defending their rights that workers have just as much right to organize as investors did to organize business corporation. so that was one of the points i make in the book is that's kind of a lost day. just to kind of fundamental fit that's carried on pretty much through the history of the wall street journal that's pretty much where the editors are today defending markets. as the journal today defends the parade, trade agreement. and defending people we've had to do when over many years of defending people against the various attorneys of the world. that's some of whom, still exist like cuba for example and now venezuela. afterwards airs on booktv every saturday at 10 a.m. and sunday p.m. 9 eastern an watch all previous afterwards programs on

our website booktv.org. now on booktv on c-span2 we want to introduce you to what do you do here at ucla professor? >> soy teach at the law school and also associate vice for the equity diversity and inclusion. >> what is that? >> research of the office equity diversity inclusion so basic job to think about donations between research on diversity on the one hand and institutional on the other so idea is to not make any moves around that unless we have some strong basis of doing so. >> what do you teach at the law school? >> i teach sciewnl law, constitutional procedure, and, of course, in the law. >> how do you define diversity? >> welt a lot of different ways to think about diversity you have diversity, of course, with back to identity. you have diversity back to experiences and diversity in

orientation so all of those are different ways of thinking about diversity. >> how does a law define diversity? >> it doesn't but offer once and for all account of diversity. the initial articulation o arose in a affirmative action case in california. and the court was decidings constitutionality of affirmative action and it is important to pause and think about how diversity is actually constitutionally processed that we can think through how the diversity rational came into being. interestingly when the court thinks about is affirmative action legal, it applies a test that is -- the test that you would apply to whether jim crow is legal. so the same standard we apply to determine whether from that constitutional is same standard interestingly that we apply to deciding whether jim crow a little odd quite apart from what your view is about affirmative action you might say those are two very different ways of

thinking about race. but it's in that context with any rate that diversity rational comes into being and first articulation being for largely on fifth amendment so the freedom institution of hired earning have to structure economic mission of the but then it's broadened to think about questions like institution culture to what extent does it matter? to have meaningful representations of underrepresentative groups in order to have a diverse environment so that people don't feel stigmatized marginalized stereotypes so this is a slightly more robust conception of diversity and the national articulation again focused largely on first amendment values. the case 1970s med school white guy wanted to go to med school. what was outcome and what's been the effect? >> well outcome was that you have a concurrence by justice

powell that essentially said -- affirmative action is constitutional. that you can take race as one factor among many many in deciding which students to admit. and i think it was a single opinion but later became the law of the land it is now the law of the land that you can take race into account in deciding how to construct your student body, and factors span that it is made american institutions have learned in far nor diverse than otherwise would to put another way we should think about diversity as in some way the vehicle or affirmative action precisely as vehicle for carrying forward if and a browns commitment integration because without affirmative action, the sad truth is that american institutions would be close to racially segregated. >> has it been challenged over the years? >> it's been challenged a number of times, and there will be litigation on affirmative action that trying to particular i

won't get into it buzz it is technical but i think since there's been ongoing litigation challenging the constitutionality of affirmative action the way we are now is with the place we are is that it is still a constitutional supreme court is not said otherwise. but that doesn't mean that he won't continue to be challenged. >> professor is also coauthor of this book acting white question mark. rethinking race in a post racial america what does it mean to act white? >> well, i think easy way to get out what that might mean and question and emphasize the question mark. it's sort of understand how we typically had think about description so if i would ask you for example to articulate your classic example of discrimination in the work place you might say that it involves a mommy in which some decision maker picks black over a white person. what we wanted to do in this book was to present another kind of descridges one might say we

want person a black person, over person b black person. and we want to suggest that that is a kind of discrimination about which should be concerned as well. and easy way for me to explain what that might look like is to move from race if you indulge me and take you back to gender in 1970s in that context employers particularly airlines qowtd say something like this. we're happy to it hire women. but we want women who are not married and we want women who don't have children. they would say that's discrimination wait a minute we're not saying we're not hiring any women. we're not saying we're hiring men over woman but a particular kind of women so know what that means that they're making a intragroup difference but we want to think carefully about which women we want eventually courts came to conclude that

that's sexist and that you're picking some women other others doesn't mean it's not sex discrimination in other words just because you're not saying we want men and not women doesn't mean that it's not sex discrimination you say we want some women over others. we're saying something is like that is happening with with race as well. where institution might say, we want black people as long as they don't present us to black. we want black had people as long as they're not sail black but don't overly identify as black so something is like what the courts did in the context of gender that we say is at play with this back to race and one more example and then i'll stop. think about discourses about -- sexual orientation remember don't ask don't tell policy which is no longer a part of our scene. but that don't ask don't tell

policy don't announce your identity for ploifers make the same move all of the time. it's okay but don't flaunt it not that we don't want any gay pern. just, you know, gay men don't act like women lesbian don't act like men that i think we get in we're pushing and understanding of that framework respect to race. >> as law adjusted or acted on this question of -- two black too gay whatever. only on the too gay front interestingly yes so viewers might be surprised to learn at least on federal law it is still permissible to say we're not going to hire any gay person. firms can say that today under federal law because the federal antidiscrimination regime title seven does not cover descridges

on the basis of sexual orientation lots of state laws do but federal law doesn't. but interestingly there's a body of case draw that says -- it fits the case that you discriminate against a gay person not because they're gay per se but on the view that you're too -- that's actionable sex discrimination so while that person cannot in court and say you discriminated against me bissed on my sexual orientation that won't carry the day. that person can say, you discriminated against me on the -- basis of my perceived femme that will carry today. there's a recent case i can't remember the name where the court has found discrimination actionable on the assets but that's the minority the bull of cases on this point say if you been acclaim just asserting that the employer discriminated against me on sexual orientation you lose you need to pitch that

claim to sound in language of sex stereotyping then you might have a chance of winning. >> professor one of the cases you do talk about acting like question mark is roger versus american airlines that case? >> so this is a case that decided in the 1970s. and it comes from something like the falling back drop so american airlines at the time had a policy aing policy that you can't come that you have braid hair. that is unprofessional. so renée rogers brings says that is -- >> aron american woman. brings suit she wore a hand braid and thought this presented a discrimination problem and made claims made an argument a this is racial discrimination. she said that it is race and sex discrimination that is going to particularly attack black women. the court rejects claims and court's exhibit a for why this

was not sex discrimination and again your viewers may be surprised is bo daria and braids -- look at boderek he wore braids white women there's nothing racist about this. there's not going to have a racial impact it's not -- biology race according to that so you are black renée rouges rogers do not make a claim because white women braid their hair as well and being tongue and cheek with that how i'm driving court rational but it does go something like that. >> is that law of the land can merrill have grooming standards? >> yes, they can indeed, and lots of firms do have grooming standards one of my favorite tragic cases on this point is one involving a black woman but a white woman in nevada and it's

casino -- they have a grooming policy that it is very specific with it this factor how women come to work and men must come to work. women for example need to wear makeup get dolled up in a kind of way -- need to groom their hair in a particular kind of way men have grooming standards as well so she brings a claim of sex discrimination again a court says it's not actionable sex discrimination. this kind of courts rational goes something is like this. men are subject to grooming standards as well. so the regime that casinos put in place puts an equal burden on men and women. so because men can't have lung air -- long hair is pestly fine for them to say you just need to wear makeup so the court created this kind of false -- formalism essentially to say there's no sex discrimination with the case, and so lots of

interesting cases on grooming standards that you are might think would raise a question of discrimination as basis of rate race or sex or possibly both. but by and large plaintiffs in those cases lose. >> professor who is your coauthor on this book? >> he teaches duke. and -- you talk about the concept of a working identity. yeah. what is that? >> so the bairveg idea is if it is the case that one thinks that an employer might be making choices about you based on whether they perceive you to be over masculine or feminine or perceive you to be overly black or o not then that creates pressure on you to present yourself had a particular way. so let's go back to -- american airlines case you pied out employer is going to think about my professionalism as a

function of my hair style, i might not wear braided hair. i might straighten my hair. i might get myself in a particular way in order to signal to the employer that look, i'm not the black person you think i am. that is a sense to say they try to use identity to communicate some message about who they are that will rebut a stereotype that employer might have of them you can ask yourself whether that -- enacts every day toll if your work in the work with place every day is structured by way of being that are fundamentally designed to tell a particular story that you think you need to tell about in order to do well at work so we try to suggest working identity over and over again and acts of kind of cost. it can result many a denial of yourself and it can produce an unfairness that the law particularly doesn't recognize. >> in the cases that have

involved that that have been successful? >> once again, no. so part of what we wanted to do in this book is to shed light on this issue. both because we think it will result in people thition more about the extent to which this is but also to move understanding in way that ultimately might shift where law is but currently these are not claims that are -- cost misable and help to understand that phenomenon needs to be named before they became actionable once upon a time a black woman would not for example, bring a claim of that on basis of court and sex and if black men are not descrimentd against it is not race discrimination if white women are not discriminated against it's not sex discrimination so you're experiencing it is not discrimination because black men and white women are not experiencing it. those cases were not historically recognizable now they are. whysome because people like my

colleague kimberly crenshaw introduced that ultimately shifted how courts think about this matter. so before one brings it to the floor one can't expect to do much about it but we wanted to o write this book as a way to exercise. so at least have a debate -- don't have to agree with me but at least have a debate about a different waif thinking about discrimination. >> something is else you rerns is joe biden remarks about barack obama before he was elected president, and harry eyed reis remark that obama had a reasonable are chance of success in part because he spoke, quote, with no dialect unless he wanted to have one. >> so there you have i think -- a pop cultural reference if you like in the political context a political reference is probably the better way to put it in which the phenomenon that i'm describing is one that we've heard before. so that particular reference suggest that we --

have some sense of what it might hen to quote unquote talk black had. and whatever that sense is barack obama doesn't manifest it at least in instances that -- biden you know has a name so the point is that talking black is one way of thinking about the acting white phenomenon. but there's the act out black or acting white demension of it too. i want so say one more hinge to be perfectly clear there's no true way to act black or act white let's be absolutely clear about that because that one doesn't leave this conversation thinking that he's saying what this is the way to act white and this is the way to act black. that's not the claim in the book. the point is that if people nevertheless, have some understanding of what it means to act black and what it means to to act black they're not girch but part of our understanding about race just as there are lots of studies that suggest that when you pick up

the phone, and you hear a person speak you make assumptions about that person's racial identity it's not just a look of race. that we employer to determine whether you're in or out of a category it's the talk of race it's still speech that allows us to map you into categories as well. >> where are you from? >> i was born in many the u.k. i was born in birmingham and grew up in london came to the u.s. when i was 18 went to o college and rest as i say is history. >> where did you go to college? >> here, ucla. >> is this book acting white question mark written for a general audience or a scholar? >> definitely general audience. it is true that there are -- series of law but try are to write it in a pro that is accessible and we hope that we succeed in doing so, acting white question mark is the name of the book reare thinking race

in post racial america you're watching booktv on c-span two and we're at ucla event. here's a look at some books being published this week. craig shirley honors former speaker of the house newt gingrich. and newt the making of a reagan conservative, with in 507 inventions that the mods -- and influenced the free market. former national security and intelligence official timny edgar argue for reform this government surveillance and beyond snowden. also being published this week, expanding blaze by jonathan israel exploring how american revolution inspired revolutions in europe. in life 3.0, m.i.t. professor max examines how artificial intelligence is the future of humanity and indiana university history professor peter, looks

at the mexican american war in the dead march. look for these titles in bookstores, this coming week and watch for many of the authors in the near future on booktv on c-span2. ...

[inaudible conversations] >> hello, can everyone here now in great. welcome tonight. hello? my name is matthew. i work here on the events staff and on behalf of the storm owners -- store owners i want to thank you and welcome our speakers. cell phones and all other devices that go binge should be turn off. as well as since tonight is the sole event so there's one of