driver in a society is something that, and i think the other problem is an enormous one and we have to develop more energy to creating a valid benchmark than requiring police officers or i think the whole exercise is useless and can send people in their own direction. >> the other problem is based on race. i think, you know, it is so easy to attend, and the individual officer and it is much more important to focus on with the widespread deployment choices or the incentive structure so where are precincts told to emphasize and not the individual officer choosing to go patrolling and where people send at roll call, and i think it's important to bear in mind that police departments are floating on the top of a river of social

consciousness and consumer pressure for policing an example and it's all of us and it's not just the police only. seattle, like many cities have long done undercover stings. back in 2001 for the first and only time that they do a buy bust at a rave where everybody in attendance was white and 43 people for a delivery of ecstasy and other serious drugs and right before that there were a couple of weeks of press that the police had set up about how ecstasy is the new crack. it's very, very dangerous. anyway, so they made these 43 arrests and all kids, most of these individuals had private counsel. they had no criminal record and they were going med school. they were all going med school. and of course, they still are

because they got very favorable treatment in the justice system and they're the first-time offenders and anyway, the point is the department came to the seattle city council to brief the council and they were met with the firestorm of a program. and don't we have anything to do any do we have that many officers? the undercover sting at this rave? are you kidding me? of course, those are not bad questions. they're just questions that should have been asked every other day, every other year in the city and they never were. what did the department take away from that experience and they took away that there would be no resistance in pioneer square and the international district and the areas where poor black people are on the street and rich white people are in the condominiums and they don't want it to look like that out there and that would be fine and not the pre-med students and they are not to be enforced again, and it is very, very difficult to focus solely on law

enforcement choices. >> do you agree that a hard legal command to stop racial profiling and the inventory collection of data would be a helpful way to move forward or do you think that would be a distraction to move from the issues of fairness and procedural justice that you emphasized. i think we'da you will like to see racial profiling as motivated by racism or prejudice as people have mentioned. one of the difficulties of the rationalization has been that we have a connection between grace any propensity that commit crime in many communities and neighborhoods. so the police, it's not as simple as keeping statistics on the race of the people the police deal with. the police have very reasonable

arguments in many cases that they stop particular kinds of people because of who's committing the crimes in the community. i don't think therefore, we shouldn't try to do this. i think we should recognize that there have been many efforts during the years and they've been difficult to enact because they get complicated very quickly, but i still say we should do them and i think we should argue that we should do them and also we should recognize that to the people who are dealing with the police, irrespective of whether the police have a valid reason for stopping them or not and the first thing is to make sure they do, those people are going to react to how the police treat them. they're going to react to what happens when they deal with that officer and it's true that being stopped can be stigmatizing, but we know from the research that the main way in which they're stigmatized is the way they're treated by that officer, and i think they need to be training for the police that when they

recognize that one of the goals they should want to achieve is to build support in the minority community and it's something that the chief mention asked and they should always be thinking when dealing with members of any community about how their behavior affects the way they're perceived in that community. we certainly know that when you have a civilian review board, the primary reason that people complain is rudeness or disrespect. i think that's typical of what we find when we interview people. so to the degree that we can emphasize to officers the importance of building legit masset and importance of treating people towards that objective, then i think when it's necessary for the police to intrude into people's lives any harm is minimized and there's the potential for some game. >> professor richardson, can training address the problems of stereotyped threat and unconscious racism that you were discussing earlier and what will that training look like?

>> it can. so there is hope that simply because we are all affected by these non-conscious biases doesn't mean we can't take proactive steps to address them, but before talking about specific training, i do think that in terms of data collection, i do have to say something very quickly about that because we're in new york. we know the nypd has been collecting this data for quite a while now and i do think data collection is important, however, the actual behaviors of officers on the street have not changed. so data collection, fabulous, but we need to figure out what to do with that data once we have it. in terms of training, i think that we all scholars, activists and citizens and we need to engage more with police departments because i know that i'm guilty of my own stereotypes about the police that i've had to untangle and david hasn't mentioned it, but he's written a

fabulous article called "seeing blue" where the stereotypes of the police can blind us to the way we engage in collaborations with police departments to encourage reform. so one specific training that i will mention is that it's my understanding that officers are often trained to approach citizens a certain way, right? to approach them to gain control over the situation and to act, one might say, with aggression and problematically and they do want to take control. on the flip side, we are dealing with the situations where we have communities where we don't trust the police and we're already concerned about being evaluated as criminal. the reaction of the officer itself can escalate the situation. i want to share one thing, though, to backpedal a little bit about this trading because in talk about stereotyped threat

affects officers, too. and what's counterintuitive is that it's those officers who are concerned about being judged in terms of their negative stereotype and that they'll be viewed as racists when they're not, that causes them to interact with citizens in a way and there's a psychological study that demonstrates this causes them to interact with citizens in a manner that actually escalates the violence of the interaction and so there is a study done by a social psychologist named phil goth who has demonstrated the stereotyped threat of officers that affects those officers who are actually trying to do the right thing and ends up in situations where the officer shoots the suspect more often. >> so i think that engaging with the social psychology of bias in the ways in which all of us are affected by them and

collaborating with police departments to do that is the way forward versus acting on our own stereotypes about what the police are and how they act and giving them solutions without understanding the rank and file and management and on the street concerns that they have. >> so we have about 15 minutes left and all of you have been sitting very attentively and one psychological research that i'm aware of as a law professor is it's easy to listen if you can sometimes ask questions and interact. so if there are questions from the audience, maybe we can take them now. yes, ma'am? >> thank you. i'm a former deputy police commissioner and the review board here in new york and this question is for anyone.

do you have an opinion that might explain why minority police officers often exhibit the same unconscious biases based on racial stereotypes in interpreting ambiguous behaviors. >> i'll respond first. yes, i am so happy you mentioned that because so often there's an assumption that it's only white officers who act in this way, but these non-conscious stereotypes, we all have them, right? it doesn't matter what the genuine and conscious beliefs are, but we are taught in this society in the way crime stories are portrayed. we have this automatic association between non-whites and crime and it simply doesn't matter what your race is. there are these studies on implicit bias that demonstrate that whites have higher levels of implicit bias than non-whites have, but we all have them, and

so what's important is how you categorize yourself in a particular situation, so a black officer in his community might not be as affected by these implicit biases as a black officer in his role as officer. so it's how you view yourself in a particular situation that then affects your actions based on these non-conscious associations that we have. i just wanted to add and we're thinking about, for example, what happened in new orleans, and the danziger bridge shooting. several of those officers that were convicted were a minority. in the los angeles with the rampart scandal, several minority officers. in new york city, the shooting of sean bell, several of those officers were minority officers. in addition to the implicit bias that's going is that these are officers -- these officers are still in institutions that can

benefit from institutional change. so just going back to my point earlier is if we can fix some of these broader institutional problem, these same officers hopefully can be affected as well. >> mr. tyler, do you agree with that? >> oh, absolutely. i think that we tend to not put enough weight on organizational culture of police departments and there's a saying that officers are not black or white. they're blue is, and i think that what that means as they go through the academy and they come out to the street and have mentor, they learn a set of cultural values and beliefs and those are what guide their aks and that's what people are saying. if i can step out of my role, i think sometimes people hear stuff like this and they think so it doesn't matter it doesn't matter whether they're minority

officers and that's not true. it's a important point to make because oui made a lot of progress in minority, race and gender, but there are still a long ways to go, and with regard to sexual orientation and there's a fair amount of research that suggests that people of all races are subject to the same bias that professor richardson discussed and it does change the department, any it matters to white officers if there are black officers that they're patrolling with and there's been a sea change in the internal culture of police departments over the last 20, 30 years. police departments are much less monolithic places and much less room for disagreement and debate and engagement for people outside of the department. my own view is that that owes a

significant amount to the integration of police departments and much of this was carried out under court order and and to allow backsliding or to continue making progress in the places in the country where where the police departments fail to look in the communities that they police. other questions? yes, sir? >> some of what's been side -- oh, i'm sorry. i'm a retired professor here. some of what's been said by professor richardson suggests that a log in interracial profiling is -- you're being

censored once again. we can hear you. [ inaudible question ] [ inaudible question [ [ inaudible question ] >> i agree.

i don't think we should have this law. it's important to make that statement, data collection, is i think is important and once we figure out the types of data we want to collect and i think it's important to collect data from individual officers because some officers are actually -- can overcome the effects of these non-conscious biases, but as a very enral matter when you look at officer hit rates, generally even across races, officers are just not that good as a group, right? these hit rates, and by that i mean your rate of success when you stop someone. how often are you correct when you assume that they're engaged in criminal activity? the hit rates are higher for whites and you're often more successful with blacks and even the hit rates for whites are remarkably low as a group. contrast that to individual officers. there are individual officers who are extremely good at making these intuitive, skilled,

intuitive judgments of criminality and then there are officers that are remarkably bad and the problem is most police departments don't collect the data to know who are the good officers and who are the bad officers and in terms of structural reform, the promotion process are not tied to, are you a good and skilled officer? judging criminality or are you not? and so i agree with people on this panel that's focusing on police department structures and reform is really the way to go. >> if i can just add. i think when you think about the massive street stop program going on now in new york city where they almost never find anything illegal on the people they're stopping it is a sfit kated decision making process going behind these stops and you might argue that it's more a strategy of indiscriminate mass stops as a form of social

control and to me, i think the point would be that we need to communicate to the police that they have something to lose by a strategy like this because they're figured out that they can do it in a way that can't be effectively controlled by lawsuits or by similar legal procedures, and i think the point is to emphasize the damage to the relationship between the police and the community and to point out that when people are stopped and they're not doing anything wrong that this has a negative impact on their view of the police and their relationship to the police in the community so that the police can understand that there's actually a cost involved here and not just see this as something that they can do increai indiscriminately because, why not? >> i think it is essential that bee move away from the question of why. i little it is possible to legislate in this area and it must focus on the crude question of desperate impact.

title 6, what has been a useful way to get at this, but for the sandoval decision years ago that took away a private right of action to use the impact analysis for federally funded law enforcement departments. if this new legislation imports that, i think it would be useful. if it doesn't, i don't think it will. we litigated for ten years the question of selective enforcement and as i said it's about the most extreme picture in the country. we had lots of private grant funding to do this and we had an excellent sociologist working with us and i think we established that as i said, the majority of people delivering serious drugs in seattle including an open-air drug markets are white and almost everybody being arrested was black, but i can also tell you that what we had been able to demonstrate had we fully litigated this case was that nobody -- we would not have been able to demonstrate that anybody from the department from the low-level officer to the highest level commander had any intent that that -- in pack, they did

not know. they would have told you quite differently. there are lots of white people being arrested. they genuinely, we would not we would not have been able to prove that they prioritized crack enforcement even though 80% of our drug delivery reps in seattle were for crack delivery. although crack represented only 1/3 of the open air drug transactions conducted in seattle. so the seattle police department was addicted to crack. but they did not -- [ laughter ] >> i wanted to use that for so many years. i've never been able to. so they were addicted to crack. but they did not know that. they would sit in utmost sincerity in a way i could not dislodge in -- that crack was not more poernt that crack cocaine, meth amphetamine.

we documented there were white people distributing drugs. commanders said they had no idea they were down there. the invisibility of the exact same behavior conducted by white people, it was true. they did not actually see them as potential criminals. they thought they were waiting for the bus. we could show the actual instance of the offending behavior and we could show who was being arrest for it. if that was an operation legal standard, and short of that if the question is why, i don't think it's a useful framework. >> so professor simmons as a former prosecutor what do you think of the idea that in order to deal with the problem of racism and arrest rates we should ratchet back arrests? >> wow. i want to say something and maybe we've eluded to it a

little bit here. when we think about the war on drugs, it starts there. so we can kind of get away from crack cocaine and meth and some things focussing on violent crimes. and maybe we will have some headway there. that's about as controversial. >> i think we have time for more one question. >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you. so you mentioned that the seattle response focused on how dialled it back on felony drug cases. but in new york and i'm assuming in seattle, too, for every felony there's going to be 20 and here in new york more people getting arrested for low level misdemeanors with the same disparities. has there been any focus on that. that massively criminalizes communities, people of color, it

leads to lost emploit. missed days of work. i think the biggest civil rights issue we have in new york city today. s. >> it's a policing decision to categorize. in seattle we've had the same phenomenon. it's done on a prosecutor yal level. back in 2008 for budget reasons only the prosecutor decided to file as misdemeanors a bunch of felony possession cases. you only got the misdemeanor if you pled. if you decided to take the case to trial it would be filed as a felony and not drug courts. as a result of that most people do plead to the misdemeanor. as a result of that, we experienced what people refer to as discouraged officer syndrome. phenomenally, the drug arrest rate for drug crimes -- practically every drug offense is a felony under washington law. only possession of marijuana

under 30 grams is a misdemeanor. but so there's been a 63% reduction in drug arrests from 2000 to 2010. this is not the result of any intentional policy. this is purely an officer reaction to incentives and sort of the seeming trivialization of these cases by other players in the system. but what's been fascinating with the advent of this law enforcement diversion program, an idealogical structure has now arisen that provides support for these officer decisions that what they used to scoff at and what's the point of taking this guy to jail, now they look at you and think why would i make an arrest for the possession of a crack pipe. they say that would be insane. although you did it and i cross examined on you on kiess like that five years. there's almost a value shift and ma'am knee sha about that would make no sense to do it that way. that's what gives me a great

deal of hope is there actually is if we can provide a policy level consensus at the community level consensus that it's okay for the police to police these crimes differently and with the different outcome, officers are more than willing to do things that are more rational and less harmful. but the incentive structure around their decision making has to change. >> i think it's a great achievement if we can end the panel on in policing and a note of hope. will you join me in thanking our panel. [ applause ] coming up this afternoon, live here on c-span3, new hampshire senator kelly ayotte will give the keynote address at a brookings institution event examining the implications of se quest ration and potential alternatives. the senator is leading senate efforts to avoid defense cuts under se kwooes ration. a process which would

automatically cut spending on national defense programs by about $500 billion starting? january. she serves as ranking member of the senate armed services readiness subcommittee. we'll have her remarks followed by a couple of panel discussions on the topic coming up live here on c-span3 beginning at 1:30 p.m. eastern. and later, james mann author of "the obamians." talks about president obama's foreign policy decision and profiles the people who advise him. the event is hosted by politics and pros in washington, d.c. james mann, former foreign correspondent for the los angeles times is author in residence at johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. he's the author of rise of the as a rule cans, the history of bush's war cabinet and the rebellion of ronald reagan. we'll have his remarks live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on our website

book it's dv.org. july 7th and 8th, booktv and american history tv explore the heritage and literary culture of missouri state capital, jefferson city, with local content vehicles on the campus of university of missouri. >> this is our most famous book. this is the one we like to show to visitors when they come to the archives here at page library. and this is a book about harriet tubman. it's called harriet, the moses of her people. and the special thing about this book was written in 1866. the sperm thing about this book is is is that harriet tubman made her mark on there and that's really the most famous autograph, if you want to call it that of what we have here in page library. obviously she couldn't read or write. she left her mark, the sign of

the cross. >> watch for book tv and american history tv in jefferson city, missouri. july 7th and 8th on c-span2 and 3. the veterans affairs department estimates that 18 veterans take their own lives every day. additionally the defense department confirmed recently that suicides are on the rise among veterans. both departments co-hosted a suicide provengs conference in washington this week. attendants heard from the son of a football player who committed suicide after suffering from brain trauma. and an exec fif for mental health america. this is 30 minutes. >> i am here because sharing my father's story is my duty. i am here because speaking with those that help our servicemen and women is an incredible honor. i am here because suicide is an enormous problem in our country. that is why i am here. for duty, honor, country.

[ applause ] >> my father was not a patriot. he was a bear. [ laughter ] >> in 1985, a group that called themselves the monsters of midway, handedly defeated the patriots of new england in super bowl 20. this group my father's teammates, teammates, brothers were more than just football players to the city of chicago. fans gravitated to their hollywood charisma, brute courage and team comradery. they epitomized manhood. every man wanted to smoke cigars like dika, dodge tacklers like walter, and rally teammates like singletary. the '85 bears, much like our servicemen and women embody themes larger than