities is that these executives are not part of the risk. they have impunity. they have distance to they have immunity and they have all the pleasures of life. they are not where the environmental racism is, in the slums, poor areas intercountry huge toxics that they have produced. it's good for students to understand history. one of the reasons students really step forward in the '60s is because they are part

of a risk. they could've been drafted. they were part of the risk. they were badly treated in places like in the south, especially if they were minorities. they were part of the risk. if you are part of the risk you are more likely to get out and protest and be part of the solution. that's a very important motivation as well. we have also to ask the question, okay, and citizens don't think they have any power. marcus cicerone defined freedom as participation in power. so we have to stop just defining freedom as freedom from oppression, from police action, from the oligarchy to plug hocrisy -- to plug hocrisy. when we do it that way we have to admit most of us don't have any power. because we don't have the power.

we have personal freedom. most people can choose their friends, choose their food, music, who they're going to walk and hike with, choose their mates they can choose a lot of things and have a lot of personal freedom but civic freedom is another thing. do you have much freedom to participate in the power to shift our tax system, our peace and war choices, our local environment, the uses of public budgets and so forth? the answer is obvious, in most cases the answer is that kind of freedom is not available. it's good to start saying what are our assets? we don't have all that much power. what are our assets that we can deploy? number one, we outvote the corporations. immensely. we are millions of dollars. corporations don't have a single vote.

not yet, okay? number two, we have far more energy than our adversaries in the put hocrisy. they just have coasted. they have gotten soft and they are not that great a number. number three, we have our consumer dollars. what are we doing putting our money and jpmorgan chase and buying metropolitan life insurance policies? with some of the most progressive groups in this country. "nation" magazine, democracy now!, city lights and when i get a little check from them for expenses to go on the show or a little advance, i look at the check. it's jpmorgan chase. it's wells fargo. what are we doing spending money we can spend money on them in community banks and credit unions and patronize farmer to consumer markets and local,

sustainable energy and community health clinics, started if they are not there. take our dollars away from global business, you we can do. they've got $2 trillion stack up in money, the fortune 500. that's our money originally. where did it come from? our consumer dollars. where did it come from. the next asset we have is that we own the quiz will in the country. what? come on. of course. we own together with all other americans the public lands onshore and offshore. that's about the size of the u.s. by the way. all the natural resources. we own the public airwaves of which the radio and tv stations transmit their programs. we are the landlords of the radio and tv stations on the tenets, and they have, they pay us now with andy decide who says what 24 hours a day. something that rights. do you ever look at network tv on saturday afternoon? hold onto your stomach.

it's like nothing else happens in america except good guys go flip-flop on their bikes, infomercials on kitchen appliances. great be movies and a few sports here and there is anything else going on on our property? it's our property. imagine if we had our own audience network. we of other assets. our tax dollars. we are grumbling about taxes. why don't we grumble about what we don't get for them? reciprocity. that's the important thing. what do we get for our taxes? we have got to be more demanding in terms of what the beginning and return for trillions of dollars of government r&d that we pay for that adult the great industries in this country whose executives take credit for themselves, like the semiconductor industry, a good deal of the pharmaceutical industry, the aerospace industry, the biotech industry, the nanotech industry, the containerization industry.

this stuff came out of the pentagon, nasa, national institutes of public health. once you start amassing the assets, we get a higher morale boost. we help start the perks with public research groups. here's another morale factor gets in. if it's easy to band together, you're more likely to band together. if you can't find each other, it's hard to band together and become an effective force. so we persuaded students in the early '70s to vote, to put a check off on their utility bill and assess themselves five, $6.5, six those big is because of the nonprofit group called student public industries group like my further, california. they hire young people who are lawyers, scientists, organizers, bless us am lobbyists.

they have done an enormous job with a tiny, tiny bit of the resources enacted to this facility on their tuition bill. you can go to us pirg, the head of it will be speaking on day three at constitution hall september 28 of this month. let me and on this note. we, to think very strategically, not just in terms of what's wrong. we need to think about have a higher estimate of her own significance as citizens. that's part of civics self-respect. we need to think creatively, how to develop mechanisms where people band together as utility ratepayers, as tenants, as workers, as taxpayers, as consumers and various areas. we need to recognize the most successful lobbyists on carved

up mess around with marches and rallies. have you ever see the inner a with a massive rally in washington? have you seen aipac with a massive rally in washington? is because they focus on 535 people, their staff, doctors, lawyers, accountants. that's what they do. focused completely focused on their members of congress. laser beams is wanted it to say, focus. that's how they get leverage. they know there are 535. that's just smart strategy. developing check off to get people together, depending on the class or the economic interest. that's just smart politics. and the final thing is to start utilizing the rights we already have. we underutilized our rights when we are wrongfully injured under

the law of wrongful injury. 98% of the people are wrongfully injured don't even go to a lawyer to file suit or a claim against their perpetrator. we totally underutilized our rights of contract. we signed on the dotted line or click on, we don't even see the contract, and then they charge us dirty $5 for a bounced check the cost the bank about and a half. did you ever say to yourself, get i agree to that? did i agree that the airline said that they could change the media on frequent fliers without our consent? did i agree to that? that i agree when the hospital said the moment you went through the doors and to sign a general consent form, you agreed not to go to court in case of a malpractice? would i agree to that? to two great self-perpetuating freedoms out of medieval england to the u.s., the law of torts and the lov law of contracts. that's what the entire day for

constitutional hall is all about on september 29. so do spread the word. and remember, out of the smallest exertions can come great movements. middlebury college. a few years ago now mckibbin had his students, class, talked about climate change, climate change. finally, the student got up and said whatever going to do about it? all we do is talk about. so bill mckibben said what you wanted to? we want to march on climate change issues in burlington, vermont. so 1000 students marched come and reporters tell them this is the biggest march that ever occurred in the united states on climate change. they said, what? here in vermont, the biggest march? something must be wrong. they started 350.org and it has chapters all over the world that is put huge rallies into place and it has 100 or 50 full-time people already. one little class, middlebury

virginia. it is not only nature that has seized the growth of the mighty oak trees. it is you and you and you. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, ralph nader. i'd like to note that we're right on schedule until our last speaker. [laughter] but that's okay. it was worth it. our next talk would be a panel discussion, and i'm going to introduce the moderator of the panel and then i will let her introduce the panelists. and moderate is katherine isaac, she is with the campaign for postal banking and a grand alliance to save our public postal service at the american postal workers union.

she serves on the board of the international labor rights forum, and she formerly worked here in this building at the center for study of responsive law. while there she but civics or democracy attorney for teachers and students edge also led to some institute on teaching activism. katherine, take it away. >> thank you. thank you very much. can you hear? >> i am delighted to be a today. good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the panel on teaching civics, even the question. i'm going to introduce our panel is and i'm going to talk a little bit about our civics or democracy project invented over to them and invalidism questions so that the panel can talk with each other after the presentations. >> so to miners left is ayo magwood, and upper school

teacher, ended up in a school in washington, d.c. she currently teaches u.s. history an elective entitled mapping inactivate nbc. she teaches u.s. history with my to bring future citizens to be able to engage in respectful and informed dialogue on current issues. she consistently show students how the same ideological value tensions that fly under struggle debates and developers also underlie current and future issues. she start to show that instead of. >> opposing viewpoints and to counter them with informed evidence rather than with partisan soundbites. she teaches history through a strong social justice lands. for example, did you choose a penny the usual u.s. history chronology and starting to hear with a four-week, 19 -- six-week, good. six-week, 1960s to the present unit entitled understanding the rise of trumpism and black lives matter to the underline objective is to help the students come to understand about the rise of income and

racial inequality. next we have julian dotson, president and ceo of the d.c. urban league, urban debate league. he coaches several debate teams in the public and private schools in the d.c. area. he taught english at the date for 14 years until he finally devoted his time to expanding a debate league in the metropolitan region. is a screenwriter, graphic designer, poet and avid fisherman who loves to tackle -- ha ha -- topic is an approach education with a worldview. this jack of all trades credits his father forcing them to do what it takes to be self-sufficient. his mother for teaching him out on his wife come and his wife of 12 years forcing the good in the human spirit. he has three children who all attend the maya angelou school in maryland. and last but not least robyn lingo who brings him as 15 years of youth empowerment nonprofit

management curriculum development and youth facilitation experience to her role as executive director for mikva challenge. she fashioned by providing authentic spaces for d.c. youth to investigate, effecting change the world around them. she looks forward to building more opportunities to bring youth voice into local decision-making and to highlight young people's ability to be engaged citizens and community leaders. but before i turn it over to them, i want to talk a little bit about the project that ralph sponsored in the early '90s which culminated in a book called civics or democracy. so it shouldn't be a big surprise to any of you that ralph saw a great need for engaging in people in our system of government. not civic education in our schools was and still largely is focused on voting, jury duty, knowing the three branches of government.

students need to be equipped with a knowledge of citizen movements in our history with practical tools for participation as well as opportunities to practice those tools and build civic skills. our goal was to train students to be fully engaged as citizens activists, not merely as voters or volunteers. as ralph wrote, our schools do not teach chemistry without a laboratory, cooking without a kitchen or, nor computer programming without computers. likewise, cities cannot be properly taught without using the kennedy as a natural laboratory so that students can learn by doing. we begin working with educators, historians and activists to produce this textbook. we wanted first to add curriculum, the missing curricula a people's history of the civil rights, labor, women's rights, consumer and environmental movements. led by ordinary americans and an

essential part of u.s. history. as historian lawrence goodwin put it, one cannot construct what one cannot imagine. we also saw the need to teach practical tools to these include pamphleteering, whistleblowing, forming a citizen group, conducting public education, research, direct action and citizen lobbying. we showed students how to use the courts initiative and referenda, shareholder activism and the media. we included activities that allow states to practice citizen tools and skills in the laboratory of the community, gain confidence and experience to continue the practice of six throughout their lives. into 20 plus years and civics or democracy, various organizations and educators have made significant progress and especially in teaching a more conclusive history. not there's much more to be done. so let's not hear from our panelists who are doing this work of civic education day in and day out.

ayo? >> my name is trying what i want to tell you about myself, like i do. my african-american mother and my white father met each other in 1964, three years before loving v. virginia, supreme court decision that banned, it struck down interracial marriage ban. they met each other at a civil rights group in new york. so these to take me and my, what you call the? stroller on strikes and marches with a sign attached to the i grew up in a very come a group in a very strongly self justice background it's in my blood your can't get away from it. another very formative experience was i spent my 20s in a maoist peasant cooperative

in mexico. long story. it was also very formative. and in my third experience be forgot to wear in which is an independent school for most of wealthy, mostly white students is a spent ages teaching in charter schools, urban charter schools, quote-unquote blowing, african-american and latino students. at the school i taught u.s. government. it was there i immersed myself in all civics, not just curriculum but just don't civics tradition. i have read a lot about civics and really took on the role of trying to make the kind of form future citizens of america. i was a little sad when i switched to my new school and switched years history, but i soon found out actually i think my role is even stronger in the more important, and actually think i can do more and be more

effective at forming citizens in u.s. history that i can use government. in u.s. government i can talk to them about the importance of civic and we can learn how to do it but i think a big challenge to forming citizens who can tackle the problems of today is our u.s. history, which unfortunately too much, teaching and for traditional mainstream history that reinforces the current traditions. as they say, the massive tools cannot dismantle the master's house. so when you're teaching this type of really traditional white man mythical, if you try hard enough you get that type of history, and then you turn around and okay, now we're going to talk about race, racial and income inequality. then it conflicts and so i think

you would have to teach the roots of today's problems in u.s. history. you need to get down to the root causes. just give you an example. this summer i was very shaken by the two deaths of black men by police and the rise of trumpism. and i said i just can't go on as if nothing has happened. i e-mailed my supervisor and i said i'm just completely compressing the curriculum and i'm making space for a six-week curriculum on the rise of trumpism and black lives matter which essentially rise of income inequality and the rise of, the persistence of institutional racism. i'm going to spend six weeks on it. not that i'm going to put in the beginning of the utah are not going to wait to the end of the year. it's going to start the unit. got any problems with the? he said no. i said great. [applause]

and i spent a long time because it's very delicate because as a teacher you have to teach in a very objective way in a very balanced way and is a very controversial issues. so it took a lot of sweat and i spent a lot in the summer work at the curriculum. teaching kids, we didn't even say the name trump into like two, three weeks into the because we had to go all the way back to 1960s, 1970s, trace the rise of income inequality went to trace the rise of racial recently. on the back into the roots. acetyl by supervisor this is not current events unit. this is the 1960s to the present unit because all the stuff has been bubbling under the surface and this is coming out of the surface now. i sho should the faculty and tow the kids, i do a picture of iceberg and on other topics as electoral polarization, black

lives matter, urban riots. that's part of the iceberg that shows. then there's a huge under the iceberg, and under desperate it is rise of income inequality, persistence of institutional racism. because we go all the way down and trace back and talk about all those things. i find it very interesting that, of course, by the end of the kids were able to talk about these issues, the modern-day issues in a very informed matter but i noticed, i semi-lessons at a bunch of different educators from across the city and not a single educators will impact the they all said we can't come we don't have enough time. we have to teach the real u.s. history. there's not enough time for current events issue unit. sorting out six weeks. i kept arguing, it's not a current events issue. it's just teaching everything that's happened, but no, we have