>> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> we have a special web page at c-span.org to help you follow the supreme court. go to c-span.org and select supreme court near the right-hand top of page. once on our supreme court page, you'll see four of the most recent oral arguments heard by the court this term. and click on the view all link to see all the oral arguments covered by c-span. in addition, you can find recent appearances by many of the supreme court justices or watch justices in their own words, including one-on-one interviews in the past months with justices kagan, thomas and ginsburg. there's also a calendar for this term, a list of all current

justices with links to quickly see all their appearances on c-span as well as many other supreme court videos available on demand. follow the supreme court at c-span.org. >> now, a look at policing and race relations in the u.s. speakers include a member of the president's task force on 21st century policing, a former new york city police officer and two college professors. they discuss the role of the media and how communities are responding to the use of force and other practices like stop and frisk. from the chicago ideas week, this is an hour. [applause] >> good afternoon. before we start, i know that gabriel has you all welcome each other, and if you want to give a shoutout for the chicago cubs while you're here, you know, you can do that as well.

[laughter] well, welcome. good afternoon and welcome to what we expect will be a very lively conversation about the police force of the future. you know the names of the cities; ferguson, baltimore, baton rouge, charlotte, chicago, dallas, sub you are ban st. paul -- suburban st. paul, the list could go on, tulsa. those are just is few of the cities that have pushed the issue of policing, the often deadly interaction between police and those they serve and the safety of both police and communities front and center. and there's no question that the current state of policing is an emotional and a controversial subject that we're wrestling with all over the country. consider just some of the small phrases that get really big reactions. law and order. stop and frisk. black lives matter. blue lives matter.

so that's the backdrop of the conversation that we're about to have this afternoon. now, most police officers do the job that we ask them to do, to protect and serve our communities, and they do it quite well. but no matter what your perspective, there is a building consensus that there needs to be change, that the police force of the future must be different. what we ask police officers to do beyond enforcing the law, how police are trained, how accountability is assigned, which policing methods they use, all of those are up for debate here today. so this year reportedly more than 700 people have been killed by police officers in the united states. a dis disproportionate number of them people of color. and we're here to discuss why those are so numerous and propose solutions.

and we have just a little over an hour to do it, so, you know, we're going to get started. and we've assembled a group of experts with very diverse opinions and backgrounds to talk us through this key issue, so i'd like to introduce them and bring them to the stage. first up, craig futterman, professor of law at the university of chicago law school, it was his freedom of information or act request that led to the video release of the shooting of laquan mcdonald in 2014. craig? [applause] ♪ ♪ >> nice to see you. >> just right here. >> right here? >> second one. second one, right there. yeah. [laughter] and we welcome next eugene o'donnell, a former new york city police officer, now professor of law and police studies at john j. college of -- john jay college of criminal justice in new york.

welcome. [applause] >> also joining us this afternoon, dr. cedric alexander, public safety director of dekalb county, georgia. he is past president of the national organization of black law enforcement executives. he's also a member of president obama's task force on 21st century policing. [applause] and finally, marc lamont hill, a journalist, television host, professor of african-american studies at morehouse university and author of the new book, "nobody: casualties of americans' war on the vulnerable from ferguson to flint and beyond." [cheers and applause] >> well, gentlemen, thank you.

i expect you will hold nothing back. [laughter] i'm going to start off with some news that was made yesterday when a -- there are an organization of police chiefs, the international group, association of chiefs of police is meeting. and when you talk about racism inside policing, it's a very delicate issue, especially as many rank and file police officers come to resent accusations of systemic racism by groups such as black lives matter. so i think it might have surprised a few folks yesterday during the meeting of the association of police chiefs when terry cunningham, the outgoing president of that group, apologized for historical racism by law enforcement. he cited the role of police as enforcers of racist laws such as

jim crow, he called it a source of today's mistrust between minorities and police officers. gentlemen, i'd like you all to address that, if you think this is a step that police departments should be taking. i know that some folks at the meeting thought it was a ten that went too far. -- a step that went too far. marc, i'm going to start with you. [laughter] >> that's a great question. and, first of all, thank you all for inviting me, and it's great to see everyone here. this is a question i wrestled with a lot as i was writing my book, "nobody," because i was looking at thehistorical underpinning. and one of the things that i continued to come back to is this idea that we can't think about racism in the context of policing purely at the level of intention. if we continue to look for the rabid, folking at the mouth racism -- foaming at the mouth racism of police officers, we'll find them. we'll find those things. but far more important and

consistent is the number of people who are victimized by a system that by design and by structure leads to the overpolicing of some communities at the expense of others. it leads to the criminalization of certain bodies as opposed to others. and it affects the psyches of officers and citizens and how they understand race. if you look at a study out of stanford, you talk about this idea that black children are seen as older and more guilty than their white counterparts. that leads to a tamir rice being 12 and being read at 20. doesn't mean the said let's let many go kill a 12-year-old today. there's all these die page ins. the question is -- dynamics. the question is, does an apology help? absolutely. we must be accountable for it. and finally i would say, you know, we've been using the bad apple spoils the bunch model to think about police officers. there's a bunch of good apples and there's a bad apple.

i think that might be the wrong way to think about this because it positions everything at the level of individualism. i'm saying there might be something in the barrel itself that renders all apples bad even if they want to be good. to vetch the metaphor. so let's think about this in a different way. >> how do you think about it, dr. alexander? >> well, it's great that he apologized and, certainly, for someone who is representative of the largest police organization in the world, the international association of chiefs of police, i think it was a welcomed apology. however, i don't think it's the, it's going to change very much. to be perfectly honest with you. it is great to have the apology, but what is really going to be profound if we're going to, if policing across this country is

going to apologize for its past deeds, is that it also has to come locally. and i think local police officials in their own respect i communities -- respective communities need to have the courage to do what we saw the president of iacp do the other day. because that's the real test. that's where the real apology, in that neighborhood, in that community where historically we all know policing has been utilized over the years particularly going back to slavery, jim crow, civil rights. having utilized by government to keep people oppressed, suppressed. but i think what's going to be really important is for us as law enforcement officials to go back to our own communities and make these apologyies for the things we could have done better over the years. and then promising to do something really a lot different

and great as we move forward. >> mr. o'donnell? >> the if fbi director basically said the police profession is an irreparably damaged state. that's absolutely correct. nobody wants the job at this point, nobody feels they can do the job in urban america. carter commission 50 years ago said you should have a four-year degree. chicago can't even answer 30 credits or a filing fee trying to get police officers going guard. these are real issues. we need to get into substance, how to go forward. we're sitting in a city where ten people were shot yesterday. two were killed, one 15. and the victims and the communities have been silenced. i would respectfully suggest to you cops have been totally silenced. nobody talks to them. everybody can do their job better, everybody's an expert.

they wouldn't do it for five minutes, but the communities on the ground have been utterly, utterly silent in cities like chicago and baltimore and philadelphia. hundreds of thousands of people leaving the cities because of disorder and fear and crime and asking for more police productivity, and we've seen a collapse in police proactivity as an elite, self-appointed elite has decided to have a conversation that does not connect with people. we've caused irreparable damage. not only do we have a collapse of recruiting, we have an exodus at the moment from big city police departments. people are flying out of the new york city police department. 90% of the cops say they wouldn't recommend that job to anybody. okay? there was a cadre of young people that wanted to be police people. the institution could not survive three years and more

than probably a billion dollars of negative, incessant, afactual, uncontextualized, lacking in nuance coverage of what the police did. and we're happy to go through that. it's a good day, i think, to talk about the forward, not to go back. i think the apologies in some ways go back. we need to talk about a postpolicing america. we're simply not going to find the people you'd want in a police uniform to do the work. you may find somebody, you may have a department of employment, but you're not going to have a department of police unless we as a society come together in a very, very unified way. because i do believe this is a very unifying topic, actually. if you get on the ground and you talk to people, you'll find out that there's a tremendous amount of room for -- police, of course, remain one of the most esteemed pronegativeses in the country -- professions in the country. ironic. they're being bashed incessantly

by lawyers and politicians and journalists, okay? 5% approval rating of those professions, police are almost always in the 60s. ironic, indeed. but it'd be a good time to have a conversation of how do we reimagine public safety with a shrinking role for the police. >> mr. futterman, a lot to take in there. the silencing of voices, i would suspect you have something to say about that. >> yeah. well, i guess let me start with -- >> the apology. >> -- with your question, the apology. i think it's a good thing. i mean, i think it's a step in the right direction, but i also think that there are risks in not -- not the risks that my colleague, not the same risks that my colleagues are talking about when we're talking about apologizing for the past. i think they're the risks of saying that was then and this is now. that, yeah, that's stuff that happened then, should never happen.

we acknowledge that, and i think it's important to acknowledge it. but i think it's even more important to acknowledge some of the things that marc was talking about which are present-day racism and not just the virulent stuff, but also the present-day reality that all too many black and brown folks and lower income folks have had to address. and i think, and that's the first step toward -- in terms of looking forward, to me, the first step to move forward is it begins with acknowledging the reality on the ground. and i think that we may have different ideas and views as to what those realities may be based on where we sit. but i also want to just say to you and also to everyone here, so being one of these professor/lawyer/civil rights folks, elites, that i come from -- and i'm fan of police.

i am not one of those we need to get rid of, get rid of, get rid of, get rid of, get rid of law enforcement. and one of the reasons why i'm hopeful and why i'm hopeful for 2 isst century policing -- 21st century policing, it begins with the creative energies and activism of young folks around this nation that's forced us to reckon with their and acknowledge the realities as real. but i'm also hopeful because i meet every day too, and i know about the thousands of honorable officers out there who hate this crap as much as i do, and i think we need to move toward a time where we are empowering those officers, the vast majority of those, to feel comfortable stepping out. and just one point on this. in chicago we wouldn't not be having this conversation in chicago if someone from within law enforcement hadn't of had the courage to give me a holler and let me know what happened with laquan mcdonald.

we wouldn't be having this conversation today. but the sad reality is that person, that person can't be known. they put their life on the line. they put their family on the line. they put their career on the line by stepping forward. when i have conversations with police officers around the united states, i'll hear stories and good stories hike that where officers have stepped forward. but then i ask the next question, and it's been rare that i've gotten hands to this. they'll tell me, good people will tell me good stories about police officers who have made dramatic changes in departments and who have exposed corruption, but when i ask someone give me a story to about a happy ending for the officer who stepped forward, i get a lot of silence. and that's got to change. >> i want to talk to you, the big thing that happened after ferguson was that the president decided that we needed to have a conversation about policing, and he formed this task force which you are a member of.

and one of the things that was recommended was about collecting data to really find out what's happening. and i wanted to know what is your kind of frank and unvarnished opinion about whether the white house's current push for this kind of data collection and to share more data about the use of force, the use of guns against against -- or weapons against suspects, is that really going to produce good national numbers when you have a police force across the country that is so diverse? they're, what, nearly 1800 police departments across the -- >>18,000. >> 18,000? yeah, sorry about that. 18,000. so all with different ways of collecting -- and this is voluntary. so do you expect really to have

true numbers about what is happening across the countriesome. >> well, i think what's critically important is that we're having a conversation. one thing we talked about ad nauseam during the creation of those task force recommendations was to take a look at data and how much -- because what we don't know, we cannot measure, right? and until we know the number of shootings that are taking place, the number of near misses that are taking place, the number of charges that are being brought against police officers, you take all this information as relates to police and community interactions, traffic stops, whatever the case may be, and the more information that we have about a particular agency, the better description we have of who that agency is. because try to think about it anecdotally. you can't do it, okay? you can't measure it with your eye.

you have to have hard science, hard numbers to be able to look at. so to your question, with 18,000 police departments across the country and the government is not going to mandate -- or at least not at this point anyway -- mandate agencies to take part in this because that's going to require resources and money and training and so forth and on. but a lot of departments that want to be ahead of the curve, a lot of departments that have the money in order to do this and to gather this data, to use the latest technology that is out there as it's being developed, i think you're going to see a much better police department. because when you can take a look at what it really is that your officers are doing every day on the street, look at that information, analyze it, and what you're doing good you can say we're doing good at. and the things we're not doing so great at, these are things in which we need to be able to -- >> i think it's a challenge

though. >> go ahead. >> and i agree. you need data to expect people to make sense of numbers without any kind of systematic data collection is troublesome at best. so there were two questions embedded in your question, right? one is should we be collecting data on police? yeah. i can't think of any good reason why we shouldn't. there's no reason why we shouldn't count the number of people that get shot, right? why would we not want to know that? but then there's a second piece to that question, is it helpful and does it make us hopeful to a different outcome? i come out of an abolitionist tradition, aecom out of -- i come out of a radical one. i'm imagining a world without prison, without police, without these things, because i'm always skeptical of any reformist gesture because it makes us think prisons and police are salvageable, i am not. let me say before any empirical investigation be, i ain't down

with that, all right? [laughter] however, i do think to the extent we're going to keep track of police, we have to do this. the problem is if police are responsible for collecting the data and classifying categories, then we're asking police to continue to police themselves even empirically, and that makes me very skeptical. we hear all the time and you mentioned the reclassification of murders, right? when there are numbers games to be played, how do we classify a homicide versus something else, right? whether it's for funding, whether it's to make it look like crime going up, crime going down, etc. so the higher stakes we attach to those numbers, we see this in education all the time, the more we make people who are vulnerable and say these numbers will dictate your future and outcome, it invites a kind of dishonesty with the numbers. i'm suggesting greater oversight. one, it should be mandatory that all police departments do that. i can't imagine a police department not being forced to keep track of the people they

shoot or the officers that get so shot or the traffic stops, or the tickets. all these things are things we should be able to know. the war on drugs produced a bizarre amount of militarization of police, arming of police. departments haven't had a murder in decades suddenly have military-grade equipment. we can find money to do quantitative analysis. it's a lot cheaper to do hierarchical linear molding than it is to buy a tank. >> let me say this with regards to what marc is talking about, and he's on point, but i don't think if i have the ability to collect data, i don't need to be the one to examine it. i need to -- >> so you agree with him. >> i need someone to understand it and can tell me what it is that we need to do different, because he's right. i could look at it and skew it any way i want to. well, these numbers don't look the way i want them to look, so

let me interpret it a different way. but i think when you have a group of people who are outside of your organization that you're working with that can collect the data, the data goes into the mainframe somewhere, and you can look at it and you can discuss it and you can talk about the things that we can do very, very differently, that's very important. because, you know, the whole key is the more transparent we are as a police agency, i think that begins to relieve some of this distrust that is we're constantly hearing. we're going to have policing in this country. that's not going to change. and at least probably not in my lifetime. marc's much younger than i am. [laughter] >> not that much. [laughter] >> but probably not in mine. but it'd be wonderful if we lived in a place where we didn't have to have prisons, we didn't have to have police. but the fact of the matter is that today as we know we do, so

how do we, how do we operate in this system that we're in in a way that gives the communities across this country is a better view into their local police and beginning to have some influence into their, into how their service is delivered to them. >> let me -- >> by their local police. >> could i -- >> i want to ask you, because i don't want to get too far into the weeds on this. but when we talk about 18,000 police departments, of course, the big police departments are going to be doing this. but when you talk about the smaller departments, mr. o'donnell, i want you to address that, you know, what kind of thing are we going to be seeing with them? is it going to be, is it going to promote more transparency, and is it going to make policing more effective? what do you think? >> if you don't mind, i'll back up here. we're in a country where facts matter less and less every day. and this police dialogue is a great example of this. the media decided approximately three years ago, you can almost

pick the day, that this was going to be an issue. police deadly force was going to be an issue, and they were going to run with that issue, particularly when they could racialize that issue -- >> you believe that. >> unequivocally. provably. >> would you prove that? >> the fact that many more white people are killed by police, the fact that we live in a nation where there's so much gun violence. city after city after the city if you took a murder map and planted the murders on the map in philly, baltimore and chicago, there are whole neighborhoods you couldn't see anymore. the fact that within a year or two in some streets, in some cities, more people are murdered than whole other streets in a decade. the fact that the law is favorable to the police in these situations in a way that's very hard to change. and you could go on and on and on with this. i knew want and fact -- nuance

and fact became an utter casualty. not that there are not real issues here, but this has been a media campaign that really replicates the blogosphere. and "the new york times" and "the wall street journal" is in the forefront also of this trying to create a story, and they want that story to be there. they still don't have that story. and the -- they throw out a raw number, the police kill this many people in a year. i will talk about, very quickly, the police department i know very well, the new york city police department. one of the most restrained police departments on the planet. okay? five million calls a year, approximately 50 shootings a year. almost invariably against an armed assailant. and yet if you went into the streets of new york and you talked to people, a large number of people would say the police are always killing people. and so if we're waiting for data -- and i know people think that the data misrepresentation is only on the right.

we've got to get the politics out of this. we've got to see what really works for public safety. and wal have to -- and we also have to talk about victims. we need to acknowledge that in police department after police department, shooters are shooting, and they're not getting caught. and if the cops are going out and catching the shooters, we'd have even more officer-involved shootings. that in cities, a lot of cities, this city in particular, you have a police department in name only. the cops get there when they get there. okay? just the orr day, i had an african-american woman whose son was murdered in this city, and she's not part of an elite. and when the police were being bashed, she said i don't turn to politicians and lawyers when i need help, i turn to the police. we have to have a real, nonpartisan, substantive, forward-thinking conversation about how to secure communities. get the poll techs out of it -- politics out of it, take off

people's partisan political blinders and see what's really out there. >> craig futterman, what do you think about that? i mean, you investigate and look at cases of abuse and, you know, is this something that is a media storm that was created, or is this something that peopled need to be -- people need to be taking a look at? >> i couldn't disagree more. i couldn't disagree more. [applause] i mean, in the same way right now we have presidential candidates saying this is all a conspiracy, this is a media conspiracy by "the new york times," this is a media conspiracy by the elites, this is a media conspiracy with anyone that disagrees with us, and i think, seriously, the attitude, this us against them mentality is the last thing that we need at this part-time. part-time -- at this time. .. g

it's a national disgrace that if you asked how many people were killed by police in america last year we could just shrug our shoulders. it's more than just encouraging the 18,000 law enforcement agencies to collect information. it's requiring it and requiring it in a standardized way. that's how we have informed conversations, public conversations about what needs to be done, not just knee-jerk stuff. i'll say this, back to data into things. human data matters. i spent the last four years talking with black high school students about chicago, about

their everyday experiences with police. kids who are in school and what i'm told, this is not thousands of hours we spent with kids, would break any human being's heart. we've got to do something better. as you know we have in some neighborhoods in chicago less than a 20% clearance rate for murders, for violence. not surprisingly those neighborhoods are the same neighborhoods we want to look at david where we see the greatest numbers of complaints of police abuse. >> please are a fault. i'm sorry, i can't help but said police are at fault. they are at fault because of their not solving crime. >> how about being on his? my point is you just arguing this, i don't want that, i don't want transparency. >> i said it won't matter. spirit so the truth doesn't matter. my point is the truth is where we need to start. we want to fix things.

if we care about our safety, if we care about our communities, this is what you said. we need honesty. honesty starts with not just kind of see him once or the other but actual honesty, let's collect a look at what the data state and also let's talk to the people who have been most included in these conversations. why are police having difficulty solving cases? if the kids and want to talk with, none of them trust the police, none of them are going to the police even when someone close to them gets hurt. something is wrong. something is terribly wrong. unless we do something, we don't want the vast majority of our children distrusting police. >> why not? maybe they should. we are beginning from the premise that police are trustworthy, they ensure we don't want to great a world

where people don't trust police. if i said i don't trust politicians, you should. look at them. right? at some point there's a set of structural questions we have to raise. to your point, i was listening carefully, i think we don't want to underestimate the value not of media and citizens raising issues. media didn't want to talk about that black kids anymore than quite frankly politicians in or anyone else. win trayvon martin was killed it was, that's the first moment. >> let's be clear. that was a vigilante. >> i'm not -- >> we got to get our facts straight. that's a person, not a policeman. >> i was making an argument. what i'm saying was win trayvon martin was killed that was the first big moment post-rodney king wer where the media was be talking about gun violence. it was the first big 21st

century trial where we started talking about these issues. that started a wave of activism working to finish the black lives matter begin. by the time they get to augus august 2014 which is what mike brown died, suddenly there's a movement afoot. it took months for us to old police accountable for trayvon martin. the issue was a police officer telling you. it's that police would bring charges. he's black, he's young, he still matters. you've got to do something about this. it was calling police to d get a job. it was like media was like -- >> but this is an elite argument. let's abolish the police. it's great if the children are not being killed. police abolition as a great argument if you live in a compound or you live in a dorm building. how many people left the city because of police abuse? i'm not excusing police abuse.

omri people left the city and other cities, and it's an in the millions, because of the collapse of public safety? those -- [applause] >> cities have hollowed out and if you want to go so abolition to people, but -- >> allow me to finish. >> my apologies. >> so the first thing is there's a movement. the second thing is the question of race. i don't think that it is some kind of hocus-pocus by the media to raise the question of race. yes more white people are killed by police. based on your presence of the population for black folks -- >> what percentage are homicide victims in a big city? almost everybody. almost every single victim in a big city, in a city like this you would not find, you'd have to go for have to go for longtime defined white victims in this city. >> let's make a commitment to want another.

i promise -- let me make the argument and -- >> go ahead. >> i have been able to to screw with the argument. i promise i will be fast. just let me finish. the question of race has to be raised. proportionality of crime. also which neighborhoods are being policed, over police to? when we talk of a stop and frisk which was a nuke-based project, that is a race driven argument window to where stop and frisk happen. when you talk about broken windows policing, takes a slight, that is a rate targeted policy. they did say let's go find the black people but the notion of disorder which was the predicate for stop and frisk and four, for broken windows policing is a perception of crime. the perception of crime, empirical data shows has been linked to poverty and race. i think those things better.

abolition, we are here to talk of big ideas. i'm not here to so abolition to bar. this is a long-term dream. and 60 night it is impossible to imagine a world without slavery. in 1819 it was -- do we get 1863. let's have a vision of what the world could look like and then let's engage in -- not the least policy but on the current policy that can stop some the pain, because i'm on the ground. i'm not in a gated building. i matter doing, stopping the stuff with my own body. but at the same time this can't be the in game. i thank -- >> so what are the policies that keep people safe? what keeps people safe on the ground? >> that's not what i'm talking about. [talking over each other]

>> no one mentioned marxism the you can do both. for example, a civilian review board. that's the abstract. spirit let me ask you this because dr. alexander, then we will let you get in, you were part of the navelgazing i guess as part of a task force that whatever century policing. >> yeah, celeb to talk about this from a police administered perspective, as one of the chiefs. i listened to my two colleagues here and to talk about things very differently, and they talk about things differently based on what their experiences have been. one of the hardest things to talk about is policing and who's right, who's wrong, who's on first, who's on second. is merely because the whole

introduction of policing into communities of color have been wrong right from the inception. there's never been any trust. here again it goes back to what i was talking about moments ago where a lease across this country was used to suppress groups of people and keep them in the place or keep them on their side of the tracks. and so as we move through the decades and through the centuries, some of that got better but it didn't change in a whole lot of places. and we know that in many communities across this country people don't trust police just as he is referring to because police had betrayed communities also in which they have policed. they've asked people to be witnessed and they turn around and to use them in a different kind of way to put them out on front street.

so a lot of people don't have a reason to want to tell who shot johnny down the street even though they know who did it. they want to but there's a fear because there has never been any trust whatsoever between leasing, and some of the horrific things policing have done that innocent people, period, over the history of policing. you don't have to go back a long time ago in order to know this. so we are in this place where, something mark was talking about, and this is where it gets complicated and complex is that in many communities that are struggling, the southside of chicago are rather fifth ward in houston or the south end of the county in dekalb where i live, regardless of where it is, you have people there who don't feel connected to policed for a variety of different reasons.

and some of it is based on their own experience, some of the based on stories and myths that are being told that all of those things, right? but i think one thing that we have to be able to do if we're going to advanced policing, we have to understand that when a predominately african-american community says today, chief alexander, i've got a lot of crime in my community, i've got break-ins, robbery, drug sales and i've got young black people kill each other and shooting each other every night and 90 police presence, so i put police presence down here, and when police get better, they go down, hopefully they are not violating people's rights, but in real tough situations and to go down and they arrest someone strength or cousin or niece or nephew or son or daughter to deal with the argument is the next day? there's too many god damn police down here.

so i mean, you can't have it both ways, and he gets to a point where i hear where we don't want to over police, if i'm not they are being present, being visible, then me suppressing any crime or trying to keep other people from getting hurt becomes were difficult. but if i put too many police in their and they start to interact with people in the community who are not doing what they're supposed to be doing, they are breaking the law, and i can get complaints. i'm not saying that officers are right all the time to go there but many of the times they are they are literally trying to do their job. but people have certainly their perceptions about what their local police department is or is not doing. so nobody sitting around of the circled it is wrong about their experience of what the perception is. it's just that we all are seeing it very, very differently because it's so convoluted, so

complex it those communities want me in there. there. they want the police in there, right? the police is not the result of a bad economy or poor education or those things that drive this crime. that's not the police officers fault. they are just the ones have to respond to the outcome of all these social ills. and what they do they generally end up often times with some negative interaction that may take place, and sometimes officers are right and sometimes unfortunately there are times when they are wrong. >> want to talk about officer biden, but greg, go ahead and respond first off to some of the things that have been said. >> the first thing i'm going to, really on the heels of director alexander is if you like your folks you're not going to get trust. my point an officer marc is tury those responding, it's not fun to advocate for people to police because that's right thing to

do. i'm saying there is a real objective problem and police cannot be effective without trust. but the only way, and his to solve the problem is by being honest with people. by not lying. and also by being accountable. fundamentally a terrible to the communities we serve. when i talked about working and talking with kids and for the last few years spent a lot of time in a high school just five blocks from where i teach at the university chicago, and among the things, it's like they're two different constitutions that apply. there's constitution that applies a lower income black and brown communities in chicago and elsewhere in urban areas of the united states, and then there's the constitution i teach my law school classroom about you don't get stopped unless we have a reasonable belief that you committed a crime or that your armed and dangerous before i search you.

because part of what, so new york, chicago makes new york in terms of stop and frisk up until just very recently, chicago has put new york to shame in terms of stop and frisk. when i speak to kids, these are just everyday kids who live with the ever present possibility of being stopped and searched and treated like a criminal. and every kid also those in every kid who lives on the southside of chicago par part oe round is we're talking everyday experiences, also know a family member who's been beaten or arrested and some would even been shot and killed by police. they know that we team encountered has the potential to escalate. every kid we talk to talk to this as an everyday experience. when i say the best burger of her kids in chicago, black kids in chicago high schools are telling me, then entity 200 kids

in lab school were my own daughter attends four or five blocks away. not a single kid other than my daughter who deserved it, that's a different story, different panel, had ever been stopped or searched by police. and so, also i guess the biggest thing that the kids taught us was that there is not going to be this trust until and unless they see police departments stand behind of those good officers, smile and treat them with respect but you don't stay behind officers who abuse them. the reality in chicago into many places is there's been an utter lack of police accountability when police officers abuse their power. that is what the data shows. >> the fourth amendment and talking but in a law school class is terrific but let's acknowledge in new york, a city that once had 200,000 murders --

>> not that constitution. >> you get to the airport and you don't have the fourth amendment right. i'm not suggesting that anyone who knows the fourth amendment knows it's a great day. they need to own up to the fact that by doing that they have helped to create issues and have cost lives and our children dead, no question about it, because police are not out there, there are a paper tiger and the bad guys know. they will end up in prison because they were not interested when they were carrying guns. this is a serious conversation that should be had in the committee. in philadelphia michael nutter was running for mayor, it was more support for stop and frisk in the african-american community than anywhere else. we have to get real and get on the ground and talk to people. it's perfectly well to talk

about the constitution in a law school setting and to dance on the head of a constitutional law been. the reality on the ground is lives are being lost all over the place. shooters are not being caught. to the police want to go out and get issued a 4:00 in the morning? an officer-involved shooting? people have to understand the default setting is to do nothing. i was doing some research a few years ago. lease in chicago in 1872, if in doubt do nothing is basically the advice. >> do you agree that police are doing nothing because of the ferguson effect or -- >> i think there may be some cities where that many people of an issue than it in others. i can speak specifically to my community and say no, but i can

look to a couple other commuters across the country and say that they will could be the case. here's the thing about stop and frisk. stop and frisk went totally unsupervised. if you don't have probable cause or reasonable cause to stop someone, you just can't stop me because when the two black guys walking down the street. you understand what i'm saying? what happens with stop and frisk, crime went down significantly. a lot of guns, a lot of bad people were taken off the street but also people like myself and marc writes compiled it. how does that leave us feeling here's what the president said. >> you can call him barack. [laughter] >> i didn't mean that. >> we all heard it. spilling barack. >> we're just trying to get to that.

>> so here's what the president of united states said, is that, is that we have to bring down crime but we can't do it by raising public recent meant towards the police. we've got to find a way to do both. the only way to do both quite frankly it goes back to what dr. futterman was saying and what i've been saying religiously is that you have to have community engagement and trust in relationships. we can go back and change what has happened, but going forward we've got to figure out how do we create in our communities that have so much distrust for the police at this for a moment, who have lost so much legitimacy in communities across this country, how do we get that back speakers i'm saying that can't happen in a manner that is disconnected from the structural issues that produce these things. so, for example, i agree if you stop and frisk everybody in america or everybody in new york you'll catch a lot more guns

than if you don't. but to put the question is at what cost do we want to do this or how do we strike a balance? or we could have imagined a world, this isn't an abstract academic argument, there are countries that do this in real life, i think i could also imagine a context whether or not this weekend and weather isn't as much gun violence or as many robberies likes that sank investing jobs, head start, invest in afterschool programs, in music, and art. these are things we can do but then we have to imagine those things in connection with the future policing. as your long-term and short-term goal, the radical reform comes from changing relationship between police and community. for example, when i'm in philadelphia, invalid by the way in north philly, not in a gated community, one of the things we do is copy watch programs.

we also do neighborhood watch. would also to conflict resolution with young people. we do gun buyback programs. that because we want to do the police job for them but we have a greater trust with her own community. we police ourselves. that becomes the goal. to me that is the future of policing. when you go to ferguson, you look at a town like a ferguson, 20,000 people. 16,000 citizens have warrants. 16,000 out of 20,000 people. that is unconscionable. that's not police decided we decide to give everybody tickets. what i'm saying is if you're a system where the town business is ticket collecting, no jobs, the city newsman and a of 16,000 people with more than most of them are black so it is a racial thing. do you ever go to traffic court

in a major city? white people are really good drivers. is only black people in the. you have to think about the structural piece of this that leads to a town like ferguson turning police into tax collectors and turning citizens into vulnerable people. we've go got to give it up all about. >> we're going to go out in the audience in just a moment but i want to ask a question because we've been talking a lot about the community and how they feel about police. what we heard from you is that police are full of resentment come with too. so if you look at the 21st century task force and all of the recommendations that it provides to see this is how we need to police and committee working together. is there anything that police buy into and had to get him to say this is okay, but these are things that we need to think

need to be changed because we have an abject political failure. people have failed so badly after so many years but the highest respect for dr. alexander but that report making it appeasing of a panacea. chicago has been policing for 25 years and is a 22000 murders. you have to look and say what an policing do need to be doing that involves giving offenders? it's an adversarial job which is why maybe we've lost our appetite for this. we need to start talking about evolving, involving community, offloading responsibilities, mental health, addiction, look at drugs, look at noncustodial on rest, civil enforcement. strategies that do not involve the police wrestling around on the ground with people. because for all the talk we've heard from some people i get to

anybody coming how the police can make an arrest of a resisting person without using force. of course issue that they deal with, they are charged with using force, and there's plenty of videos. you can see just how fast it happens. you can see out unscripted it is and that there are no rules. echo some cordial to homicidal in the second. we need to have a serious conversation. i think all the action, that big thinking should be shrinking the police role. they have a big service role. that's most of what they do in suburban america. that's what they do. in urban america they have a lack of gun regulation to quick to figure out a way to shrink the role of the police. really it's a democracy issue because the bloggers have taken over. the idea there's a media conspiracy, donald trump is

getting a lot of votes because people do believe that the media is dishonest for major publications. we had to come face-to-face with that. that there is a perception that the media picks up issues, hammers them and person i can tell you from dealing with them they are not only involve with the nuances and the particulars. they want the visceral, emotional and they want the divisive. they want the racially divisive. let's face it. >> that's why the task was suggesting a lot of his data collection comes word to we can get rid of that and see what's really happening on the ground. you go to the obvious. we have about 10 minutes where folks can -- a lot of folks. let me start, a person will come by with a microphone, yes? come to the aisle. okay. come down to the aisle. people with microphones on either side. all right, let's start over here.

>> i saw the supervisor of the chicago police department speak. i'm curious what you also think of it and what other tactical initiatives on the ground to strengthen the trust between the chicago police and the community? are there any grassroots initiatives or initiatives in place? body cameras obviously, more transparency is always good -- >> not body cameras but it's inevitable but it's inconsistent with getting i think people into the police profession you want there. it is causing more police officers to get injured. it is causing more people to be arrested actually. it is an elitist and an industry formulation shoved down peoples throat without debate. if you ask people in

neighborhoods what they want, cameras would never have been on the list. ex post facto critiquing of the police is going to be our conversation. >> how does it create more danger for police speak with for anybody who's been an unscripted argument, forget about a physical confrontation, how fast can they deteriorate? the part of the whole camera issue is the idea that police are equals. the police cannot be equaled. if the police are equals, they lose the lack of a better term the upper hand industry, yet huge problem. anecdotally you do have a huge problem. more people being pulled over and they're saying who the hell you to bowl me over? they are not making requests. they are making demands. the police feel, there's a study that shows they have to -- >> let me have you address the question though. but what is being done here in chicago to create a better atmosphere? is a body cameras are not it.

dr. futterman come anything happening that will make things more palatable to people? >> i'm going to hit the big things. one, it starts with honesty and to think there is revolution, there could be a revolution. the jack is out of the box. one of the things that was exposed in chicago and it's not just the chicago issue, is the reality of the code of silence from top to bottom in that department. this means in terms of what needs to happen and things that are happening in beginning at least happened in chicago but they need to go further than what they have gone is putting in place of real regime of accountability. that's how you build trust. that's also you've improve safety. the other thing at against this isn't a chicago thing because i say that are good examples of where we've seen not just in suburbia where police departments have taken different

attacks and i take the notion that community policing is, for decades in chicago is just a few here you would know that's just simply not true. there's been a talk about community policing, something has been utterly defunded in chicago that go some way back when. but i will say because the actual event community policing and i can see what community policing can do. one example far from just, on the other side of the country richmond, california, i used to live in the bay area and this is right next to oakland, california. and i lived there, edited live in richmond, i lived in oakland, at the time was one of the per capita murder capital of the united states. absolutely no trust between police and using the same kind of tactics we've been talking about. we've street teams, lack of accountability you had a guy who came in from of all places

fargo, north dakota, fargo, as in the movie fargo, at that point fargo homogeneous white, one of the safest midsize cities in the country then, not so much now, was event, and the chief of fargo then moved from fargo, north dakota, to richmond, california. and guess what, implement the same kind of policing it at implement and white communities, and guess what, it worked. he actually police officers were going to put the more experienced police, fight the unions on this and put some of the more experienced officers in some of the roughest communities. they will have to stay there. they will build relationships and they get points not just for busting up the dope boys on the street but get points for resolving a conflict without the need for arresting getting more points for doing the more difficult things that takes a lot more work.

spent north dakota would applaud you. i don't know if we talk much about the northern part of the country like that. >> the last point on richmond, 10 years later crime in richmond, violent crime went way down. trust and police would wake up. clearance rates, the rate at which police were solving violent crime would wake up and there wasn't a police shooting in richmond for 10 years after he took charge. the police officer were held accountable spirit was it a real estate resurgence like was in new york? >> let me ask you this. i want to folks over here, i did want you to touch briefly but we will talk to that if we can. i think we have a person over here. answer faster. >> i'm the harper high school band counselor. [applause]

i love you guys. spirit that's called becoming a man. >> strategy in the city of chicago. first of all you terrified me. when you said the first thing which was an apology -- avec is a step backwards. that's the same logic i hear about the mistakes government about slavery. apologized for what you've done wrong. i'm not sure where you're coming from. >> give me a question. >> cool. the second thing that scares me is when you say there's no reason for, you know what i'm saying? i don't understand. >> question, please. question. >> we protect our own. cops protect their own but there's a culture within police

officers. i was terrified of that because -- we should be the cops home, you know what i'm saying? this is what i do for you. what are your thoughts on restructuring this fraternity that we have right now waited to look out for communities but for themselves speak with real quick because i know other people want to get in. i never said it was backward. it is not come we're going backwards when we are apologizing for things in the past. let me ask you, which you may be considered a police career? >> now. no. i don't think so. but my question to you again, how do you restructure the

fraternity embedded in police or whatever? how do you define who they care about? >> if you don't mind, could i give it to speed is difficult to answer, i need you to do it in 30 seconds. >> so it's a great question because it is the% you that you police. that has its own fraternal organization. that is in many ways separate from the community. and i think what we have to continue to do is for people like you and for all of us to bring up the fact as we recruit a better, as we begin to train better, we have to help our officers understand that police is community and committee is police. because neither one of us is going to function without the other. you can have good public safety if you don't have community involvement. educate have good police officers if you don't have good community involvement. it takes the both of those entities the drones of work together.

so that's a lot of old school thinking but here's what you don't hear about it the police officers out there everyday who do, you just don't hear about it, who to take issue with get in front of an even testified against other officers who were doing things that are wrong. we just don't hear about as much as we here in the other direction. that's a great question. we are getting there and that is what we have to do better, is to make sure that you and i, me being a police officer, you being a citizen, we are really partners in this whole public safety spent the only thing i would add to that is that i think we need greater oversight. for our 18,000 police departments. we need civilian complaint review board. we need mechanisms, people outside the police department are assessing, judging, making analyses of police department action.

it does it mean go with the butcher becomes the arbiter of everything the top does. but go with the butcher matters as well. we need to make sure with oversight. police resist that at every turn. just like all organizations. i was a no, too. i think we need outside oversight. people need, the power needs to be restored to the community and to the people. to your point we need to take away some of the jobs we've assigned to police. we need to stop criminalizing poverty, mental illness. and to the extent we will have police, a premise i don't can see from the beginning, if we will have police from the long-term than it needs to be a minimalized role and it needs to be community policing itself. at every extent possible. >> i think we're just about out of time. gas? yes, we are.

i'm going to just say thank you to all for participating in this conversation on the future of the policing. [applause] thanks to our panelists. thanks to all of you in the audience. good afternoon. [inaudible conversations]

>> sunday on booktv's "in depth," we are hosting a discussion on the december 19 for attack on pearl harbor on the eve of the 75th anniversary. >> we are taking your phone calls, tweets and in no questions live from noon to 3 p.m. eastern. go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> now a discussion on food marketing and its effect on children.

speakers look at how food is advertised on television and the internet and looking again to encourage healthier eating. this was part of a food policy conference that took place in los angeles. it is about an hour and 45 minutes. >> thank you. it's a real pleasure for me to be here. i salute a collaborative effort between ucla and harvard around issues of food and really amazing work will come of this. in fact, already house. would it be possible to put my slides up? to you want me to just advanced than? okay, good. let's see, i'm going to go back to this one first. i'm also happy to be in the presence of so many amazing people that are doing work in this area. my hat goes off as special to senator harkin who's been an incredible public health hero for decades in his work on public service. it's been a pleasure for me to interact with them in that

context. i very much look forward to hearing your comments later today. it's important we get food right. policies around food affect our lives of course in innumerable ways and there are all sorts of pieces of data that suggest this but i would just like to show you one thing from an article that came out last year in the medical journal the talk about the leading risk factors for disease around the world. if you look at the top 10 risk factors for global deaths around the world, here is the list. let's look and see how food is implicated in this particular list. you can see in almost every single case food is a major player. even in indoor air pollution or you wouldn't expect it to be a clear budget is because in many parts of the world people using an efficient cook stove to prepare the food leading to lots of respiratory illness. civil law can be an important player.

i'd like to begin isn't talking about any particular body of evidence, talk about a broader concept which is how can we take the work we do as professionals and scholars and create maximum impact from it? that begins with asking the question how good are we really at creating change? were putting a lot of effort create a lot of papers, research reports, publications, books and the likes but how much change is a leading to and could we tightened up that relationship so we are creating maximum change from our efforts? and so most of us hope we produce knowledge that serves aside and we hope this site actually gets served but it's kind of mysterious cross is about whether that occurs or not. in fact there are things in an open determine whether what we produce doesn't react create social policy change. the key purpose is to think about that.

over the years when i think about my own work i said periods of great frustration about not creating more of a difference from the work that i was doing but i think my work was typical of what's happened in a lot of fields. that we produce scholarship that could be empirical studies, could be reduced, could be legal scholarship but typically we are preaching to small group of like-minded people within the academic or her fictional world. sometimes the audience can be startling small but it feels big because we reinforce each other, invite each other to meetings like this and do things like that that make us feel like it's making a difference. the question is does it really? research can very often miss the most important audience of all and those of the people in the position to do something with the information. this leads sometimes to poor links between scholarship and policy. the metaphor i used to describe this as a relay race.

if you are running in a relay race you only qualify to win the race if you successfully pass the baton from one writer to another. but if the baton gets dropped thing you're disqualified and there's no way you can win the race. so when we do our academic work, we are holding the baton in her hands that's knowledge and we'll magically somebody out there picks it up and does something with it and we successfully completed the race. at the baton gets dropped, which it does because we're not trained to reinforce are motivated to create that proper transfer, and not as much gets done as it could. we typically a tribute the lack of impact to the recipients out there who are not smart enough or wise enough to know about our good work. but that, of course, mrs. deficiencies in what we do what changes we can make in order to tighten up that relationship and create greater impact. let's just create an example.

think about academic and scholarly research for a moment, and let's say we are setting out to make it as least relevant to the world as possible. of course, we wouldn't do that but let's say that was our aim. it would be incredible is lupica would take a long time to get it done. and michael was talking about the book in collaboration with jacob, we are all in a position of we have so many things that it takes forever to get things done. if we only communicate ourselves are not the outside world it would be unresponsive to the real policy needs. it would be rife with conflict of interest and that's very true and we would create indecipherable jargon to describe our work so would be hard for people in the outside world to understand it. and isn't it true that we do all these things very well. so while the policy world can move very quickly, decisions get made in a very short timeframe.

art work tends to move pretty slowly. the question is do we change this and do anything about it? here's how we've been thinking about this problem. by we i the people i'm working with but also my colleagues at the red center for food policy and obesity for whom i worked with a number of years. our hope is to fill in that box in the middle so that researchers scholarship can create social and policy change. the way we think about it is research needs to be linked to change agents within are in a position to make the social and policy change. we begin with the question, who are the people or the institutions in a position to do something about the problem we care about? how can we create a feedback loop with those individuals that forms an opportunity for us to base our research on those real world needs and then communicate

the information back with those individuals? as we think about obesity prevention here are some of the people we ordinary think of your legislators of course by people who run right over agencies are incredibly important at every level of government. the course become a very important later in most of you in the room understand this better than i do. public opinion can be shifted to interaction with the press. ngos are very important players in industry of course is important and this is only a partial list. depending on which particular issue, there will be different change agents. our scholarship or research might change if we have conversatconversat ion with those individuals. over the years i've had incredibly powerful and important career changes made by talked with people like senator harkin who are out there and they know how policy is made. there in the forefront of making a policy change. weber often give us ideas of information gaps that we can

help fill. then that feedback loop can occur in a very constructive way. and so the process that we think about is identifying to change agents, interacting with them that helps define the questions we do, then creating the research for the scholarship and then having an effective communications opportunity that goes right back to the change agents. this can create a virtuous cycle of feedback that of all the relevant parties. if any of you interested we've written about this, christina, roberto and i wrote about this in the paper that we called strategic science where we wrote about strategic science and i would be happy to send that to anybody who's interested. let's talk about this at work. in case that the number one at like talk about children's food marketing. we should be interest in the marketing of breakfast cereals to children. jennifer and others at the rudd

center has spent a number of years working on the marketing of foods to children. the first project was on the marketing of breakfast cereals. you can go to the rudd center website, hold on this report and subsequent reports that have been done. so the first purpose of this was to find out how much was being marketed, who was a being marketed to and what was being marketed. creating a list of breakfast cereals, ranked order from the worst nutrition circles at the top of the list to the best of the bottom and the worst of course we the ones with the most sugar, salt, et cetera. at the next two that you put a list of what's being marketed most aggressively to kids. the extent to which those two overlap, gives you a sense of what kids are being targeted with in terms of marketing in these suits. so if you take the best dozen

cereals by nutrition store and look to see how much marketing is being done on television, the internet, other sites, it comes to exactly zero. then if you look at the worst dozen cereals by nutrition scores, and then we can fill in the grid with what is being marketed to children, it looks like this. so one would not accuse the companies intentionally setting out to make american children overweight and unhealthy. but if they didn't have the intention they're doing a pretty good job at it. there are interesting hypotheses about why the companies market their least healthy markets to children when they do have healthier products in their portfolio. when we're going to release of his we were hoping it would generate a lot of visibility so people, policy makers and parents would understand. but we try to predict what the industries defense would be to this. it wasn't too hard to predict it

is because we are in professional leagues with a sometimes present and there was an interesting paper that came out in a nutrition journal written by the chief nutrition officers, kellogg's and general mills. companies like i don't often collaborate. they are often very at each other's necks with litigation but at this point they did collaborate around this particular paper. here's what the paper said. that food doesn't become nutrition and kill its beaten. so what that implies is that you can have the healthiest food in the world but it it sits in a bowl and kids don't eat it, it's not going to know. i subsequent quote was this. that children like the taste of ready to eat -- euphemism for high sugar -- and are therefore more likely to eat breakfast. what they say, they make a three-point argument. eating breakfast is a good thing. it turns out to be true.

second, serial can be a helpful way of delivering retrospect that it also cannot be triggered the third part is children will not be unless there's a lot of sugar. that's a completely testable hypothesis. it's a plausible notion, maybe to maybe not. we set out to put it to a test in order to the scientific basis for the industry to fans. so led by jennifer harris and marlene schwartz, study, randomized study was undertaken at the rudd center to give children access by randomized design duties although sugar version or a high version of the same super it would be cornflakes versus sugar frosted flakes. the children to eat as much as they chose to, use as much now, they could add sugar they want and put food on if they wanted. what the study that is with a low sugar version of the serial children had about wha would you like to see a child have for

breakfast. they put food on to sweeten it up so they get a nutrition boost from the fruit but i had a very unhealthy profile when they ate the high sugar version of the serial. so we have the results. the results were published in a good medical journal that these results became very helpful so when the newspapers or the media folks would find out about our results and call the chief people at the big cereal companies and say why are you marketing your worst foods to kids? they would say breakfast is good, the delivery vehicle and kids will eat it if it doesn't have sugar to do with this randomized study that shows that, in fact, wasn't true. so what are the companies marketing their least healthy foods to kids? because of the kids overconsume the ones with sugar. so that helped undermine the chief defense of the industry and became a very important strategic study. nobody in the scientific world said that study should be done.

it wasn't part of what other scientists generated. it was once took it from the very strategic question that he became very helpful in the whole discussion. several months after our study was published in general mills announced that they were reducing the sugar and children's cereals by about 25%. there's no way we could take credit for this and so i'm not suggesting cause and effect. lots of organizations have been working on this issue, particularly the center for science in the public interest. but to whatever extent we played a role in this it was probably through a mechanism like this, that the present generate a lot of unfavorable attention for the companies that helped affect public opinion and in the industry made the sugar change which could have a massive public health effect. so we could do lots of studies and never get to the stop, but that one was pretty important at the time.

case study number two has to do also with food marketing and with particular legal player state attorney general, 2009 the food industry got together century with itself. it created nutrition standards for its products. the industry the clarity that any product that surpassed their standards to be awarded this smart choices label that you see. they were self-serving and very lax and so products like these could be given the smart choices label. when this came out in 2009 it was very interesting case study of how social change can occur. several things happened at almost the same time. the "new york times" found out that the smart choices program was occurring and decided to

write an article which turned out to be quite critical of smart choices. but at the same time richard rid blumenthal who is now a senator from connecticut but at the time was state attorney general found out about smart choices because he was interacting with my colleagues and me at the rudd center. he decided to go after smart choices, feeling that it was deceptive and misleading program. we had been doing all of that research done in ancient and so we were able to inform him about this, and he launched an official investigation into smart choices. the new york times wrote a follow-up article that indicated that the connecticut attorney general is going after smart choices and other ages were likely to follow suit and be right behind him. -- ag's. he issued a demand letters that went to just short of a separate of the requested information from the companies. and also from a professional organization called the american society of nutrition which a taken a large grant from the

food industry to administer the program. so i'm assuming it would be seen as a professional endeavor rather than something that was done by the food industry players. and so in a very short period of time in 2009 a scant six week period, the times article came out, the connecticut attorney general launches an investigation, there was an fda action on this done by the commission of the fda to a phone call, and smart choices coupled from the shelves by the companies. so only six weeks after it got launched. here's an example of harnessing the scholarship that was being done with a change agent, in this case, and attorney general. we could have published 500 studies showing the smart choices was bad or misleading or deceptive or whatever you want to say, and never would've created this outcome.

so it was the connection of that feedback move that turned out to be very helpful. so i'd like to just give you one more example and then i will finish up. it's interesting to think about whether this template of identifying change agents, creating a feedback loop, can apply to food and law. and are the particular issues where legal scholarship can follow this model? who are the change agents? can those discussions be brokered in a way that affects the nature of legal scholarship and creates a feedback loop right to the change agent? one such issue what this might be relevant is the impact that food has on the brain. this is a picture of the coca plant and in its natural form humans can live in harmony with this particular plant. but when it gets processed into cocaine or when he gets hyper processed into crack cocaine, humans can no longer live in

harmony with it. because it hijacks the brain. now, could you say that when you take a product like this, corn, nobody ever uses court in its natural form as far as i know, but you process it or hyper processed into this, then what happens? or when you take week and process it into this, what happened or when you water and process it into this, what happens? ..

but we need to connect it with a change agent. so the question is, who are the chain agents going to be here? will it be litigating attorneys, because all of a sudden there might be culpability by the food industry for marketing things to children. i don't know, but it'd be interesting to look into these things. so there's a lot to be done. so what can legal work do to create social and policy change. and the reason i haven't filled in those boxes is because i'm not an attorney, and this is not my area of expertise. but, boy, would it be great if you guys could fill in those boxes, and then we could take that and run with it and really create social change by going back to this original model. so congratulations to michael and jacob for having this collaborative conference. i'm really happy to be involved. i'm looking forward to learning a lot from all of you and,

again, thank you for having me. [applause] >> thank you, dean, for that excellent and very interesting presentation. it sets the table quite nicely for us today. so we'll first turn to the first prong of the slide that you showed earlier on research. and we're going to now have a panel focused on science. and this panel will discuss the current science on the effects of marketing on youth both from a public health and cognitive perspective. i'd like to introduce our moderator, and she will in turn introduce the an first -- the panelists. emily aguirre, who is an academic fellow at the resnick program.

emily? >> good morning, everyone. we are very, very fortunate today to be joined by a panel of the leading scholars in the world on the science behind food marketing to children. so i'm very happy to introduce our three panelists in the order that they'll be speaking. we have dr. marlene schwartz who comes from the rudd center for food policy and obesity and will be speaking first. and we are joined also by dr. lori dorfman who is from the berkeley media studies group and dr. jason halford who's coming all the way from liverpool at the university of liverpool. >> which way does this go? okay, great. o.k., thank you. so i'm delighted to be here today to present some of our research, and it's actually really nice to go right after

kelly, because kelly was the founder of the rudd center for food policy and obesity, and i'm the director now. so in looking at the research on food marketing to children, i think probably people have been concerned about this issue since food marketing to children began. but definitely the connection between food marketing and the rates of childhood obesity increasing seem to sort of reach a breaking point when the 2005 report from the institute of medicine came out which was caught modeling to children -- [inaudible] and what this report really did was it sort of pulled together all of the research at that time and said, you know,s this is what we know. we know that food marketing works, that it affects children's brand purchases, their requests to purchase certain brands, and it also increases their short-term food consumption. and there were several calls in that report, one of which was for the food industry to take some action and and address this

problem. so one of the research questions that we were curious about is whether food marketing only affected the con session of that particular -- consumption of that particular branded food. one of the defenses of the industry was we're not trying to get people to eat more food, we just want them to choose our brand instead of our competitors' brands. so one of my colleagues determined that it wasn't where you learn about this particular brand of food and make a very reasoned decision to eat more of that food, but rather, it was more of an automatic, unconscious process which is called priming where being exposed to the ads for food primes the behavior for eating. so she did an experiment with children where she had a videotape, and the children in one condition watched the videotape with food ads interspersed throughout, and the other condition they watched the same show, but instead there were controlled ads for toys and other nonfood items.

and then she offered all of the children a snack, and she happened to use goldfish crackers which was not one of the items that had been advertised in the food condition. and what she found was that the children who actually asked the food commercials consumed 45% more of the goldfish crackers than the kids who had seen the controlled condition. so what this really suggests is that seeing the marketing of food sort of automatically triggers this response to consume more. so television food marketing is certainly the place that there's been the most research and it's the one where kids have historically been exposed to marketing the most, but this actually has changed over the years, and the internet every year, it seems, when we do our research, we have to come up with new methods, because it seems like there are new ways that the food is being marketed to use. so some of the things we've been tracking are banner ads which is when you're look at one web site, and there's an ad sort of at the top for a particular product. there's also branded web sites

for lots of food companies. there's social media which is growing a lot, and then there's what's called adver games which are online games that have characters made of food products playing the games. so it's this combination of exposing the child repeatedly to the brand. so we were curious whether the games would work the same way as the television commercialings did. so we did another study where we had kids come in and play the games, and in one condition they played the unhealthy ad game. so in this case, we had pop-tarts. another way, we could only find one, dole for fruit, and there was a controlled game that they played. and then what we did was we actually wanted to see if it would change their consumption of healthy versus up healthy foods. so we gave them more -- instead of just goldfish, we gave them grapes, carrot toes, cookies and potato chips, and all the children, of course, got the

same thing after being randomly assigned to the condition. and what we found was in the control group this is how much they ate, 75 grams of the healthy snacks and 28 of the unhealthy. and interestingly, in the healthy condition they ate more of the healthy and less of the unhealthy, and in the unhealthy condition, they ate less of the healthy and more of the unhealthy. so we were able to document that just simply being exposed to a game that had unhealthy or healthy food characters could have an immediate impact on what the children consumed. so in response to, i think, the rising criticism, the threat of regulation, the food industry got together in -- well, prior to 2006 and sort of started in 2006 in the better business bureau oversees this initiative called the food and beverage advertising initiative. and it's a voluntary self-regulation program, and their goal, quite specifically,

is to shift the mix of foods advertised to children under 12 to encourage healthy lifestyles and dietary choices. now, their original goals that they set for themselves, i think, were fairly weak. they said at least half of the marketing directed to children would be for better for you products, so they were really only promising to change half of what they did. they said if it showed ronald mcdonald on his skateboard, it counted as healthy because it was showing physical activity. and then interestingly, sort of connected to what kelly was saying before, each company set their own nutrition standards. so if you made cereal, you would have a really strict saturated fat standard. we really don't have saturated fat in our products, and if you had soup, you would maybe set a really strict sugar standard but not sodium standard. so it was a little bit fishy. but they then updated it, and i do want to emphasize there actually has been a lot of progress to think of where they started. the cfbai has grown stronger.

it grew to 17 companies in 2011. they decided the healthy life sometime message didn't count -- healthy lifestyle message didn't count anymore. they came up with uniform nutrition criteria. so, again, was a definite improvement. they may not be as strong as the criteria as we would have wanted, but at least they were all working on the same criteria. and then four of the companies actually here said that they've decided they're not going to market to children under 12 at all, so they're not even sort of participating in that. so then i hope we'll hear later from senator harkin about the interagency working group on food marketed to children, but this was a federal effort to pull together the fda, the ftc, the cdc to come up with what ended up being very strong recommendations for food marketing to children. well, this prompted, i think, a lot of constitution about actually what the promise was

from the cfbi and how we dine each of these -- we dine each of these -- define each of these components. how do you define children and how do you define healthier dietary choices. so here's where things are and where i think there's really room for a lot of action in this area. so the cfbai, they define children as under 12 years old. now, the interagency working group actually said it goes all the way up to 18, so basically 17, you know, kids up to age 17 are considered children for this purpose. now, the expert opinion that's evolved over the last several years is that it should go up to 14, that 12, 13 and 14-year-olds should be included in the category, and there was an expert panel pulled together by a group called healthy eating research where they had a 17-member panel, and they really looked at the research and decided 14 was a much better age to set.

we also wrote a paper that's on our web site called older but still vulnerable and really sort of looking at the science and making the case that it should go to 14. specifically, some of the reasons are that the 12, 13, 14-year-olds, they're actually eating substantially more of the foods that are marketed than the younger children, fast food and sugary drinks. and the argument that's always used is, well, but they understand persuasive intent. but that doesn't necessarily protect you, and that's really what the science shows. understanding what's happening doesn't make you immune. the kids who are playing those video games, they were not immune to those effects even though they may have understood what was happening, that advertising triggers emotional responses and these young adolescents are still adopting executive control -- developing executive control and their ability to moderate impulses. so cf be bai had a very long, detailed response to the interagency working group. they took issue with many of the

items, but they definitely took issue with the considering 12-17-year-old children. adolescents can drive, they can work, with parental permission, they can marry, enlist in the military. but honestly, when you look at their arguments, it really doesn't apply to your 12, 13, 14-year-olds. so i actually think we've got a pretty strong case here that the age should be raised, and it'll be interesting to put some concerted effort into trying to get that definition of children changed. and it will make a big difference, and i'll explain why. not just in terms of that part of the age of the children, but also in how we define advertising to children. if that age goes up, it's going to capture a lot more of the marketing. so as kelly mentioned, we do these facts reports. we've actually been doing them now, i think, for eight years. fast foods, sugary drinks, we then went back and did cereal and sugary drinks again to see if things had changed and last year we did snack foods. but when we do these reports, we

invariably, you know, try to get the word out, and the cfbai, it's always kind of nice, they always read our reports. [laughter] and they often write us long letters telling us what they think. [laughter] and so one of the things though that's really, i think, a very core difference between what they're doing and what we're doing has to do with how we're dining advertising to children. -- defining advertising to children. they basically say it's focused on the purchasing behavior of the company. it's when a company goes and purchases media that has already been designated as having an audience size of over 35 percent made up of 2-31-year-olds -- 2-11-year-olds. we are not focused on the industry behavior, we are focused on the experience of child. so what we do is we focus on -- we purchase nielsen data, and you can get data that will show you how much exposure for every brand, how much exposure children have to ads for that brand. so we can find out, you know,

that children saw, you know, 372 ads for cereals, for example, within a year. and so those are the data that we're working with. so we look at the ratio of exposure for different age groups to try to determine if it looks liken an age group was being targeted, and we really are focused on not whether the industry intended the child to see that ad, but whether the child actually saw that ad. so the problem with the cfbai's definitioning is that less -- definition is that less than half of the ads kids see are on programs where 35% or more of the audience is made up of kids. so it basically misses lots, more than half of the ads that children are seeing. so we did a study where we actually tried to figure out how changing that percentage would improve the situation. and another idea we put in was whether in addition to a percentage of the audience there should be kind of a volume cutoff. so, for example, if 100,000 children are seeing something, even if they don't make up more

than 35% of the audience, maybe it should still count. so, for example, charlie brown christmas was one example we found where children that age aren't necessarily more than 35% of the audience, but you certainly would not argue that that is not a show meant for children. so this chart shows what we sort of calculated, and just to walk you through it, on the left more than 50% of the audience -- which was actually the original definition for some of the cfbai companies -- you can see how much it captures of the ads viewed. so a little over, like, 43% of the ads viewed by 2-5-year-olds would be captured for that, and you can see the 6-11-year-olds. by comparison, you see the adults, 18-49, with the white bar because the idea is you want to capture the lengthy exposure of the children without necessarily interfering with the ads reaching adults. so what you can see is you can actually get it down to 20% of the audience, and you continue to have, you know, increasing

amounts of protection for children in terms of the percent of ads that they view. and then if you add this 100k metric, though, if you basically say shows that have more than 100,000 children watching it, you can see you really make a lot of progress. you can then capture 70% of the ads. but at the same time, you're also kind of interfering with 35%. so it becomes this sort of cost benefit analysis, and i think it's an interesting question, how much are you willing to sort of interfere with companies' abilities to reach the adults by protecting children. and that's a real balance that needs to be decided. so another issue is this sort of healthier dietary choices and how to do you define that. and this is where it gets really tricky. so a lot of the brands that companies have, have multiple varieties. for example, change cheerios -- take cheerios. there's regular, honey nut, chocolate, so there's all different ones.

the ones that meet the nutrition criteria the companies are allowed to put in their ads for kids, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all of that brand are healthy. but the trouble is that a lot of times there's marketing for the brand. and it's not obvious which exact variety is in there. so if you're marketing a happy meal, there may be some happy meals that meet the criteria but others that don't. looking at the ads, you really can't tell. so this continues to be an unresolved issue. we would like to see it that if a company's going to market a brand to children, that all of the products in that brand need to be healthy. and we actually did a report specifically on lunchables because that was a good example where there's, i don't know, there's probably 25 different types of lunchable, and maybe four of them meet the cfbai criteria. but when you actually go to the grocery store, they're only a small fraction of what's there. so the child's been exposed to that brand marketing even though the products they're looking at

in the store don't necessarily meet the nutrition criteria. another place where this issue of sort of brands is coming up is in marketing to schools. very recently the usda updated their school wellness policy regulations and said that no foods can be marketed in schools that don't meet the new nutrition criteria for school snacks. so in case you adopt already know this, there have been a lot of changes to school meal programs, and one of them is fairly strong nutrition criteria to snacks sold in schools, and this is actually a huge, huge, exciting improvement in terms of federal regulation over school food. so the cfbai was not terribly happy about this, because one of the sort of implications is that you really can't have marketing for foods in middle and high schools that don't meet those cry criterias. and they only really cared about elementary schools. that's what they covered. they also exclude marketing as part of fund raising, exclude

marketing on educational materials. so is they support curriculum to schools, and it also allows what we call look alike snacks, and i'll explain what that is. here are some examples of food marketing in schools, and it's interesting, once you start looking, there's actually lots of ways companies get into the school environment through fundraising and other sort of learning reinforcement programs. so there's teachers night -- these are, actually, i think these are kelly's pictures from his town in connecticut when he lived there. so there are lots of ways in which companies have been really encouraging their brand to get into the system through fundraising or buying, purchasing things like scoreboards and signs. so this is a picture i took at my kids' school, which is why it's such a bad picture. [laughter] i was at back to school night, and my kids were in high school, and this was the vending machine last year. and i thought these do not look

like smart snacks to me. and people said, oh, are you going to turn them in, get them in trouble? [laughter] as it turned out though, they are smart snacks that technically every one of these doritos, cheetos, you can see what they all are, they all meet the nutrition criteria for senator snacks -- smart snacks because the companies reformulated so that they just edged under the sugar, salt, fat limits, the portion sizes. but if you look at them, they look exactly like the products that you see in the grocery store. so we were very concerned about this at the rudd center, and we actually ended up doing a study to really -- it was an on line experiment where we showed people different versions of the snacks and asked them to rate them and basically showed people can't tell the difference. so this is from one of our advocacy materials where basically we're showing look-alike snacks sold in schools look virtually the same as the regular ones sold in stores. and this is a problem for two reasons.

one, it makes the schools look bad, you know? here everyone is saying the schools have done such a good job, and you walk in and see that vending machine and say, what are they talking about? the second thing is the child could say to their apartment, well, we have this in -- their parent, well, we have this in school, so it must be a healthy thing. but the ones sold in schools aren't even available. all the ones available in the grocery store are the regular higher fat, higher sodium versions. one way to resolve it would be by saying if you're going to have branding like these packaged branding in schools, it needs to then cover all of the varieties of your brand. so you need to pick a grand where when they go to the grocery store and buy the same brand, they're getting the same nutrition. so i'm just going to finish up showing this is some research from our nielsen data of showing

how many ads kids are seeing per year. so the orange line is ages 2-11. the green line is ages 12-17. and then the purple line is 18-49. so you can sort of see these are overall total food, beverage and restaurant advertising viewed by children, adolescents and adults. so this starts back in 2002, and you can see it was actually fairly steady through 2006. now, what was puzzling is then 2007, 2008, that's when the cfbai took effect. and so the children, the little 2-11-year-olds, you can see it stayed pretty flat, but there was increased marketing to the older children, the 12-17-year-olds, and also increased to adults. so during that time between 2008 and 2010, candy has doubled from 209 to 413. now, fruit and vegetable ads doubled which sounds really great until you realize it's 20-38. so that was a much smaller metric.

but, hey, up from four many 2004. [laughter] so, i mean, that's improvement. like, that's very, very big improvement. fast food stayed the same. then what you can see is the kids, the little ones are staying fairly flat. everyone else is going up. and then there's a very strange thing happened in 2013, and we now -- and this is our most recent data we have, from 2015 -- it's actually the first time since the cfbai started that the young children are seeing fewer ads than they were before. but it also looks like this is part of a much bigger or trend which, i think, has a lot to do with moving away from television and moving towards other types of marketing, especially digital marketing. so real changes, it has gone done a little bit. i also want to reiterate that the sugar content in children's cereals have gone down, and the companies have followed through. other changes have been the kids' meals at most of the major chains -- mcdonald's, burger

king -- the size in beverages have included from fries and soda to apples or milk and juice. consumption has dropped, and in our snack report, one of those big changes was yogurt was increased in terms of how much it was marketed to kids. so the final keyish i shoes i'd like to leave you with is if a brand is marketed to use, should every variety of it be nutritious. this issue of raising the age to 14 and also when we're tracking as a field, are we going to sort of let go with the cfbai saying we're only going to pay attention to the purchased ads on child-targeted tv, or are we going to use the youth exposure. so i think as a field we need to sort of make -- take a position on that. and finally, would it be possible to say that schools should just be commercial-free zones entirely. thank you. [applause]

>> thanks so much for starting us off. i'd like to welcome lori dorfman now. >> okay. is that good? good morning, everybody. i need positive feedback. good morning, lori. all right, thank you. [laughter] wonderful, thanks. good morning. so i'm going to take off from where marlene left us and give us a peek into the trends that we're seeing in terms of why those tv numbers have gone down, where it's showing up. and also i want to talk about the kids who are getting exposed and the ones who are suffering most from the problems related to nutrition, and that's kids of color. so the basic way a marketer talks about marketing is with

the four ps, product, price, place and promotion. and these days we're going to talk about something called personalization which is the way that digital marketers talk about what they're doing and reach people wherever they are with whatever device they're holding in their hand almost constantly. so marketing is a typical business practice. nothing wrong with it. last time i took my goddaughter to the museum, we popped into a little store, and here were these beautiful moleskin notebooks all covered with coca-cola branding. so, okay, if that's what coca-cola wants to do, that's fine, and people can buy it. but the people purchasing that, generally speaking, aren't the ones suffering most from the problem. that's why we have to go a little bit deeper and think about what those exposures are. and we know kids of color, particularly african-american and latino kids, suffer more from diabetes than their white

counterparts, and they're also getting intensive exposure and exposure for the wrong stuff. so the healthy eating research expert team looked at this data. a lot of it came from the rudd center. that's what you see on the right. 84% of food and drink advertised to kids on spanish tv is unhealthy. black kids see more than twice as many tv ads for sugary drinks. so that's why the research out of the rudd center is so important. we can see actually who's being targeted. the other thing is that we have a digital divide in this country. what that means is that there are homes that don't have as many computers or don't have computer access or don't have broadband access. and that's a real problem when you're doing your homework as a kid. but most everybody these days has a mobile device. you don't want to do your homework on a mobile device, but companies are very happy to target you with advertising on your mobile device. and we see kids of color have, spend more time than their white

counterparts with that sort of media as well. so this poses another problem that exacerbates things. so i want to show you what this looks like, just run through it very quickly so as we're having the discussion later today about what to do about marketing, we have current pictures in our minds. so products means the actual lunchables, the products themselves are designed just for kids. price that they can afford. places, nearby within reach. and then promotion, in their own language which means not just spanish or english, but the language of youth or the language of young people, people that kids can relate to. and then, of course, permized for their own -- personalized for their own devices. that's a product. many burgers and lunchables that marlene was talking about. another one is that price is very carefully set in different neighborhoods, in different stores. sometimes the marketing that people usually think of when you use that term is the promotion. so billboards, the kinds of

things you see every day. and then the other things that you don't necessarily consider marketing but are also promotion like sponsorship of events, the schools that marlene talked about. so these are from upstream public health, these illustrations, to help parents understand what marketing looks like in schools because people don't necessarily think of a vending machine as marketing or a coupon that they get for a good grade as marketing on mcdonald's night or what we saw the scoreboards in the gym. so this is surrounding kids. and the digital aspect makes it even more intensive. and that's what i want to spend my time talking about. so this is a video that we're going to see from mcdonald's. it was entered into a competition just to put a little context here, think about a tobacco company entering their marketing into a competition to

show how well they captured a youth audience. and then let's look at this, what mcdonald's and snapchat did. >> mcdonald's doesn't just talk digital, we do digital. and 2015 turned out to be one hell of a year. let's talk snapchat. we made headlines by being the first brand ever to create geofilters at scale. that's 14,000 plus mcdonald's location full of customers sharing snaps with our messages to their network of friends. ♪ >> so far that's six campaigns and 308 million views. we plan on being the first and being the best wherever our customers are spending their time. we make big things happen. >> so now you see when the line goes down on the tv ads where people are are going, and they're very proud of this. the line that struck me is customers