to keep, the standards that we talk about in the school. i have definitely look into that. i'm not sure if it's publicly available. we can put pressure on the school for other source. >> there's a real pres dent for that was the anti-aparthied movement. the university of california system divested which led to

u.s. sanctions which had an influence on changing the regime in south africa. in that case it certainly worked in that case. we know what happened in south africa. we have to wrap it up quickly. one thing you want to leave to the young audience and people out there. let's start with tonya. closing words. >> find something you're passionate about and do it responsibly. >> abigail. >> be part of decision making and realize your voice matters in this process. i think holding politicians accountable is important as well as speaking up. sometimes you have to stand from the back of the room, but you can also vote with your dollars, vote with your vote and any action that you take will be

heard. >> i agree with everything they both said. i think if you're committed the a cause, don't let anyone stop you. don't let anything stop you. if you don't what you want to do, then maybe no one else will. in a lot of ways, you have that kind of power and exercise it. >> we have to end it there. thank you all for coming to climate one today. if all of us decide we're going to tighten our belts and

spend less, guess what, we all end up poor because all of our spending falls at the same time. this isn't stuff we're supposed to know. this is stuff we have known since the 1930s. >> bho is going to tell them the truth. we have to tell them the truth. if we don't tell them the truth, then our country fails. we'll reach them through the media and through politics and through pop culture. we shouldn't be afraid to get out there. get out there and be influencers in pop culture.

in april, new york university high school held a panel on the topic of race and policing. it included scott thompson and yale university professor, tom tyler. other topics included the trayvon martin shooting and legislation by congress prohibiting racial profiling. it's on administration of criminal law at nyu laul host this hour and 25 minute event.

>> i'm delighted to welcome you. >> you know what important issues they tackle and what great panelists they get, and actually, very recently nyu press published on a prosecutors in the boardroom using criminal law to regulate corporate conduct. she will speak in a few minutes and tell you all the important stuff that you should know. i'm just a filler to make sure everyone sits down before rachel

talks. then you'll also hear from rachel in the third panel on race sentencing and the problem of mass incarceration. rachel is one of our nation's leading criminal law scholars. she's written some of the most important work on sentencing over the last ten years and has also cast herself in, has basically started this new academic field of looking at criminal law as part of the system of administrative law and regulation. that's been an extremely powerful paradigm, and rachel's work has been enormously recognized for its path breaking nature. she's written some very

important briefs recently. both on the side of governments and defendants that have been cited by our appellates court including the supreme court of the united states recently. i'm grateful for all the scholars and practictioners who are here today and our keynote speaker. it's a great privilege to host the annual conferences and have all of you here today. now that it looks like everyone is seated, it looks like an appropriate time to turn things over to our leader. >> thanks so much. thank you all for coming to our fourth annual conference. our center is an organization that's dedicated to promoting

good government practices in criminal justice. we do that in variety of ways. we participate in litigation. we engage in public policy outreach. we hold vents like the one we're holding today in the hope of getting a conversation started on an important issue. we hope the efforts will change the law in a positive direction. i have to make a couple pitches. a couple of recent things. we filed briefs in case being argued in the supreme court today. we filed a brief explaining that when the initial hundred to one ratio was passed, no one really gave that any considered reflection. we're hoping that helps the court how to analyze those cases in the pipeline.

the court held just because you get a fair trial, that fair trial doesn't necessarily recommend di the defect. in terms of policy outreach, we're currently working on a report that highlights the best practices in prosecutor's offices for dealing with wrongful conviction. we're highlighting conviction integrity programs that work and work effectively. i hope you'll look for that report come early fall. we hope that today's conference will lead to positive changes as well. before setting the stage for today's vent, i want to thank a few people. i want to thank dean ricky for his generous support of our center. the four foundation for its general support of all of our activities and particularly also today's conference. we are grateful. the public welfare foundation is supporting our conviction

integrity project and the manhattan's integrity office. i'd like to thank the former executive director. my assistant, laura who has worked tirelessly to get this entire event running and running smoothly. i owe a huge debt of gratitude to and thep presenters. cspan is here. i wanted to tell you that so you can be excited by it, but also if you choose to ask a question, you are thereby con senting to have cspan air you on television asking you that question. you are aware of that and decide if that affects your ability or desire to answer a question.

while i agree that very tragic i vent has been a wake up call in terms of talking about race and criminal justice, i have to say it's a bigger mystery to me why we weren't already galvanized to talk about those issues even before that happened. i think you had an interest in it that pre-dated the issue. the reason i think it's important to think about it in a much broader scale than that one innocent is just the statistics alone should really call attention to what we're talking about. we'll hear about more of them as the day unfolds. i'll give you a few. there's more than 2.3 million people who are incarcerated. over 7 million under the supervision of the criminal justice system. of those people incarcerated, more than 60% are minority

ethnicity. two-thirds in for drug offenses are people of color. those statistics not just the one that captures the nation's attention, it's the mass statistics that we'll be talking about. how we want to think about it. we call this new frontiers to address racial imbalance in the united states. our hope is we will talk to you about the best research that's out there. the best of what we know and what question be doing. we're going to start with the first panel on policing and then we'll have panel on prosecution and then mass incarceration and sentencing. our keynote comes at the end. she's wonderful to make time for us. she's going to close out our

events at the end of the day. she says the book is intended to stimulate a much needed conversation about the role of the criminal justice system in creating and perpetuating a racial hierarchy in the united states. this day is a day where we will immerse ourselves in that conversation. the panel will be moderated by david. he's a professor at berkeley. he clerked on the d.c. circuit and harry blackman on the supreme court. he served as the essential counsel to the independent review panel that was investigating the l.a. police department scandal. he's a brilliant and wonderful human being. i'm glad he's moderating today.

>> thank you. thank you all for coming today to join us in discussing these very important questions. we have a wonderful panel to talk about the issues. let me introduce them all briefly. then we'll get started with the discussion. to my immediate left is lisa dugard. she supervises the racial disparity project. to professor richardson's left is kammi simmons. a professor at wake forest and a nationally recognized scholar of police accountability. professor simmons left is scott

thompson. he has received repeated royce and awards for his service in leadership. to his left is professor tom tyler. he's word famous for his cap breaking research on the ways that policing practices and the conduct of other officials help to shape the legitimacy of law and legal issues. for the last two months much of the country has been transfixed by the shooting death of a 17-year-old teenager, trayvon martin in sanford, florida who was unarmed and walking back from a convenient store when he was killed. much of the attention to this case is focused on the role of race, not just in the shooting but in the police investigation and the initial decision against arresting the shooter, george zimmerman or charging him with any crime. last week zimmerman was arrested and charged with second-degree and this morning, as we speak,

the senate judiciary committee is holding hearings on ending racial profiling in america. professor tyler let me ask you as a psychologist and law professor, what do you make of the controversy over the shooting? how does it relate to the long standing debate about the role of racial police? >> let me begin by saying that i agree with rachel that we need to put this latest incident in context and the context is a whole series of incidents of this type over the last several years, but really over our entire history of the united states. this is just one example, but it's a good example of the tension over race and policing both in terms of the degree, outcry, prolong nature of the outcry about this latest shooting. also, the evidence of the clear

difference in the way this shooting is understood in the white and minority communities. that is as was true with the gate's incident which occurred a while back. when you do public opinion surveys you discover that the white community and the minority community understand the events in really profoundly different ways, the motivation of the people involved, their trust this law enforcement. those are really noteworthy. they are far beyond this most recent event. although that's a good example. we ought to ask why is there this gap. i think the thing we should recognize is that we're just looking at the tip of the iceberg. if we look at national level public opinion data in the united states, we see a gap of

20 to 30% in the level of trust and confidence that the white and the minority community express in the police. furthermore, we see this gap has persisted over time. there's no evidence that the gap is closing. if we look at the entire population of the united states we see that trust and confidence of the police is not terrible, but it's not great either. around 50 to 60% of the population express police. that's not increasing. we see no evidence that trust and confidence in the police nationally is improving. we might ask the general question why is trust and confidence low? why is it not improving, and why is there this large racial gap that leads to the kinds of

things that we see when there is an incident of this type. we see vastly different understanding of the events and vastly different levels of confidence in the authorities to deal with whatever is the particular incident. what i would emphasize is that one of the reasons that we see this persistent gap is we do not see the strategies, the policies and practices that the police are using are focusing on the legitimacy that the police have in the minority community. they are not focused on trust and confidence. if we look at what the police are using as their framing strategy, there are two concerns that are addressed. one concern is lawfulness. the police looking to see if the actions that they are engaged in are consistent with the law. you go to a blis trapolice trai

academy, you key see the cadets walking around with manuals. the other is effectiveness. police officers trying to do the things they think are crime, suppressing violent crime, in particular gun crime. and there's less attention to other issues, issues that, for example, in an earlier era were called community policing issues. it's really a very strong focus on lawfulness and effectiveness. the interesting thing about lawfulness and effectiveness is these are not the issues that we find that people in the public are concerned about when they evaluate the police. when they think about do they trust the police, if they think the police are a legitimate force in their community. the public is concerned about, and particularly minority communities are concerned about, whether they feel the police

exercise their authority fairly. whether they make decisions in fair ways, whether they treat people fairly, and when there are these incidents, we see that the concern of the community is often framed in terms of these issues of fairness. for example, in the trayvon martin case an immediate question of consistency of rule application. would this have been handled the same way if the victim had been white and the shooter had been black, for example? is the law being consistently and fairly applied? what we see when we look at discussions with the police about a whole series of issues in recent years is that they're thinking about these issues from a different point of view, this point of view of lawfulness and effectiveness and not from the point of view of legitimacy. when we talk about racial profiling endless discussions about is that legal? we talk about the vast program of aggressive street stops in new york.

we have a question of if it's lawful and does it really suppress crime and most recently mosque surveillance. we've seen the same thing. how has the government responded to questions about mosque surveillance? really two things. one, the nypd didn't do anything illega,l and, second, an assertion in this particular case with no evidence behind it that this program of surveillance has prevented terror attacks. so the police are not really talking about legitimacy in a community as a factor that they consider in their policy and practices. and as a consequence they're not building legitimacy in their community and we're not seeing it rising. because legitimacy is so much lower in the minority community, we're particularly likely to see low levels of trust and confidence in that community, and then we see the way that's brought into an understanding of an event like the trayvon martin case. i would go further and say that

actually the things the police do undermine legitimacy because when the police deal with the public in terms of legality or effectiveness, they're basically looking at the people they deal with on the street as potential criminals, potential suspects, and they're focusing either suspicion or the application of force or threat of force upon those people. communicating suspicion about their character, undermining relationships with people in the community, focusing basically on risk and sanction as a definition of the relationship between the police and the community. so i think the point i would make is that if the police would address issues of legitimacy in the community more directly by focusing on how their policies and practices shape legitimacy and if they do that, they will

discover that it's really a question of what people perceive to be fair in terms of the exercise of authority and principles of fairness such as allowing people voice, explaining decisions, being respectful of people and their rights. if the police do those things, then they will really be addressing the underlying problem that's causing the kind of reactions that we're seeing in incidents like the martin situation. >> so, lisa daugaard, based on your work in seattle, does it seem to you as it seems to professor tyler, that the issue of race in policing is really an issue of fairness and legitimacy? >> yes. who is next? >> tell us a little why. >> so, let me just give a little bit of background about the context in which i'm working.

i have the surprising privilege and opportunity to work with a police department and two prosecutors' offices which are voluntarily choosing to discontinue techniques that were long established and i think have contributed to delegitimizing law enforcement among poor people in communities of color in seattle and king county. although the seattle police department is currently -- was the subject of a department of justice civil rights division investigation and may be subject to a doj consent decree soon, these measures that i'm going to sketch out in an outline form were instituted by reform-minded commanders prior to the doj investigation and independent of that, and this truly was a voluntary shift. we can talk later about why this came about. so what am i talking about voluntarily surrendering techniques that have delegitimized law enforcement?

i'll give two examples. first, those of you in new york are familiar with the program operation clean halls and related programs that enforce -- that are trespass enforcement programs, basically where police agencies enter into agreements with private property owners to check and purge public areas of of privately owned property open to the public of people determined by the police not to have business there. so in an apartment building this could be a kid who lives there who can not prove that he lives there. you know, who went out to get a carton of orange juice and is coming back, doesn't have i.d. and the police don't believe that he really lives there and so on. the nyclu has recently instituted a lawsuit about operation clean halls. seattle has had a similar program for decades. in seattle trespass is a transitive verb. it's something police do to people.

you've been torrez passed, so it's like amazing what happens to grammar when we do this to people. so anyway, for decades the police department have made agreements with private businesses where they become the agent. i mean, on their own they couldn't do this but they become the agent, stand in the shoes of the private property owner and then they get to determine that someone is no longer allowed to use this property. and then they're banned for a week, for a month, for a lifetime. if they come back, they're subject to arrest for criminal trespass. probably more important, they -- many people don't come back. they alter their use of the space permanently because they think that the police can and do regulate where they can go throughout their city. similar programs have been in place elsewhere in the country. notoriously in cincinnati and over the ryan neighborhood. and so recently -- legally this is very problematic because this

is a state actor depriving someone of liberty without any kind of process, and we could have litigated that and we said that we would litigate that. if we had and we had won process, what we would have had is a system where an individual could seek a hearing to determine whether or not they could be banned from the parking lot of a, you know, the stop & shop or something like that. we didn't want that. people wouldn't use it. if they used it, they would probably not prevail. but this legal flaw in the program was a wedge to open a conversation with city leaders and with the police department, but what's remarkable is what the department did when we said we're going to bring this program down. do you want to talk about doing things differently? they said, yes, they did. they said that because there had been a series of highly publicized videotaped encounters between police officers and young people of color that was highly embarrassing, and department leadership recognized that programs like this trespass

enforcement program were contributing to that and took the opportunity to say you could remake this program in court, but we want to remake it more broadly voluntarily as a matter of policy. so it has been completely revamped, and now police officers don't decide who can go where in the city of seattle or at least they're not supposed to. implementation of this reform on the street has been spotty at best, and i think that that is a very important question to investigate in any discussion of law enforcement reform is translating command level decisions and policy changes to the street. the major work that we've done, though, has been on partnering with the seattle police department, the king county sheriff's office and the king county prosecutor on moving toward unilaterally laying down arms and the war on drugs, and although we're still working