forward so very simply she's presented herself in a way that i think makes most people feel like, yeah, we can stand up on the world stage alongside of folks from france and italy where, you know, the notion of fashion is really something that's embedded into their culture, the other part of it is that these are really momentous moments that, you know, the photographs are going to go into the history books and for any design house that is enormous, it not only puts them into the publicer have knack lar n a way that red carpets don't but it also puts them in the history books so it lends a certain, i think, gravity to what they do. it lends a certain gravity to the idea that the american fashion industry is just as important of an industry as the food, the auto industry, all the things -- other things that go

into creating that state dinner. >> how does she go about choosing her dress and choosing the designer? >> well, when we paint each other's fingernails and brush each other's hair she tells me. no. i'm kidding. my sense is that the first thing is that she wears what she loves. and she wear what is she feels comfortable in. that said, i do think there is some attention paid to the country that's being honored, a desire to acknowledge either directly by working with the designer who perhaps has that sort of ethnicity in their background and sometimes it's just a matter of paying tribute to a particular color or flower that is important that country. >> last fall you wrote when you were covering the state dinner for the chinese premier that she chose a vera wang dress and you

said by choosing that it wasn't an apology, it wasn't a mea culpa but it was a diplomatic clarification. can you explain? >> now i'm trying to remember what the dress looked like. >> the black dress that she wore, the vera wang dress, the black mermaid style dress as opposed to the one she wore for the first chinese state dinner. >> well, the first chinese state dinner it was a beautiful dress, it was red and it had been designed by sara burton from alexander mcqueen which is a british fashion house and vera wang is a very well-known chinese american designer and the first go round she -- mrs. obama got criticism from particularly the american fashion industry, particularly oscar de la renta who felt that this was one of those occasions when she had the opportunity to elevate american design and to

wear a dress by an american designer and he felt -- many in the fashion industry felt that she had missed an opportunity. and i think in many ways they felt hurt that she looked outside of 7th avenue for a dress for the occasion so this was a bit of a do over and i think there was a little bit of an acknowledgment that perhaps the first time was a misstep. >> do you have a favorite dress from these past eight years, state dinners? >> you know, i thought the karolina herrera dress was particularly elegant. in many ways it was rather traditional but i'm also really fond of the last one that she wore by brandon maxwell and in part that's simply because it was such a surprise. and, you know, i think one of the things that she does quite well and that one of the reasons why people are sort of eager to see what she's going to wear is

because she doesn't just go with design houses that have been around for decades. she doesn't go with sort of the tried and true, the vetted designers. brandon maxwell had -- hasn't even been in business for more than a year. jason woo, who she wore twice for her inaugural gowns had not been in business very long when she first reached out to him. so i think that's really nice to see because she really is supporting small businesses in the true sense of the word. >> robin givhan, thank you for your time. >> my pleasure. join us today at 6:30 p.m. eastern for the white house state dinner for italian prime minister matteo renzi. our live coverage includes the north portico arrival of the prime minister and his wife, dinner guest arrivals through the white house east wing, the grand staircase official photo, and the dinner toast offered by president obama and prime

minister renzi. former obama white house social secretary juliana smoot will join us to talk about food, decor and protocol for the state visit. we'll recall previous state dinners under the obama administration. we'll talk to the italian ambassador to the u.s. and "washington post" fashion critic robin givhan will review first lady michelle obama's fashion over the years. the white house state dinner for prime minister matteo renzi airs live at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span and cspan.org. or listen on the free c-span radio yap. next, the supreme court heard oral argument in pena-rodriguez v. colorado. a hispanic man seeking to overturn his unlawful sexual contact and harassment conviction because of racially charged statements made by a juror during jury deliberations. at issue is whether the sixth

amendment right to an impartial jury outweighs the rule that jury deliberations are confidential and if the court should make an exception to this rule because of racial bias. the oral argument is an hour. we'll hear argument next in case 156606, pena-rodriguez v. colorado. mr. fisher? >> more than half the trials in this country -- new york to florida to south carolina -- are conducted under the rule we seek today, namely, a requirement that judges consider evidence of racial bias when it's offered to prove a violation of the sixth amendment right to an impartial jury. this court should require colorado to follow the same rule. indeed, colorado already has a turnkey system for implementing an exception to racial bias. like every other jurisdiction across the land, colorado already has multiple exceptions to the principle of jury secrecy

so all colorado has to do is use the same system already a in place to administer an exception for racial bias. >> what about religious bias? same thing in this case except it's not -- you know, this is how mexican act, this is how catholics or jews act so they're obviously guilty. wouldn't that also come under your exception? >> well, there's obviously, mr. chief justice, frequently an overlap between race and religion so for that reason religion might be viewed very similarly. >> well, that seems to be avoiding a question. let's say there isn't catholics. >> all the court needs to decide in this case today is race. >> no, i don't think that's fair. once we decide race -- this is not an equal protection case, it's a sixth amendment case so we think invocation of race is an impermissible -- impermissible enough, i guess, that we will pierce the jury confidentiality, well, the next case is going to be religion so whatever we say on race is going

to have to have either a limiting principle that makes sense or it's going to open up a broad category of cases. >> i don't deny there may be subsequent cases if you decide this one in my favor. but i'm saying two things to the court. first of all, you can and should do what the court has done in previous situations like this, which is start with race. and the reason why is because the court has said time and again in cases like rose v. mitchell, in cases like haim v. south carolina, that race is different. race is unique, it is a unique -- >> suppose we start with race. you're not being very helpful to the court in your answers. suppose we start with race and the next case involves religion. now, how would you distinguish religion from race if we were to reach an opposition conclusion in the religious case? >> what you would do in that case, justice alito, is conduct the same analysis you're being asked to conduct here which is look at the tanner factors and ask how effective other safeguards are -- >> why?

>> pardon me? >> why? >> why would you ask that? >> why. you know, the chief says this is not an equal protection case but the sixth amendment applies to the states through the 14th amendment, correct? >> yes. >> i always thought the most pernicious and odious discrimination in our law is based on race. >> i agree with that. >> all right, so why is a rule that says given the exceptions we've recognized since the 1800s that have said that race is the most pernicious thing in our justice system, why can't we limit this just to race using principles of the 14th amendment as well? >> i'm not denying that you can. and, of course, the constitution needs to be read structurally so -- >> do you think it's odious to have this same sort of discrimination against someone because he's a muslim or practices islamic faith? are you saying he's a muslim, of

course, given this, i know how muslims behave, he committed this crime. is that not sufficiently like racial discrimination that it should be carved out? >> it may well be, your honor. it certainly is odious. >> sexual orientation? somebody gives a bigoted speech in the jury room about sexual orientation and how particular types of people are more likely to commit crimes like the one before them. is that sufficiently odious? >> it's quite odious. but whether it would satisfy the balancing test we're setting forth today would be needed to decide -- >> you have to have an answer for this reason. no one on the other side thinks anything but this is terrible jury misbehavior. that's a given across the case. it is not a question of the validity of the behavior. it's invalid. the question is the timing of when somebody has to object. and their point is they have to object before the verdict comes

in. because if you don't have that rule you will, in fact, open the door to all kinds of evil which is they mention. all right? that's their argument. so what we're really asking for is your replay to that argument and it doesn't really reply to say "maybe you're going to have a bunch of other things, too." because then that strengthens their argument. on the other hand, maybe that's what you think. the whole question is, is that inevitably opening the door to these other things which will mean tell the jury, if somebody says a racist comment, write me a note, the judge says, before you reach a verdict. you get the point? that's why the question is being asked and so that's why i, too, would like an answer. >> so i think you've asked a more specific question about objecting and a more general question we've been talking about about drawing lines. so for objecting, let me just say it's impossible for the defendant to object to the

misconduct in this case because the defendant is not in the jury room to hear it. there's never been a right that depends on the jurors themselves -- >> mr. fisher, please, please concentrate on the question justice breyer has asked you which is answer his question. he's talking about the general principle. he says everybody's afraid to open the door. all right? and to the extent that your answer is simply the door is open once you rule for me because other bias is going to be viewed the same, it's going to hurt you, that's what justice breyer said. so tell me why that near is not valid. >> i think there's two reasons why. one is you can look at the court's cases that i have described already, things like rose v. mitchell, haim v. south carolina where we have race specific rules that have never been extended beyond race. and i know this isn't strictly speaking in an equal protection case but the same values of the 14th amendment infuse the 6th

amendment and i think a helpful analogy can be drawn to the tiers of scrutiny. >> why isn't this national origin? you're trying to isolate race but this was a case of a mexican american. so why doesn't it belong under national origin rather than race? >> i think the court's case law has fused the two concepts, particularly when it comes to people of hispanic origins so i think the government agrees race and ethnicity are interchangeable. but if i could continue my analogy about the tiers of scrutiny -- >> is it true with respect to other ethnic groups or just hispanics. >> it's most true in the case of hispanics which is why we've used the term race and every other party and court has used the term race and the tiers of scrutiny provide a helpful analogy -- >> you keep on being cut off before you get to the tiers of scrutiny. [ laughter ] buff the cases where the court

has said that a lawyer has to be allowed to ask on voir dire about bias, is that only true of racial bias or is that true of any other kind of bias as well? >> under this court's cases, only race. remember haim was decided in 1973 so there have been plenty of time for that issue to percolate. and i don't know of any other cases -- >> gender. >> i'm sorry. is that right? >> i'm sorry? >> it's just race? >> i believe so. >> it's just race. and then batson would be race and gender, is that right? >> that's right. and i think batson is another helpful analogy. first of all, in batson itself you wrote an opinion about race and of course the question of gender came back several years later. there were three dissenters in that case, it didn't automatically follow from the first and there was a different analysis that i would suggest you would conduct here as well. you'd asked about the tanner factors and the other factors the state pointed out, things like the composition of ordinary juries look very different when you're talking about sex than race.

things like -- >> is it so different? suppose somebody in the jury room -- say it's an automobile accident says "what do you expect women drivers? women shouldn't be allowed to drive cars. every woman i know is a terrible driver." suppose that is what was said. >> well, you would ask the same questions we're asking today but you'd ask it through a different record and set of balancing. you might conclude -- and i'm not going to deny this -- that you should extend to sex. but you might not conclude that, that would be a separate case and maybe now i can make my tears of scrutiny point because remember sex discrimination is treated differently under the equal protection clause than race discrimination. and under a similar analogy, it's not that one is more odious than the other or one is better or one doesn't violate the amendment it's the different tools must be available to root out different kinds of discrimination. and that's the whole point of strict scrutiny is that we do

not leave any stones unturned when it comes to race. >> isn't it in fact true that in the decisions of this court those tiers are not what they once were? that is strict scrutiny is no longer fatal, in fact, and for gender discrimination you must have an exceedingly persuasive justification for it? >> of course, justice ginsburg, that's correct and i'm just trying to give this court an analogy that might use to think about the problem of how to apply the sixth amendment to different kinds of alleged bias. >> well, it's not just alleged bias, it's biased based on innate characteristics of the offensive remarks. but the question is, what is most likely to -- a significant risk of depriving the defendant of a fair trial? it seems to me there are statements that have nothing to do with race or gender or sexual orientation or anything that might have a far greater impact and i'm wondering why we don't allow impeachment of the jury

verdict in those cases. someone, i don't know, says "i know that witness. that witness lies all the time. believe me, you can't take anything he says." i mean, that in a particular case could have a greater impact. so why don't we allow impeachment of the jury processes in that case? >> i think a very important question that goes to the heart of the case. because i think you could have used the hypothetical from cases like mcdonald v. pless and tanner v. worker. the court has said race is difference. there's a difference between a bias, harmful though it may be that affects only a private litigant compared to racial bias which is a stain on the entire judicial system and the integrity it's built upon. that is the difference the court saided in rose v. mitchell, in haim v. south carolina, what the court talked about in its batson line of cases. it's that stain on the system. >> what did the 20 states do? >> pardon me? >> what do the 20 states do?

>> it's 18 states and two federal jurisdictions, but those jurisdictions have all limited their exception to race. if that's what you're asking. and, remember, some of those exsenses have been around in new york, it's been around since the '60s. in minnesota it's been around since the '70s. so we have vast experience in the states and when all the arguments are made on the other side, which i would respectfully say are all theoretical arguments about the harm that would come from adopting a rule, i'd stroesz the court this is not a theoretical question. there's an empirical answer that is available to the court based on the experience across the country. >> race is different for some purposes but why is it different from other things for sixth amendment purposes. what the sixth amendment protects is the right to an impartial jury. and if we allow the exception that you are advocating, what do you say to the defendant who --

the prisoner who is going to be spending the rest of his life in prison as a result of a jury verdict that was determined by flipping a coin? >> i think i give you the same answer i give the chief justice earlier which is that is woefully unfair, but when the court does its balancing of the harm on the one side to the judicial system of the defendant against the state interest, the balance is different when it comes to race. and as bad as -- >> how does that connect with the right to an impartial jury? a jury can be partial for racial reasons. it can be partial for some other reason. >> because the values of the 14th amendment are read into the 6th amendment as well. if i could give the court an analogy, think of bowling v. sharpe where the court asked whether the due process clause apply tos to the federal government. sorry, the equal protection clause applies to the federal government. which it doesn't but the court says the due process clause in the fifth amendment does and

that should be infused with the value of equal protection and the particular harms of racial discrimination should be read into that amendment as well. that's all we're asking here. >> has there been any case other than bowling v. sharpe, the conspicuous absence was any equal protection principle operative against the federal government. and i don't know of any case other than bowling v. sharpe where you have that. >> i think, justice ginsburg, another example would be haim. remember, the voir dire line of cases are due process cases. there's nothing in the due process clause that singles out race but this court's opinion does. it says the structure of the constitution and the unique problem of race in our history and society requires special medici medicine. >> do we take the entire body of law we have developed in connection with racial discrimination when the equal protection cause is the issue and apply that to your case? for example, here off very obviously offensive and direct

appeal to race. what if it's "he's from that neighborhood, i know people from -- people from that neighborhood always commit crimes like this." obviously that could well be challenged as based on race. is that also -- do you impeach the jury's -- the secrecy of the jury proceedings for something like that? >> i think the analysis would be similar to what you do under the equal protection clause but it wouldn't have to be lockstep. the question that's asked in the 20 jurisdictions that already do this is would a reasonable juror have understood the comments about race? would the jurors have understood the juror who spoke to be asking them to decide the case or view the evidence based on racial bias? >> that second is very different from the first. that second -- >> i'm sorry if i confused the court but the key is when you're talking about people from "that neighborhood" or whether it would be understood as

race-based comments. >> i like the second better because otherwise you're going to have an evidentiary hearing in every allegation, and some jurisdictions don't, right? >> right. >> there has to be a test that tells you when -- what's the difference between a stray remark and something that has impact. >> so both are required justice sotomayor and i'm sorry if i was confusing about that. first you ask whether or not it was racial bias as opposed to some other bias, second you ask whether it went to the in evidence the case in the defendant's gl or whether it was an awful color joke made during a break or something like that. let me stress two things, one is the jurisdictions that exist already do this. and even jurisdictions like colorado do this. go back to justice breyer's question. if a juror sent a note out five minutes before the verdict in this case or any other describing racial bias, the judge would make all the same inquiries for asking -- >> i don't see the problem there. what's actually worrying me about -- to write this on paper.

somebody could say, well, you know, on request the defense attorney can get an instruction, send us a note before you reach the verdict. that could happen. but you want to go beyond that and impeach the verdict. the real reason, i suspect, is even though we can imagine cases that are just as unfair -- flipping a coin, et cetera, that part of the purpose of these amendments is to create a judicial system that is seen as fair beyond the individual case and, indeed, being seen as fair beyond the individual case means that it is more likely to be fair in other cases as well. now, if i'm really honest i think, yeah, that's probably right and then the history and everything become relevant but have you found any support for that? >> for what exactly, justice breyer? >> that what we're doing here in creating the exception, despite the fact that we can think of

justice alito's case, which is just as unfair, though it doesn't involve race is we're trying to create a fairer system in general and one that will be perceived as such and there race is a special problem. so i wonder if you -- and i'm -- if i could write it that way i think it would make sense. but i'm asking you, is there support for such a thing? >> yes, you almost spoke verbatim out of the rosales v. lopez opinion which draws from the opinion of 1931. so this is a principle that goes quite a way back in the court's jurisprudence chst the perceptions but of fairness when it comes to racial bias and discrimination is paramount and justice breyer if i could add two points about your question which we return to about what if the jury could be instructed to send a note out? well, there's two problems with that. first, remember the jurors are always instructed as they were in this case to use their common

sense experience in the jury room to draw on that and remember how these comments are couched, as is often the case, as juror hc's personal experience that mexican men, blah blah blah. so a jury instruction at best is going to be cross cutting against another jury instruction and not always work. even in the case of extraneous evidence and improper influence whiches are exceptions that colorado recognizes as does the federal system and everyone else, jurors are always instructed not to do those things and yet they do sometimes and the system demands that we give a remedy when jurors don't follow those instructions. >> what is it that -- the proceeding that you would have. if we accept your proposal and interview the jurors, subject them to -- what do you ask them? >> so there's two steps, mr. chief justice, versus a threshold showing i described earlier, that there was a statement -- >> okay, the facts are as alleged here, i guess.

what do you do once you have that in the record? what's next? >> so the judge asks exactly the same question the judge would ask with other kinds of jury misconduct like extraneous evidence. the judge would ask if there's a reasonable possibility the verdict was influenced by that bias. >> so if the jury comes in and everybody says yes, that's what he said but of course the guy was guilty, no doubt about it and the other 11 say of course he was guilty, it was offensive what hc said but of course he was guilty, everybody agreed to -- in five minutes. does that make a difference? >> i think you've asked two question there is, the first is is one juror enough and the second is do you look at the strength of the government's case? on the first question whether one biased jury is enough the court's parker v. glad decision says yes. which is in line with the way you treated a multimember decision body last term in williams. the question on whether to look at the strength of the

government's case, i would tell this court that's the one issue chon the 20 jurisdictions across the country are divided. some say the mere fact that a single racially-biased juror took that into account in issuing his verdict is enough for relief and some other states will look at the overall strength of the government's case. for i think obvious reasons the court need not resolve that here in this case and could come out on that question however it wished. >> but specifically what happens next? the chief asked the question. do you have the poll -- do all the jurors have to come back and each one testify? first of all, did hc say what the two jurors said he said? there may be doubt about that. and then whether of any of them were influenced by -- >> there's two questions, justice ginsburg. the first one is what does the evidence show? some juror testimony is required to bring out who said what and in what context. once that's determined the judge

asks whether there's a reasonable probability the verdict was infected by racial bias and that question is purely objective. it's very much like what courts do everyday when there's a bad jury instruction. they don't bring all the jurors in and have them testify how they interpreted the jury instruction, they ask an objective test saying with those improper statements brought into the jury room, would the juror have -- the reasonable probability the juror would have erred in the way they decided? >> so the idea would be the judge would say well look at all this other evidence against the defendant, i think they would have found him guilty regardless? >> no, well, that's the issue i was talking about the chief justice on which courts are divided. we think the court might hold in a future case that it's enough to have a racially biased juror -- >> in other words, that that would be a kind of structural error? >> that would be the question the court would ask. what i meant when i said look at the other facts i meant the context in which a statement was made during deliberation. it might be somebody said something and somebody immediately spoke up and

corrected that person and he said "that's not what i meant, i meant something else." and the judge as they do everyday in jurisdictions across the country would hear the evidence and decide, oh, this juror wasn't -- >> here in this case we have a very blatant statement. but let's consider the standard that applies on a lot of college campuses as to statements that are considered by some people to be racist. what would happen if one of the jurors has the sensibility of a lot of current college students and think that something that's said in the jury room that falls into one of those categories was a racial commence? >> we're talking here, justice alito, only about intentional racial bias. so even in the equal protection clause -- >> the person says something that is considered improper on a college campus today and another juror thinks that that shows intentional racial bias. >> no, i think as i said it's an

objective test. even under the court's equal protection jurisprudence -- >> well, how will the judge decide whether the statement is racist? >> i think it's the same analysis the judge would conduct in an equal protection case which is is the statement asking to decide directly and intentionally on its face the case based on race. that's all you need to -- >> presumably the judge faces the same situation if a juror comes in during proceedings, is that right? and then the judge has to make that decision whether this is something real or not. >> precisely right, justice kagan, of after proceedings. jurors can walk out the courthouse steps as they were hold in this case, it's entirely proper to discuss the basis for your verdict. so if that afternoon jurors are saying "this is how we decided the case" the judge might be asked to make the same inquiri s inquiries. so there's nothing new about the inquiry we're asking. >> does it make any difference if it were not the jurors but the lawyer for the defense went

around, contacted all the jurors and illicited this testimony. so it wasn't jurors volunteering but the lawyer questioning the jurors to see if he can come up with something that would gain a new trial? >> so long as what the lawyer was doing comported with the local rules it would be the same case. in minnesota, which is the one place where there is a case about a lawyer breaking the rules in terms of talking to a juror, there's a situation where it's a different case and the judge might deny relief. if i could reserve the remainder of my time. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. everyone, including petitioner, agrees that the citizen jury system requires safeguards to ensure full and fair debate in the jury room and to prevent

juror harassment and tampering after verdicts are handed down. the jurors' alleged statements in this case are no doubt reprehensible but the vital interest that the no impeachment rule serves apply just as readily here as they do in other serious alleged cases of juror misconduct and bias and petitioner has not shown -- >> mr. yarger, let's assume the state interests are basically the same and let's assume the safeguards voir dire don't operate particularly differently. to i -- so i'll give you what i think is the strongest case on mr. fisher's side which is the interests in preventing fairness are much greater, that that's really the difference is the fact that verdicts based on race discrimination pose a harm. that verdicts based on other kinds of unfairnesses which exist in the world and are terrible but still that it's

just not the same kind of harm. >> and we certainly don't dispute that racial bias is a particular problem and a particular problem under the constitution but i don't think it's correct that other forms of bias won't cause the same types of institutional harms. of course this court recognizes that in jeb v. alabama when it extended batson to claims of gender bias. and a verdict based on the fact that the a defendant is a muslim or catholic or mormon or any religious group would just as significantly call into question -- >> the one question is whether identity-based harms are different than other kinds of unfairnesses, as we've talked about in withthe warger case, f example. and another question is whether racial bias is different from other identity-based bias, right? but would you concede that

identity-based bias is different from, like, the kinds of bias that we have discussed in other cases? >> i wouldn't concede that in this specific context where you're dealing with an individual defendant's sixth amendment right to an impartial jury in a fair trial set against the important and vital interest that the no impeachment rule serves to allow the jury to do its job. >> well, it's true this is a sixth amendment case but it seems artificial not to think about the sixth amendment issue as informed by the principles of the equal protection clause. and those principles, as we've always understood them, says there's a special kind of harm in treating people worse and certainly in punishing people because of their race. maybe especially because race is so associated with particular stereotypes respecting criminality. that's about the worst thing you

can do to a person and it's also the worst thing that you can suggest about the criminal justice system, that it allows that to happen, so both of those two things, the harm to the individual for being punished because of your race and the harm to society writ large. and that would i think be the -- yes, you're right, the state interests are exactly the same and voir dire functions pretty similarly but it's just a different kind of harm. >> i think it would be difficult in the context of the sixth amendment in the same courthouse in colorado to tell one defendant that that defendant gets to impeachment the verdict because the error that happened to occur during deliberations was racial whereas across the hall it was religious or simply the jurors disrespecting their jury system enough to flip a coin and that's the problem, in all of these cases in which rule 606b is going to apply, you'll be putting the individual defendant's sixth amendment

cliegt petitioner acknowledges can be implicated in a wide range of cases against the interests that you acknowledge are weighty and important and precisely why rule 606b has survived. >> suppose this were a capital case. would the government of the united states come and make this argument that the person can be executed despite what we know happened in the jury room? >> well, your honor, i think certainly this isn't a capital case and that might raise different issues, there are cases in the briefing that are capital cases in which rule 606 -- >> well, that's a follow-up from your position. >> it does. our position is it should apply there if -- if the jury system is so important to be protected in these other contexts and is -- and this rule is necessary to allow them to fully and fairly deliberate the issues, it ought to apply in that context as well but, again, i don't think that question needs to be confronted or answered in this case. >> do you have any evidence that in the 20 jurisdictions that

permit this challenge that they've been overwhelmed with cases? >> your honor, there -- i think there are two responses to that, first of all, we don't agree with that count of jurisdictions or how it breaks down but second of all petitioner does point to jurisdictions in which this exception was made but he doesn't link that up with evidence that this is not occurring, that the harassment and the effects on full and fair deliberations are not being -- >> well, you can't prove a negative so that's almost impossible so i want you to tell me the positive. is there evidence of some run amok sort of number of motions filed at any particular case based on racial discrimination, rampant jury harassment, any of the evils that you are predicting in your brief? >> what we do have, your honor, is specific examples in these particular cases where harassment is a very real

problem, specifically with respect to racial bias where after all 12 jurors are -- a large number of jurors are pulled into the courtroom, it's determined that the affidavit at issue was manufactured by the attorney and this the allegations were untrue. an example to give is a case from massachusetts. the other thing i would say is the iowa rule, the most permissive version of the no impeachment rule certainly was on the table in 1975 when this court and congress considered adopting rule 606b. all of those arguments were the same then, all those arguments were made in tanner and made in warger and what congress decided and the vast majority of state decided was that the strict version of the no impeachment rule best balances these interests. it's a very difficult balance, we certainly acknowledge that. but as to petitioner's count, six states apply that iowa rule. and certainly that's their judgment to make but that

doesn't mean the exception is limited only to racial bias and six states that acknowledge a sixth amendment exception, they don't apply a categorical rule that allows evidence of racial bias to come in in every case in which it's alleged. they apply sort of an extreme cases test. >> can you just clarify something. i think mr. fisher told us that in the states, whether his number of 20, yours of six is right that this is limited to race. so it would not be applied to gender, sexual orientation and, apparently, national origin other than hispanic. >> justice ginsburg, that is true that the cases that we've seen do only deal with racial bias but we've seen extreme instances of other types of bias, religious bias against jews and muslims and certainly i think those courts would have a hard time not extending whatever

particular rule they've adopted to those settings but we do acknowledge that to date the exceptions have been racial bias. . in those six durs j-- jurisdict that adopt that rule, the courts still say well the importance of the no impeachment rule still applies and we're not going to create an exception. that's what the seventh circuit did. >> what exception would you recognize as far back as reid we have said -- qualified 606b's predecessors or 606b wagner said it. there might be a case so extreme that we would not apply this rule. if race is not so extreme. what in your judgment would be? >> your honor, i think the line that could be drawn consistent with that footnote would be whether or not the other safe ghards are necessary to assure a fair trial were made available in that particular case.

so there are cases on which voir dire or religious bias was not made available. that would be a case in which if evidence surfaced post-trial, an exception might be necessary. the same if a court was given some hint that bias crept into the jury deliberations and didn't do anything about it. that would be possibly a situation in which the no impeachment rule should yield. but if we're focused on that balance between -- >> well, right now we don't permit or require questioning on bias exception for race in voir dire so where does your exception work? >> well -- >> because things do creep in. but we don't make exceptions for those things. >> well, i think that's precisely right. we don't make exceptions and we expect counsel in voir dire to be the mechanism through which we explore all these biases so

when it's not taken advantage of, when it could have been taken advantage of in this case -- >> the problem is it assumes if the question is asked that every juror is going to be truthful. different people can have different experiences but, you know, it is more rare than common that when a question is asked is anyone biased, that most jurors won't raise their hand. >> and, your honor, i think the same challenge arises with regard to nearly any bias that is crucial to a defendant's sixth amendment right which is precisely why the practice guides the defendant himself cites, petitioner himself cites say asking the general question is generally not the best way to expose those types of biases during voir dire and here not even the general question was asked about the race of the defendant in this case. >> well, what other types of questions would -- what types of questions would you propound if you were trying to illicit whether there was bias on the part of a prospective juror.

>> i would propound the same types of questions that petitioner's counsel used below as to other issues. people's experiences on the subject. whether they believe racial issues still perrist? this country and what their attitudes are. >> but many lawyers won't ask that question even if they could because just by asking the question you're putting race in the minds of the jurors and you'd rather not do that. >> that's certainly the argument the petitioner makes here but what experience has shown is that a careful and mature voir dire on race is not likely to infuse racism into jurors. in fact, quite the opposite has been observed to happen. when jurors are respectfully confronted with racial issues at the outset of a trial, they tend to counter any racial bias, whether explicit or implicit, that might come up during the thought process. >> how do you know that? >> that's the research we cited

from professor summers in the briefing. courts have looked at that research, the mccallen case from massachusetts, they said the same thing, voir dire is a good time and good mechanism to raise these issues to ensure they don't crop up. >> but that's one of the problems here. it may be a good time to alert people who have this bias not to talk about it. it seems to me that that's a very hard thing to measure. this sort of bias. and one question, i guess, is whether impeaching the verdict in this way will cause people with biases like that to keep quiet about it yet have the same pernicious affect on the verdict. >> well, that's one of our concerns, mr. chief justice, and petitioner acknowledges, i think it's page 16 of his reply brief, that allowing this type of inquiry on issues of racial bias might drive racial bias underground. he says that's unlikely, the

florida supreme court said it might happen and it strikes us and strikes colorado that if the effect of a racial bias only exception to the no impeachment rule drives racism underground where it can't be confronted and reported to the judge, the balance that colorado strikes by not carving out subject matter exceptions to the no impeachment rule is a good one. >> why? there's a lot of talk about political correctness or not and some people think that it's a negative thing and others think it's a positive thing. but if an individual is harboring racial bias, isn't it better to harbor it than infect everyone else's deliberations on the basis of it? i mean, if you're not saying every mexican commit this is kind of crime but you're forced to argue the evidence to convince your jurors, isn't that

exactly what we want? don't we want deliberations on evidence and not deliberations on someone's stereotypes and feelings about the race of a defendant? >> that is absolutely what we want. >> so why shouldn't we try to drive it underground? >> well, your honor, with respect, i think if the juror harbors that bias and is on the jury, that's going to influence the verdict one way or the other. >> do jurors even know about the existence of the vase/delavell rule, that jurors can impeach their verdict? >> justice ginsburg, what jurors do know when they enter the deliberation room is that that's a secret proceeding and they're told after they leave that they can talk to people as much or little as they want about what goes on in the jury room. so calling them back in, calling multiple jurors back in to take

the stand under personality of perjury and cross-examination to be examined about what was said during those deliberations will have a significant effect on the deliberative climate in the jury room. >> can you tell me just as a matter of what goes on in the bar in your state in colorado particularly? i take it that in civil cases lawyers who may be trying a similar case all the time question jurors after the fact, after the verdict, in order to see how to improve their arguments in civil cases and criminal case. is this a problem generally? and a related question, are there articles and statistics about the prevalence of this and whether or not this is disruptive to the legal system? >> the specific post-trial conversation between counsel and jurors? >> yes. >> i haven't seen anything like that. that is a common practice in the state of colorado. but one concern is that certainly a skilled lawyer in every case is going to present evidence of alleged bias as if it were volunteered to that

attorney and it's only after actually inquiry of the jurors, putting multiple jurors on the stand to get to the bottom of the allegations what was said, when it was said and what was meant in context will you get to whether this actually exposed racial bias on the part of a juror, whether it was something else. and by that point you have done exactly what rule 606b seeks to prevent courts from doing in order to create the atmosphere of full and fair debate in the jury room. >> when this rule was first pronounced, they were thinking about quotient verdicts, coin flipping, perhaps drunkenness. identity bias didn't figure in -- back in england when this rule was first articulated.

>> certainly that might be true at the time the common law rule was announced but rule 606b was debated and adopted in the 1970s recently and since that time no rule maker has decided to draw lines within the rule based on the subject matter of the misconduct of the juror. and i think that reflects the tension we were talking about earlier which is it doesn't matter what kind of bias arises in the course of proceedings, all of it has significant sixth amendment concerns for individual defendants and drawing the lines only as to racial bias but to no other type of misconduct would disservice the rule and wouldn't give an adequate reason not to draw further lines down the road and i think that would lead to the constitutionalization of the most per miss i have form of the rule, the iowa rule, which this court and congress and the vast majority of state have rejected. your honors, if there are no

further questions. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court. racial bias is a real problem the united states committed to eradicating. there are ways to address that problem without undermining structural protections of the jury system that withstood legal challenges for hundreds of years. take principle submission that a different rule should apply under sixth amendment when a different bias at issue. >> miss kovner, it seems there are two line of cases which we recognized racial bias in a jury room is an especially important problem and there need to be rules to address that problem. the first tine-of- line of

questions are the ones on voir dire who say that a lawyer who wants to ask about racial bias on voir dire has to be able to ask about racial bias. that we've applied to nothing else except for racial bias. the second is the batson line of cases where we said we're going to prevent lawyers from doing what we otherwise allow them to do when striking jurors will lead to -- may lead to race bias in the jury room. here we have a screaming race bias in the jury room. the best smoking gun evidence you're ever going to see about race bias in the jury room. notwithstanding in these two lines of cases, we said there need to be special rules to address this prevalent and toxic problem in our criminal justice system. here we're not going to do that. the question is, why would this

category of cases be different from those other two. >> issues, we think this court has never treated some sixth amendment violations as more serious than others. to talk about these two lines of questions your honor raises, your honor looks at what the court was doing in the voir dire cases. the race was the particular issue it confronted there. it was indicating and indicated in other cases, you have to conduct the kind of voir dire that's reasonable calculated to protect bias that may be present in a particular case. those particular kinds of case involve high risk of racial bias and that's why the court said voir dire on race is required there. to answer the question your honor asked of co-council, they have applied in other context. capital context, indicated under the sixth amendment you need to ask questions about ability to consider mitigation evidence. lower courts have said that same principle requires voir dire on other topics. the secondary your honor raises is the equal protection area.

we think even there the court has not distinguished among different types of constitutional violations and said we're going to treat some violations of the constitution as particularly serious. what they said is there has to be special care taken when the government acts based on race. some conduct that wouldn't be unconstitutional at all if it was taken based on other criteria is unconstitutional when it's taken based on race. >> the reason i think would be the sixth amendment says all criminal prosecutions the accused shall ebb joy the right to a trial by an impartial jury. i agree with you that racial comments in the room can be equivalent to other comments. but there may be -- that's what i wanted to know, a prophylactic aspect. if you want impartial injuries in general, you have to deal with the problem of racial confidence in the work of the

jury. and that's a reason stemming from the language of the amendment to treat race specially. and we have 20 states that have done so without the reasons for limitation swamping the process. now, that's what i understand is a textural argument that would, in fact, allow constitutional protection of the kind they are asking for. >> so i think, your honor, when considering a prophylactic approach to prevent sixth amendment violations, it's important to consider the cost of this rule and other alternative mechanisms available things court considered under sixth amendment. turning with respect to race, we think what court relied on particular available in many cases with regard to race. to talk about first voir dire and in trial mechanisms that your honor mentioned. in vor door as justice kagan's

question alluded to well settled precipitation pal in colorado you're going to have the opportunity to ask these questions about race. there's also been a lot of study and thinking that's gone into how to effectively detect bias with respect to race in particular. your honor moves to mid trial reporting. things can be done to strengthen that safeguard. your honor alluded to things that can be done with regard to instructions. general jurors instructed bias in general is permissible. they can be instructed racial bias in particular isn't permissible and even to contact the judge. on the cost side of the ledger, your honor, this court recognized a high danger and fair trial danger. if you are trying to reconstruct after the fact jury deliberations with he said, she said about what was said that can ubd mine confidence in the jury's system. we think that risk may be particularly acute when you're talking about a very sensitive allegation like racial bias occurred. i think we know as time goes on

racial bias can be expressed in subtle ways after a verdict is rendered, back into the communi room after debated. >> the more in ssidious, the mo caution we should have with the jury? >> no. we think this is a really serious issue and ought to be addressed through the kind of safeguards this court applied. to the extent the court recognized dangers, their presence, impeding full jury room deliberations, we think that's a particular risk when you're talking about this kind of allegation that contains a high degree of social program attached to it. so your honor, i mean, there may be cases in which race is discussed in the jury room because it's appropriate, because the claim involves racial bias, allegations with

police misconduct, it's often discussed. that's different, for example, coin flipping or intoxication where there's never any reason why those things should go on. this is really the kind of allegation that most likely -- opening the door to is most l e likely -- >> it does strike me gibb one of the rules the juror can say during deliberations say something inappropriate is happening here. to the extent there's this chilling effect, why doesn't that produce the exact same chilling effect. seems like it's such on the margins what you're saying. i think for hundreds of years the court treated the mid trial different, mid trial reporting aure talking about something that sets off jurors alarm bells at the time. once the trial is over, not only do you have other interests kick in in finality, tampering, they

start to second-guess what they did, misremember or subject to community pressures that aren't present when the trial is occurring. your honor, we're not suggesting this is not serious issue even one when this court sits as a rule making body can study and consider, it's a difficult balance. what this court has generally said with respect to rufls evidence, states have a lot of flexibility to adopt different approaches. we think this is a case in which the interest the rules have are present, relied on historically are fully present. >> i think like state of colorado, government of united states would make this argument in capital case? >> we think they present eighth amendment considerings not present here. court often suggested eighth amendment different sets of rules apply. there may be different considerations in that context. your honor, we think to the extent the court regards the rule as problematic or further study, the appropriate way to do

that is rule making body, which is another way this court considers and continually exercises rules of evidence. shouldn't impose new constitutional rule requires setting aside historical -- >> in a case that allows this kind of evidence, is it all done by legislation or by a rule of court or judicial decision? >> i think it's a mix. some of these jurisdictions are jurisdictions that employ iowa rule. they let in a lot of evidence they said in jury deliberations, a broader rule. some have said under state law we think this is an exception that has to exist, some decisions are constitutional decisions. >> i'm sorry. >> the issue of of the capital case can involve all sorts of misconduct in the jury room. suppose it came out later jurors

in capital case said we don't really care what the law is, we just want to impose capital punishment or they flipped a coin. would you -- if there were a special rule for capital cases, would you craw the distinction based on race? >> i don't think so, your honor. i don't think if there were a capital rule, we think it would go to whether it's permissible to apply. it's a general matter in this context. >> thank you. >> thank you, counsel. five minutes, mr. fisher. >> thank you. i'd like to make four points, please. first, just to pick up where that conversation left off, to the extent my friends on the other side are saying in a capital case the eighth amendment would become relevant, that's exactly the kind of common section structural common sense argument we're making and the other side is suggesting is improper. sixth amendment right to jury you consider other elements of the constitution like the 14th amendment. secondly, with respect to prophylactic measures the other side pro pounds and specifically voir dire, two points. first is the studies they point

to are studies where race is infused in the case from the outset. ham against south carolina, where the defense is all about race. in those settings. questions of voir dire incumbent on defense lawyers and sometimes has good effect. that's not what the question really before the court today is. if they are saying voir dire is a curae all for this situation, in every criminal case, shoplifting, white collar crime, whether it's a dui, any case the defense lawyer is really required to interject race into the case from the outset. as between interjecting race into the case from the outset potentially offending jurors, potentially suggesting race is relevant or doesn't exist and our solution, which is just simply having constitutional fail-safe once in a blue moon where you have this grave problem. we think our solution does less upheaval to the system than opinion from the court that says voir dire is the answer here.

next let me say something we agree with the other side. i think i heard both counsel for the other side say this is a bounce. we agree. that's what cases dictate and 606b it's self strikes, a balance between the interest of justice and principle of jury secrecy. i would suggest to this court, though, when you conduct balance or disagree with the other side, let me use a line from the brief, court's duty is to choose lesser of two evils. racial bias is neverthelesser evil. the court has never said that racial bias is a lesser evil than something like public policy considerations here. i know the court is concerned about line drawn. it's obvious in a case like this where you announce new rule as a constitutional matter you wonder what case comes next. i respectfully submit the court never refused to remedy intentional race discrimination in the criminal justice system for fear of having to address other questions down the line.

if you look at the court's cases, whether hamm line of cases or anything else, the court will have ample tools and ample time to decide down the road whether other situations are the same or whether they are different. our submission here, though, is that race is unique, race is a particular poison, and that the experience of the 20 jurisdiction that is have this rule shows that implementing the rule we're asking will not create any significant problems with the state interest. >> mr. fisher, it's not a fear of confronting issues down the road, it's a question of understanding the scope of the role that you are asking us to adopt. i'll give you one last chance. you will not tell us today whether your rule applies to discrimination on the basis of religion or gender or sexual orientation or to add another one political affiliations of

the jurors. if it came out the juror said this person is a democrat, send them to jail. that would ab different result. you will not tell us whether the rule would apply in that situation. >> it's easy to say justice alito caused by rational analysis not on the rule today. i'm trying to be forthright with the court saying i acknowledge there will be hard questions of identity as justice kagan put it. i'm not representing somebody today that has that. i want full briefing on it. >> maybe the question a little bit differently. i understand why you want to say why it wouldn't apply to this or wouldn't apply to that. in what way is race unique? >> race is unique in terms of history and practical situations of rooting it out with prophylactic measures we discussed. filled with citations and kpamps of why race is particularly hard to get at through the tanner factors as compared to even

something like other kinds of discrimination. the tiers of scrutiny analysis is a good place to look. it's not that we're saying that other forms of discrimination are okay under consideration whereas race is unconstitutional, different tools need to be available, searching inquiries need to be done when it comes to race. that's why it gives ways in this case where it might not in other cases. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. a special web page to follow the court. c-span.org, select supreme court at the top of the page. once there you'll see a calendar of the term, a list of all current justices. with supreme court video on demand, watch oral arguments we've aired and recent c-span appear answers by supreme court justices at c-span.org. also live here today on

c-span3 george mason on voter anger and its impact on presidential election and political process. that's at 4:00 p.m. eastern, again, here on c-span3. >> watch c-span's live coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump on wednesday night. our live debate preview from university of nevada, las vegas, starts at 7:30 eastern. the briefing for the debate studio audience 8:30 eastern and 90 minute debate is at 9:00 eastern. stay with us following the debate for viewer reaction, including calls, tweets and facebook postings. watch the debate live or on demand using desktop, phone or tablet at c-span.org. listen to live debate on the phone from the c-span app, download it on google play.

white house correspondent mark knoller shows president obama, first lady, italian prime minister matteo renzi and his wife waving from the white house balcony as their state visit began with a welcoming ceremony. president obama saying he saved the best for last. >> today is bittersweet, because this marks the final official visit and state dinner of my presidency. but it's okay. we've saved the best for last. and so on behalf of michelle and myself, and on behalf of the american people, it is my great honor to welcome from italy prime minister matteo renzi.

[ applause ] >> and looking ahead to tonight's state dinner celebrity chef mario batali serving beef, ravioli appetizer. yesterday the chef said his only worry is keeping the plates of food hot. we're getting a glimpse of some of the flowers, dishes and table sets the guests at tonight's dinner will experience. during our coverage of the state dinner this evening we'll see the prifl of the prime minister and his wife. guest arrivals through the white house east wing, grand staircase official photo and host offered by president obama and prime minister renzi. you can see all of this beginning at 6:30 p.m. eastern on our col pmpanion network c-s.

journalist, editor and author tina brown recently talked about the future of feminism and how women can support and empower one another. from the john hopkins school of advanced international studies, this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm nasr, school of advanced

international studies. it is my distinct pleasure to welcome you to conversation with award winning journalist, editor, author, and entrepreneur tina brown. miss brown has been one of the most influential roles in media. in this role she initiated tremendous change in advocacy object behalf of important social and political causes and has also spoken to important international issues and global trebd trends. in 2010 she launched annual world women's summit to open a dialogue and offer solutions for building better lives for women and girls. the summit has hosted conversations in london, dubai, sao paulo, new delhi, throughout the united states and has featured extraordinary leaders such as hillary clinton, christine lagarde, barbara bush and oprah winfrey.

they represent what miss brown does best, elevating a critically important conversation to a profile anded stage that has no equal. her example is one we strive to attain at john hopkins site. that is why today's conversation is part of the school's women who inspire series on the topic of women leaders making a difference on the global stage. the series was launched last year at a time when there has baseball a tremendous ground swell of interest from alumni and students in women's leadership. other programming at this school, such as the annual conference organized by the student group global women in leadership and women's alumni network allow the school to be an advocate and thought leader on issues of gender equality and

the role of women in global leadership. as one preeminent graduate student of international relations, johns hopkins has been educating and empowering women. i lost my place. and has been educating students for years, preparing them for careers of leadership in public and private sectors. with this tradition in mind, we established women's league, a platform to promote women's leadership in international affairs across the school and beyond its walls. at the heart of our mission is the realization that women's leadership is not only an end onto it's self but also a tool to realize many other global benefits. miss brown's impact is a perfect

example of all that can be achieved with such leadership. and illustrious career speaks for it's self. editor and chief, "vanity fair," new yorker and talk. she's also the founder and ceo of tina brown live media. she was inducted into the magazine editor's hall of fame and has been the recipient of four george polk awards, five overseas press awards and 10 national magazine awards. miss brown is also the authorize of diana chronicles, best selling biography of princess of wales and in 2000 queen elizabeth appointed her as commander of the order of british empire for achievements in journalism. it is our immense pleasure to host her today in a conversation that will be moderated by our own ambassador shirin

tahir-kheli, senior fellow at john hopkins. today's discussion would not be possible without ambassador tahir-kheli. without further ado, i turn the floor to ambassador tahir-kheli to start the conversation. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you, tina to be here. >> i'm thrilled to be here. by the way, this sounds a little iffy this thing. is this all right? okay, good. >> i wanted to thank the dean, and of course the audience for being here to be part of our conversation. you've sort of offered us the opportunity to launch the women who inspire for 2016-2017, and it's a wonderful launch.

at the end we're hoping at woman who inspires, condoleezza rice will come in may. so you know, the dean went through -- vali went through some of the highlights of your incredible high-voltage energy, career, and life. i've watched particularly since i had sort of a front row seat when you launched women in the world summit in 2010 and seen how you've energized a global audience, not just those who are in a now large lincoln center hall around the world with the online viewing. but through that, i'm aware that you actually have a rolodex that could run a country, if not the

world. because the issues that you have sort of made your own in some ways, you've given them a platform and a chance for a public discourse, the marrying of the need for women's empowerment and across the board, political, economic, medical, you name it, through media, the legal justice aspects, and you've partnered that with not just giving a voice but trying to find common solutions, which in my experience, i've lived long enough to have sort of seen movements and exposures is somewhat unique. i wanted to start this conversation with a question that has occurred to me i've not always had a chance to put it

before you. what made you make that link, because clearly this very, very incredible women of all stat yours would come to such an event. but what made you focus on the solution part? >> well, i began the summit really in response to what i felt was a bubbling up of a global women's movement that other people weren't actually noticing. for many years i've been involved with vital voices, which is the wonderful nonprofit -- >> excuse me, is that microphone working? >> is this better now? should i move it up? where is mr. audio? there, is that better? where is mr. audio? where did he go? that's better? well, just start again. i started women in the world in

response to what i thought was a bubbling, global women's movement, which i sensed through my work with vital voices, which is nonprofit, which mentors women in emerging countries. in the spring of 2009, i went to a vital voices retreat in italy. florence, actually. there was a whole group of women there from south america, from africa, all over the world, india, pakistan. this was a local women grassroots leaders. i was completely blown away. every one of them seemed to me like a complete firework person of enormous stature, of big vision, because i feel, as we all are very hungry for leadership. we're not seeing much of it around in our national life or what is exposed to be leaders in our national life. i thought how exciting it would

be to give these women a platform. what they didn't have was that. what they had was tremendous energy, great ideas in their own countries they were doing incredible things in their own sort of territory, but they didn't have any platform beyond that at all. nobody was listening to them. so i thought how interesting it would be to begin a convening where we would bring these women in, find them, and have them tell their stories. i do believe tremendously in the power of narrative to move mountains. i say if you can engage people with a story, then once their head and heart is open to the story, then they will focus on the issue. they won't focus on the issue if you start with the issue. they certainly are on their iphones or whatever. they want to listen and mean took listen and mean to read it but they don't. that's my training as a journalist. my journalist training is about seduction. my journalist training is how do i make someone read this, pick it up off the news stand and buy

it. the same is true in my view for anything you want to do, anything you address, any solution you're looking for. first we've got to make people listen and pay attention. you can do that with narratives. the way i structured women in the world is have them come and tell incredible stories in their lives. when their eyes are open and they have heard stories how this woman made her way through unimaginable challenges, education not available, honor killing, absolute repression in so many places in the world, yet they find a solution and a way out of it, then you have a solution, what is this case, why is it like this? it's really about opening the eyes of women through their voices. we found tight off immediately the very first panel of the very first summit was rape as a weapon of war.

you wouldn't think of that as a box office topic. we had the most amazing woman who start add radio show in dlc to hear the stories of women who had been raped. she's a broadcaster. she began to broadcast the stories over and again. the horrors of the stories seeped into the national conscious. they were no longer secrets. when she played the tape on a dark stage, it was very, very dramatic. we had dr. who is famous, doctor in the congo operates on a lot of women and stitches them back up again. he was a remarkable voice. we had another couple of journalists on that stage. it was just very powerful. statement brought in women who were very prominent women. pleasing thing about it prominent women, in that case hillary clinton, christine

lagarde, condi, they all cain and understood speedily. which is why i understood this was a global movement. they knew. they like you had been operating in that space. they were delighted these women finally got a piece of the action. it really took off from there. >> it's interesting you mentioned that particular panel, because i remember that. it was particularly interesting to people like condi and myself, because we were very -- condi chaired the security council meeting before the security council 1820 there by turning into ministerial, so all the ministers came, which passed the resolution against all odds they had set unanimously that declared rape as a weapon of war was henceforth going to be considered a human rights

violation to the extreme and a war crime. and so we took that panel back to the u.n. and those broadcast toss say sort of, look, there is an absolute between the legal institutional framework we were trying to create and the women on the ground who were on the receiving end, trying to seek justice end, there was a link. >> that's wonderful. you see, that's the kind of outcome that happens that i don't even know. >> i think it happens -- that one is close to my heart so that comes. i remember immediately like the next day we were e-mailing various people and saying you want to create that list of potential war crimes, war criminals, here is the person, here is stories. in that sense -- i also remember it's been a space where you have

brought women who have shared -- often our stories are not joyful stories. in a section maybe joyful stories we won't need to exist as promoters. the women from the middle east who both lost sons from israel and palestinian areas, who got together to start a movement that said, enough. >> that's in creditably moving. there's two, one an israeli activist and the other is a palestinian woman. each of them have lost sons. epa of them were killed by snipers. rabbied son killed by palestinian, her son by israeli sniper, yet they found a way in this circle called the parents circle in israel. this circle is made up of parents from both sides who lost

their children. as she says, the tears on the pillow are the same color. it was a really profound thing that really just made me weep when she said it. she said what we share is so much more than what divides us. what we share is pain and desire to make peace. that's really when i first came to see what an enormous role women can play as peacemakers. she said, we're not at the table. why aren't these women at the table because they bring that practical frontline sort of emotional connection. >> right. >> instead of it being a talkathon, talkfest, what we're seeing in syria at the moment, i want to know where the women are. i'm just not seeing any, actually, in this process at all. >> they are not there. >> they are not there but they are there. in london actually last year we had an amazing woman who is a journalist who does a radio broadcast, stayed in aleppo and did these broadcasts, incredibly

brave. she's pregnant, in the middle of all this. i thought, this woman is a total hero. she's nowhere in any discussion, and yet she knows so much. >> not even as a reference point or reality check. >> reality check. >> there isn't. have you found as you've broadened the conversations geographically, you've done sao paulo. >> if you go to a foreign place, you can't do to a foreign place and say i want to talk about your problems, which would be as inappropriate as a whole bunch of people from pakistan arriving and say we're going to do

something about ferguson and gun violence. what can you tell me? it's insulting almost. what we have to do is showcase stories where we're very sensitive how we showcase their issues and always do it in the context of successes but at the same time bring in foreign women to tell stories. i did bring the two women to new delhi. what was so very interesting to me was their story moved people in new delhi exactly the same way. to them it was about kashmir, indian pakistan dynamic. it would have been insensitive for me to do that there. so i told that story through the other story. and there was a great sense of connection to these stories. the other thing i was told, india is never interested in hearing anything about africa. i decided to ignore that, because there was a woman, who was absolutely phenomenal,

launched the movement, bring back our girls in nigeria. she's the powerhouse, such moral authority, extraordinary speaker, so moving. and she blew everyone away. she was actually the hit of the whole new delhi summit. but at the same time i also did a whole discussion about the way domestic servants are treated. instead of doing how they are treated in india, which i could have done, but how india women are treated in saudi. we told the story of the yupg woman, the mother -- she's actually a young woman who wanted to fend for her children and she didn't have the money. she went to work as a servant in saudi arabia. she was horrendously mistreated to the extent she had her arm cut off by the employer when she tried to escape. she then ended up in a hospital and amnesty learned who she was and brought her home. actually we did that by then

surrounding her with the people who work on those cases. what was very gratifying, the woman in the audience from one of the richest families in india decided she would offer to educate the woman's children, five of them, which was very gratifying. she was so moved by the thing she decided the foundation was going to write a check for all five children, which was absolutely thrilling. again, tells me the power of storytelling is what moved her enough that she was literally in tears in the audience. so it's exciting what you with do with conversations and issues based on narrative. >> that is again the power of example. because this sort of philanthropic gesture doesn't occur as often in that part of the world as it curse in other parts of the world. so you can have a ripple effect even there. >> yeah. >> the fact that somebody cared

enough to do something. but you're right, what has to be sensitive, the idea is you want to showcase and change without turning people off. >> exactly. >> celebrate successes. you will celebrate successes. >> you could easily find two kashmiri mothers on the same side of the divide that shared the same thing. the lesson is learned. when i get into some touchy conversations with indians in particular, apropos of some of these things, i point out and then they kind of begin to accept it that india helped the u.s. in training the first all female peacekeeping force. i remember donna is in the audience, probably arranged for flights to new delhi and so on, because they have this -- you know her, she was in the police department, head of police.

they have this enormous capacity. indians trained this all female peacekeeping force to central liberia. a couple of years ellen johnson part of condi's first women's group said when this contingent arrived in a very beautifully done cotton blue saris in monday recov -- monrovia, it did a number of things. the violence against women dropped almost 60%, reporting doubled. the number of liberian girls who were willing to go into law enforcement tripled. she said this was within a year. so you know, it's the story -- >> you want to imagine -- i remember a woman from latin

america, beginning with g, my head is going crazy. what is the country in latin america beginning with g. >> jamaica. >> g. >> g. ghana. >> guatemala. >> guatemala. thank you very much. a terrible senior moment about guatemala there. such a violent place. such a horrendously violent place. this is a woman who has been exposing corruption and very dangerous activity. she did it online anonymously with pseudonyms, radio broadcasts where she went after corruption. she was talking about the desperate poverty and the desperate nature of things, women in that part of the world. when she found, which was upsetting, these young women could not even imagine success. they just couldn't imagine it. they didn't know anyone who was successful. simply by going in and exposing

them to women who have risen, even in the smallest possible way into a different kind of life was for them an absolute revelation, until you could imagine the success of it, you couldn't think of aspiring to it. i thought it stuck in my mind, we keep hearing about role models, it's become a cliche about role models. role models, if you can't imagine your self in that role, the pakistani filmmaker and -- who is absolutely brilliant, won an oscar for her documentary about "girl in the river" about honor killing. she said to me in pakistan when she was growing up, there weren't those kind of role models for her to look up to. she was so hungry. only seeing cristian amanpour on television, she's now brilliant

journalist, but seeing her made her think of being a journalist. it was a critical thing for her to visualize what it was like. >> again, that is why i think the part of the example again and again becomes -- it links you to something beyond your self, across borders. but speaking of across borders. women have risen to high rank in other parts of the world, might in this country finally. but there's also been a lot of turbulence with that. the case of rousseff, which when we were all very excited when she came in, replacing the president. one would not have assumed it would go that way. i think the man who you knew

from oxford, the fact what happened to her was not because she was a woman but the issues she dealt with as prime minister two times were not that dissimilar from other prime ministers. but somehow she was held to a higher standard, given more of a deeper grilling on it. so does that then mean in terms of political leadership side of women's empowerment that women have to be kind of extra careful. is it a burden of being holyer than the pope that goes with rising to the top? >> i think women fall harder and there's much more attention to their fall, without question, and much less tolerance of it. and far fewer networks waiting to recreate themselves. that's what i've seen again and again, when women lose their

powerful position, there's not much network. men get hired around the world, but the women, they vanish. it is very, very difficult and they do grow shells. we've heard it again and again about hillary. she's so cautious, so hidden. theresa may in england has had some of the same sort of press, that she's very, very cautious, very, very contained, very, very buttoned up. i do think that it's a little generational, too. i think theresa may, like hillary, has had to be so buttoned down. she wasn't part of the club. she was never part of the club. she would never have gotten this job if it hadn't been for tsunami of male manufactured disasters. >> hadn't been for -- >> all these sort of feckless, frankly, coming out -- we have

faraj resigning, cameron, it was absolutely incredible scene, boris johnson. she's sort of the only one left standing. i think what's quite musing in a way, except it isn't, women end up getting the job when it's no longer worth having. that's the point. >> that's very true. >> think about it. when do women get the huge jobs? when does mary barra get to be head of general motors, after the horrendous seat belt, mayhem. she would never have gotten a job at another moment. she turned out to be highly competent and has turned around the country. theresa may absolutely the same thing. i look at sort of the network news anchors. there never would have been a woman running network news at its prime. frankly network news, who watches network news. so then it was okay to have katie coruric and diane sawyer. went back.

there is a last resort, everything is failure, she's there, let's stick her in. it depends what happens next. it is interesting. the case of dilma rousseff, she hasn't been a very tal ended leader but i suppose the young parties, they want to crucify dilma rousseff. the corruption she was accused of was not for her personal gain actually. whereas the other corruption cases in brazil have been for personal gain. hers wasn't. so she has been overall hammered. she didn't have that network of loyalty around her. or rather the loyalists are very skin deep. there isn't that deep network that male leaders have created over the years. so it's harder for them, there's no doubt. >> it's a very important point you bring up, you can be one of

the boys, but you can't be part of the boys' club. i remember indira gandhi, a long time ago, people very disparaging and then things went bad. she came into office and they said, she's actually the only man on the cabinet. >> about thatcher, too. >> the same time. it makes it so, before i open it up to the audience, just one sort of thought. from this kind of almost going decade long experience of broadening the field and drawing greater audiences and trying to think differently than social media, outreach now so in credible compared to my time, can one's say there's a formula that works in terms of women's

empowerment? >> i think, you have to keep -- constantly worked at. you have to keep creating spaces, can reinforce one another's confidence. so dominated by men it's remarkable. so many great women's voices but you don't see them very much. >> why is that. >> it's an interesting question why you don't see it. as i was part of the "daily beast" i tried to dig up new women's voices. >> i remember that. >> they had to be pulled out. it was almost as if they had been so used to not getting a say at the table, they were no longer at the table having a say. it takes a lot of encouragement and work, which is why i think that the kind you're talking about with johns hopkins and in many places right now are very important because they keep on growing these voices. in those environments, can really speak up, speak out and

gain confidence to go forward. if they get squashed down and shouted over, it was interesting, reading about the cabinet women felt like they weren't getting the same kind of air time that men are in the meetings. there's a physicality to it. their voices are stronger and can shout you down. it's a physical aspect. so many african women are so great because they have big voices. >> and they have a presence. >> and they have a confidence which is absolutely fabulous to see. >> right. i remember women leaders working group, the prime minister of barbados said i actually don't worry about my girls going to school, because they are the ones who are going and get the best grades, scholarships to good universities. it's the boys. they say surf's up and leave the school and disappear for the day.

anyway, that's a segue to thank you for those remarks. let's open it up to the audience and this is your chance to engage in this or nonstudents, too. >> my name is claire fits gibbon, i completed a mosting at the embassy in ireland. i want to thank you for an interesting presentation and really was interesting to hear success stories of women in the world forum. not to take away from those successes in any way but how do we go further than the reach. is the answer more similar type of exercises or do we need to be looking in a completely

different all together. >> i think this network is important. women have to make a conscious network of other women in their fields so they are for they will, they do create the same kind of surround and texture that has only come for men by years and years and years of confidence. you're going to need that work as you go forward. if you don't have it or you have reached out to other women in that way, you know you're not doing your own part. there's a lot of competition in that sense. we hear women are not support e supportive. first the worst cutting other women down. it's a really insecure thing to do, safeness, be comfort and bring another up, there's so

many prizes and we have to get them for our selves. that sounds like touchy, feely.g i think it's important to publicize and share success stories of women that are worki working. it's remark ab how those can spread. one of our first speaker from liberia started the peace movement where she brought christians and muslims together to defy charles taylor and end the civil war. her role she played, she got all these women together. she showed the power of convening and making a show of force in a sense we're not going to take this. in a way, america is quite passive about showing force in that regard. one of the things she said at the summit is why aren't women more protesting as an organized

group more. why put them in the public arena, i think it's something we should be doing more of. >> thank you very much. i'm an adjunct professor here. my question is, also ran a women's organization in 20 countries. i see lots of women's networks you point out in that. what about old boys networks, is it worth trying to break into th that. can you talk about that? >> i think it's critical to bring men in, absolutely critical. you talk about success stories. i would say some of the biggest success stories we've show caved with women in the world have been where women successfully

brought men into the process. for instance, an organization in sierra leone, an organization for the last 25 years has been working to end female genital mutilation in the region. she has had remarkable success village by village by village by co co-opting imams, educating them, this has nothing to do with religious custom, it's a health issue and how dangerous it is to a woman's health. in doing that, educating the men, the men became proselyti proselytizers as well. another very memorable thing german defense minister said, she was trying to pass laws when she was family minister in germany, which gave paternity leave to men in a particular way. the woman got six months maternity leave, but the last

three months was also allowed in terms of maternity, paternity leave, but it would always be only paid to the husband if the wife had gone back to work in that way he was left alone with the child and she was sharing. she wanted to end the idea of what germany because raven mother. the term used in bavaria, for women who leave their children and fly off to work, a pejorative term, raferen mother. she was getting nowhere with the legislation until the finance minister in his wheelchair suddenly piped up, you know what, i think we should pay attention to her. my daughter is a lawyer. she just had a child, wants to go back to work. she's very concerned about leaving the child. this would make the difference to her. ursula said i realized the power of having one man on your side. >> especially if he's finance

minister. >> this is a very interesting thing a lot of women are forgetting. you want to have your network but you want to have men in your network, too. you want it to be -- look what justin has done in canada. he's brought men into the process. it's really inspiring. when asked why are you made 50% of your cabinet women. he replied, because it's 2015. it became a t-shirt in canada, because it's 2015. it's a catchphrase, a wonderful thing. the more justin trudeau's we can appeal to and make it cool in a sense to be supporter of women, i think we are on that cutting point actually. i think it is starting to happen, people like him. actually modi is also trying in a different way. obviously he does still try to foster the whole traditional woman at home because he feels

strongly is understandable. he really is also trying to promote the idea of women coming up. he was very good during the delhi raid, he spoke about that as a man in a way that was very, very appealing. the more we can see, that the more important it's going to be. yes? >> i teach women's rights. i'm glad you brought up the issue of women not writing op-eds. i have in a business writing class, almost 90% women. why is that? because human rights are in the title? are women -- do they come toward moret cal courses? my question, what have you seen? are women less tolerant toward corruption than women in power

or not gotten into the power seat so they can have a chance at corruption. there's a lot of studies about that. look at christina kirshne. she was extraordinarily corrupt. i do think there is less of it. maybe again because they're more in touch with what's happening on the ground with their families and so on. one thing she talks about, we never think about where the money doesn't go. the focus is on where the money's going. where isn't it going? it isn't going to beat boko haram and save those girls. it isn't going to educating young women and creating any kind of economic equality in the north. it's where it doesn't go. i think sometimes women are more

sort of connected to that because they're less aloof from the everyday practicalities of life where women don't understand why prices are so high, they can't get education. it's a very big thing for women on the ground. >> please wait for the microphone. >> my name is suzanne crawford. i would love your advice about seeking a platform. i have been on -- i developed a model that reconciles the world religions. >> which rec niles what? >> the world religions. you said what we share is so much greater than what divides us. and about 40 years ago -- i'm a graduate of williams college k,

very accomplished, and my father died and began to teach me from the other side. and i started to walk. and my whole life has been about that. it's been quite an amazing journey, and i have this model that basically understands the world religions from an evolutionary perspective. and when you see the advent of the different traditions as an evolutionary shift in consciousness and developmental stages, it becomes clear that everybody's on the same path. part of me is terrified to do something with this. part of me feels the world really needs this. i am very ambivalent about coming forward because people talking about god disgust me.

>> have you been writing? >> i have been writing my whole life. i took the narrative to editors 10 years ago. you talked about not having a network and being discouraged. i know that. the editor said you need a social media platform. >> don't forget with facebook live, anyone can have a social media platform. >> and this is where i'm up against my own resistance. >> do you have a son or a daughter? >> i do. >> get them to turn on their iphones and you talk into their iphones and post it on facebook live and there you go. you have your platform. >> so of the women -- let me be specific. the women who have messages about religion, are there particular words of advice you would give to them? because it's a touchy topic. >> the things we share, obviously the things that reach

out to people the most. if you're talking about religion and you want to communicate, you should be telling stories from people who have those things to say. the person is what translates it. if you start to talk about religion, there is something out there thing, i don't think anybody is going to respond. when you hear things it is so memorable people talk about it five years later. >> thank you. >> my name is serena and i'm a second year student here. my question relates to what's going to happen hopefully this november. there is the possibility for the first time we could have three tremendous female leaders of the western world. so i wondered, you've spoken a lot about the importance of highlighting narratives, media emphasizing these stories. i wonder how if this happens you

hope the media will portray this kind of holy trinity. >> wow. first of all, what a -- angela merkel will probably lose her election. theresa may has just come reeling out of this thing in brexit. i hope that some space is given to celebrate and allow them to develop as leaders. i fear, actually, the backlash. that's what i fear the most. in the same way we've seen racism and racial issues increase when barack obama became president, i think you might see, unfortunately, a real uncapping of the misogyny that has been rampant in this last year. far from it being a time where everyone goes, how wonderful a woman is president, it's going to be a pitch battle.

i think how we address that misogyny is very important. how do we put it back into the, back where it belongs which is out of sight. the misogyny has been intense. it seems to have come raging out, really empowered by social media, unfortunately. this is the downside of the digital disruption. everyone with a malevolent malignant thought is allowed to express it. there are leaders in parliament that several have police protection. one was murdered jo cox in that terrible incident which was not just about brexit and a crazy person. it was about misogyny in a very dark way. we really have to be vocal about not standing for it.

interesting this recent explosion of donald trump's videotape, but it somehow has become awash. i would like to feel there was a way women could protest that was effective. it would be very interesting to discuss that with people who could get together and say how are we going to put a stop to this in what is acceptable and what is unacceptable now in this country? unfortunately, what we do is copied everywhere else. it sweeps over. we are supposed to be the example. to other countries which are deeply misogynistic. if there is a sense it's okay here to treat women this way, it's very dangerous for everybody else. >> i'm sara from the board.

one of the things i found most depressing and distressing in the aftermath of the "access hollywood" tape is that women have let men speak for them, who have chosen to speak in the guise of i'm speaking for my daughter, i'm speaking for my mother, i'm speaking for my sister, and in many cases, and i'm stepping right over them to let you know how there are more important things than this to worry about. that's only one side of the political spectrum. that is not what i want to discuss. i'm wondering where do you see, from the remarks you just made, american feminism today if we have gloria steinem at the end of her career and we have maybe young feminists looking at all of the freedoms and the rights and the advances that have been afforded by these early pioneers, but if we have a female president, the idea that

the work is done is hardly the case, but yet american feminism doesn't to my eye, really seem to be at this absolutely obvious moment, stepping up to take the microphone. >> i think american feminism is very confused at the moment. very, very confused. a lot of the young, wonderful kind of comedians, for instance, feel that their statement is to be almost as crude and coarse as men are about woman and that's freedom and power. i think it's beside the point, actually. i feel a woman can lead us away from that rather than feel that it's a feminist statement to be more out there, more gross, more profane. right now is the pop culture interpretation of feminism which i think is alarming. i also think women tend to feel,

the younger feminists can feel the job is done and it's almost uncool to be seen as a feminist. there's also another strand that i also see. women actually, the young women are very, very excited and turned on by the stories of women heros in other countries, as a matter of fact. it's interesting how they are tremendously moved and inspired by the stories of women in independent yashgs pakistan, africa, all these places. many young women are volunteers, they're going overseas, they want to go overseas. they are traveling overseas. i'm sure many of the students here are doing the same. and they feel energized. it's almost as if it takes them seeing the feminine of those women to remind them of what real feminism is. i found the young women in the audience are excited because they have the