and a half degrees centigrade warmer for the whole earth. it has led to drought, cold snaps, and environmental pollution which is another concern. there are a lot of diseases. .

actually, what happened in the nuclear energy field is that the first people who acquired the synergy -- this energy, their main purpose was to use it for military purposes and dominate other nations. nuclear energy is a divine blessing. however, arrogant powers and selfish people want to dominate all nations from square one.

from the beginning, they had and in a humane approach towards this clean energy. they misused it. remember the first historical memory related to nuclear energy. that was the nuclear bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki. they have a lot of power. from the beginning, they monopolized his energy and used it to dominate other nations. by making wrong policies up to this day, they have prevented this energy to be used for the purpose of peace, welfare, and in a positive direction.

recently they issued a statement to justify possessing nuclear bombs. they adopted a number of measures and made a number of policies. all of those policies were against peace and humanity and were in line with nuclear proliferation. first of all, the production of nukes, if the country possesses nuclear weapons, will it actually stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons or not? it will boost the production of nuclear weapons.

when the country possesses nuclear weapons, others say they have this why should we not? it has been 60 years the city have been working towards nuclear non-proliferation. however, all the policies they have made have been encouraging nuclear proliferation. is it possible that some country has nuclear weapons but asks others not to have atomic weapons? it is impossible. the stockpiling of nuclear weapons is the greatest incentive towards nuclear proliferation. we ask them why they are storing nuclear weapons and if they're going to use them against other nations. they say they are only keeping them for deterrence.

please. pay attention. what does deterrents mean? if nuclear weapons are a deterrent, why should others not have it? everybody would like to have a high deterrent capability. this policy will lead to an intense nuclear arms race between rivals because every country wants to get the upper hand. otherwise, it would not be a deterrent. if they want to have deterrent capability, they should get the upper hand. this will lead to a nuclear arms race. it will lead to upgrading more nuclear weapons, building more nuclear weapons, and all that.

recently you saw, and in the past as well, they have used nuclear weapons as a threat. if someone uses nukes as a threat, will this be causing proliferation? you threaten some nations and whether they supposed to do? will they sit back and watch you? of course not. when you have a tool with which you are threatening other nations, you are actually encouraging other nations to get their hands on this tool as well. when you say you are going to work towards non-proliferation, this is a great lie. the show performed by the u.s.

government a few days ago, that was a great lie as well. they have more than 9000 nuclear warheads. that is by their own admission. 2100 of them our strategic ones -- our strategic ones. they're very important in case of war. they set out of this 2100 -- they said that out of this 2100, they will cut it to a ceiling of 500. a number of atomic bombs, just a few bombs in hiroshima and nagasaki made a catastrophe and killed hundreds of thousands of people. now you have 9000 and want to reduce them over a number of years.

you are just reminding other nations of that. at the same time, they say iran may or is accused of possessing quantum one nuclear bomb in the next several years. -- is accused of possessing one nuclear bomb in the next several years. if one nuclear bomb is a dangerous to world, how about these 9000 bombs? you yourself say that your arsenal can decimate the earth several times. why have you stockpiled these arsenals? is that for human-rights? is that for the sake of human rights? all of these policies are against manatee -- humanity.

the greatest betrayal of nuclear weapons states has been that they have acquitted nuclear energy with nuclear weapons. who says nuclear energy means nuclear weapons? they themselves have defined it that way just because they're going to monopolize it and prevent other nations from acquiring cleaned nuclear energy. this is the greatest betrayal to humanity. they are depriving humanity of a great blessing which can be used in industry, medicine, and other sectors.

the the trail and treasons of arrogant powers -- the trail in treasons of arrogant powers and totalitarian regimes are more than that. on the cultural front and economic front, they are like that as well. however, today the topic is nuclear energy. we are opposed to atomic bombs. we announced it time and again. those whose seek a bombs lack human logic. we do believe the relations between humans and nations should be based on friendship, justice, and happiness. nobody should seek to dominate another one. no government should be seeking to humiliate other nations and governments. this should not be seeking to

dominate their resources. all nations should enjoy peaceful coexistence with equal rights. we considered nuclear weapons against humanity. i have said repeatedly that those who are seeking to stockpile nukes would like to hide their true activities. they say because of threats they face by some nations, some nations may later achieve nuclear weapons, we're keeping the nukes for that purpose. we're keeping them to defend ourselves against possible threats by such countries. this is a false justification. we believe those seeking nukes are backwards and underdeveloped

political elements. where are they going to use them after all? against two or which nations? -- against twwho or which nations? this gives you domination and all of that. gone are the days when nuclear bombs would give some nations the edge. gone are those days. today, the yardstick is how much you are committed to human values. this is the yardstick. it is not the atomic bomb. some behaved like savage people in the past. all of the reliance independence is on the weapons in relations

and talks whenever they cannot get their points across for logic, they just show their weapons. it is history now. the issue statements. -- de issue statements. they say we will not attack another nation. this is another big lie as well. they attacked japan. you used depleted iranian -- uranium against the iraqi people. did they have nuclear weapons? you have not lived up to your commitments so far. they are going to justify their position of nuclear weapons.

there are some fabricated regimes around us which have a stockpile of nuclear weapons. however, they are supported by big powers. you are going to work towards nonproliferation first. you should this ourselves first. then your allies and those who have not signed up to any treaty, those who are not operating under international organizations, it is clear you are not telling the truth. you think nuclear weapons will give you the edge. gone are those days. today is the era of logic, culture, and humanity. having more does not bring domination. it brings friendship. however, we favor disarmament.

but how? those who possess nuclear bombs, which should tell them to set aside their bombs. it has been going on for 60 years. we have been telling them for 60 years. have they done that? six years ago, they had a number bombs. how many do they have today? they have said that we will work towards non-proliferation and all of that. if you leave disarmament to the possessors of nuclear bombs, it is not ok. it means handing over the security of the town or city to burglars. it means that you can loot everything easily. disarmament should happen

through the method adopted over the past 60 years, it is impossible. -- disarmament should happen. through the method adopted over the past 60 years, it is impossible. nations should get together for a new law. three global will and determination, -- three global will and determination, -- through global will and determination, they should disarm the possessors of nuclear weapons. they say they will cut their nuclear weapons by 600. who was going to monitor that? they will not allow impartial parties to go and oversee that. they announced it and reported it themselves. it was gone to believe that? -- who is going to believe that?

we need global determination for disarmament. we favor talks when it comes to the nuclear issue. we are cooperative. we have announced time and again and have shown in practice that we are men of our word. we've shown that we're moving in the right direction. however, they should know that if anybody is sitting there and believes that the language of threats and brandishing weapons can disrupt the will of the iranian nation, you should know that is a mistake. that behavior will make the iranian nation were resolved. -- that behavior will make the

iranian nation more resolved. only four months ago, we did not have the intention to produce 20% enriched fuel. however, they used the language of threats against us. i advised them to stop it. enough is enough. stop this from behavior. it has been going on for 60 or 70 years. with that behavior, they have harmed themselves and the whole world. they have discredited themselves. enough is enough. i advised them to come and experience humanity a little bit. respect others. please remain committed to morality. iranians nation is and will --

the iranian nation is moving full steam ahead on its path and stronger than ever. with god's grace, no power to they can threaten the iranian nation. -- no power can threaten the iranian nation. all the statements they made, they were going to find a justification so that they can keep nuclear weapons. it is not that they're going to threaten the iranian nation. they know that any hand of aggression against the iranian nation will be cut off. the guests are chanting slogans. there is going to be a

conference in tehran in a matter of days. it is a disarmament conference. they are going to get together and work out a proper and logical and efficient and independent solution to work towards disarmament. we hope they will come to their senses and stop mr. making -- mischief making. at the end, we appreciate the efforts of all of those who are working tirelessly in our field, especially the nuclear field. those working in the nuclear field are unknown soldiers. we cannot show them in front of

cameras. they are little known, but they are rendering a great services which will bring dignity upon the iranian nation. i thank them all personally. all of those who through the years have been working tirelessly in this field, our academics, different companies more active in the field of nuclear technology, i thank them wholeheartedly. the way you look to the nuclear technology should be to the last possible point or peak. he should have the last possible point in sight, first of all. it should get to a point where

we tap into our potential in the field of nuclear energy to improve our welfare. in the near future, we should turn into a nation which can export nuclear technology and know-how. once again, i thank you all. i hope the more bright future it is ahead of the iranian people. >> there is more about iran from an event hosted by george washington university today. the author of "reading lolita" was among the speakers. >> our keynote speaker is azar nafisi. she is best known as the author of the best seller, "reading lolita in tehran: a memoir in

books." the novel has a passionate portrait of the islamic revolution and how it affected one university professor and her students. the book spent more than 115 weeks on the "new york times" best seller list. it is been translated into 32 languages. it has won several literary awards. that includes the 2004 non- fiction book of the year award from booksense and several others. "reading lolita in iran" has earned literary distinction and built an enthusiastic leadership. the readers have been captivated by the story and characters framed in this alluring and confounding place. the book is an incisive exploration of the transformative powers of fiction

in a world of tyranny. azar nafisi is a visiting professor and executive director of cultural conversations at the foreign policy institute of johns hopkins university school of advanced international studies in washington, d.c. she is also a professor of aesthetics, culture, and literature. she teaches courses on the relation of literature and politics. she has conducted a series of lectures and culture and the important role of western literature and culture in iran after the revolution in 1969. she taught at university of tehran before her return to the united states in 1997. she has earned respect and international recognition for advocating on behalf of intellectuals, youth, and especially young women. in 1981, she was expelled from

the university of tehran for refusing to wear the mandatory islamic veil. she did not resume teaching until 1987. she has written for "and york times," "the washington post,t." she is been published an open book the new republic." she is currently working on a book entitled, "republic of the imagination. coke is about the power of literature to liberate the minds of people. she lives here in washington, d.c. at the conclusion of the keynote, i will join her for a few moments to have an opportunity to explore some of what she said. we will open up to you for questions from the microphone in the middle of the room. please prepare your brief questions and we will get to you as well. it is my great pleasure to welcome to george washington university and to all of you azar nafisi.

[applause] >> thank you so much. it is a great pleasure to be here today. it is a great pleasure to be here when all the wonderful institutions that are constantly reminding us of how important the truth is. it is really a privilege and an honor to be here. i do think that truth is the main issues and topics that we will be talking about. when i was thinking about how just a year ago, just before the june uprising or rebellion in 2009, if you thought of iran, the images were not of taking

over the internet and the media. those of the images we have been given through the cartoons. it is now become the symbol of iran and iranian news. nobody would have thought of a group of young girls sitting in a room overlooking the snowcapped mountains of tehran and reading will be to. when you think of each one of these images, you would not think of iran. at that time, iran was defined by terrorists. the first image that came to your mind because it was all over the media here from larry king to charlie rose, everywhere you looked, we had our wonderful

president with a smirk on his face as if he had just broken the neighbor's window and got away with it. he has gotten away with it. he reminds me of someone from the bad boys club, there was a fascination people had with mr. ahmadinejad. the questions about how many kids he had, whether he loved new york, how many kids are in his jails? those questions were never there. it reminded me when i thought of that view. the whole idea is that you need to look at a nation as individual through diversifies and different perspectives in order to come as close as you can to the whole image.

in order to understand a country like iran or the united states, you need to understand it not just through the eyes of the government, even when the politicians are democratic. it is far worse in a totalitarian society whose first act is to take away the multiple voices, to reduce all images to just one image. the point here and what i celebrate in a meeting like this is that finally, those voices and images that have been forced underground for so many years have burst forth and blossomed on the internet and on television screens. when we talk of iran, we do not

talk about one aspect of iran. we talk about iran is a country that is enigmatic, complex, and contradictory. iran is one country that would determine many of the most important debates and will be the answer to many of the very important problems that we're facing today. whenever i think of mr. ahmadinejad's perspective, i think of an anecdote in my book but other people have mentioned. it becomes sort of a metaphor for me about this whole idea of truth. it sounds very abstract, but it is very important in our lives. it is important in our personal, political, and cultural lives. when we are speaking about iran

in journalists and bloggers and how to connect to them, we understand how central their role is in not just changing iranians society but changing our perspective about ourselves. the way we look at others is a reflection of the way we look at ourselves. the people we think of as allies and enemies define who we are. it defines where we stand in the world today and what we expect of the world today. the image that comes to my mind is the image of the sensor rigid censoer -- censor for irani and theater. he was nearly blind. a famous director told me he would be sitting there and someone would be sitting side him.

beside him and tell them that the girl was approaching the point. he could not see, but he could say how people should be acting. after 1994, his job was changed. he became the head of a new television channel in iran. he became the new -- name censor for the television channel. his successor was not blind physically, but he was blind metaphorically. he used the same method. he would have people give him the scripts in tapir quarters. he would listen to the scrip ts. there were not enacted dramatically. can you imagine being a scriptwriter and have someone listen to them and then decide how people should act?

this metaphor of the blind censor for dome and television became a metaphor for all the totalitarian mindsets who are afraid of the diversity of voices, opinions, and ideas. they try to impose their own image of reality upon the whole nation. when the islamic republic came to power and the blind censor is philosopher king, the first target they found were those who symbolized this diversity. it was women, minorities, and those who worked in culture. mr. ahmadinejad recently

claimed and stated with regret that the iranians academia since the beginning of the last century had been secular and liberal. unfortunately, the republic has been unable to do anything about it. the first targets were women. they had been fighting for their rights since the 1800's. one of the first things that a totalitarian regime does in order to legitimize its confiscation of reality is to 1st confiscate history. in this country as well, those who want to impose their fundamentalist views upon the society, the first thing they do

is confiscate history. the first thing they do is confiscate and redefine what it means to be an american or what it means to have a constitution. that is the first thing they do. history is used to justify what we do. what we were in the past will show us what we are now and what will be in the future. they produced the history of the nature of the debate reduced the history of an ancient country -- they reduced the history of an ancient country that goes back 3000 years. after the invasion of iran, that is not mixed and mingled with the past of iran. every country that is muslim is muslim and its own way, in the same way that every country that is christian is christian and its own way.

you have so many definitions. all those components of islam that can against orthodox islam and had origins in islam, all of these were lumped together. all of them are now reduced to an official version of revision. this country is a christian majority, yet we have so many different denominations. we talk about america being christian. are we talking about episcopalian christianity, obama

christianity, reverend falwell's christianity? there are so many ways of interpreting religion. once religion becomes the state, let's say tomorrow we say we are a christian nation and christianity is what we will all do, then religion itself is confiscated. when you said that, people in power in iran and apologists would call you western. to say that religion should be the verse was an insult to islam -- to say that religion should be diverse was an insult to islam. iran and women, iran and then, iranian clerics -- iranian women, men, and clerics from the beginning of the last century

have been fighting against an absolutist monarchy and religion. iran was the first in the region to have a constitutional revolution. the same forces that you see in the streets of tehran today are the great, great, grandchildren of those forces who came out into the streets of tehran and other places in iran 100 years ago. they created a constitutional revolution. it was the first revolution to create modern and open institutions. the iranian women were called western because they say they need to have a choice have been fighting for their rights for over 100 years. their rights were not something that 8 a shah could give them so that an ayatollah could take

away. they had been beaten and exiled. someone in 1912 brought about iran. he wrote about how iranian women. he talks about iran and women in the course of a few years. she talks about how the iranian women in the course of a few years have leaked centuries and are far ahead of their sisters in the west. what i am trying to say in this very short time is that what you are facing is not regime defending religion, tradition, and culture. all totalitarian systems, in the name of half truths --, in the name of half truths. they take some aspect of society and then extended it to the society as a whole region

and then extend -- and then extended it to the society as a whole. this is a dialogue. in a dialog, it is not ever a one-way street. what amazed me was that in the 18 years i lived in the islamic republic, i had some of the most amazing experiences in terms of the flourishing and hunger to connect to the world and the best the world had to offer. the ideals, the philosophies, the novels, poetry, the music. i gave a talk on flaubert. there was almost a riot.

people watch movies by the, guard -- avant guard filmmaker from russia. it was like they're going to a concert by michael jackson. there was far more freedom among ourselves to debate the issue of the veil. it is very important to understand that the issue of the baveil is not about religion. it is not about whether it was good or bad. when i refused to wear, it was because i thought that no state or a 40 has the right to tell its citizens -- that no state or authority has the right to tell its citizens whether to worship god and not.

my grandmother never took off the veil had the same idea i did. she would cry and tell us this is not the real islam. they do not flog people. they do not put young women in jail and give them virginity tests. they do not insult cards children in this way of their true muslims. i want you to understand that this society is very traumatized. its history, culture, reality, and the name of its religion, something has been taken away from it. for the past 30 years, it has been trying to retrace. when i came here in a society where i am free to write, talk, and criticize, i realized that the same reduced images, the

same niche related images that existed there are now dominating here. when you talk to people about the right of choice and iranian women, they look even say that you are western and that is their culture. the people on the right say it is their culture. with attack them. they are terrible people. -- let's attack them. they're terrible people. the people on the left say let them do what they want to do. the question is what to the tribute to our culture? iran had some of the most progressive loss on women -- laws on women. we had two when and ministers. my mother was in the parliament in 1963. switzerland did not get its right to vote for women until 1974.

we had women in industry, women pilots, judges. one of the women judges was distraught because they said she was too weak to be able to judge. -- one of the women judges was defrocked because they said a woman was too weak to be able to judge. they came back into the public and became defenders of women's rights and human rights. these are the kind of women we have in that society. the first thing the government did before having a new parliament or constitution was to repeal the family protection law which protected women at home and work. they reduced the age of marriage from 18 to nine for females. after fighting for 20 years, they finally raised it to 13. the judge can still give consent

for the father to marry a girl under the age of 13. how critical for a culture that would put a man in jail if they have sex with a 13 year-old girl to tell me that this is my culture. something that never existed in the history of iran, stoning people to death for prostitution, what they call prostitution and adultery. if that is my culture, then slavery is the culture of this country and not abraham lincoln -- then slavery is the culture of this country and not abraham lincoln and mark twain. if this is my culture, inquisitions, fascism, and communism is the culture of europe. fascism and communism came from the heart of civilized europe.

they did not come from the muslim-c world. that is their culture, not jane austen, shakespeare. every culture has something to be ashamed of. there are no innocents in this world. there's not a single and as a nation. what makes a culture great is its ability to see the points that are terrible about itself and have a genuine shame. politicians nowadays do not even apologize for shameful things. real shame leads you to change.

real shame created the abolitionist movement in this country. when i left this country in 1970, obama and mr. lieberman, maybe none of them could of gone into institutions in this country. hillary clinton as president? women like gloria steinem and betty friedan or make fun of as broad-burning women -- were made fun of asbra-burning women. what gives this country the right to be proud of itself is that from there, it has come to hear. we now not only have barack obama who is the president. brought hussein obama will remind many people in this country that they do not have to be terrorists. they can in fact become

presidents. barack hussein obama chooses to become christian and keep the name. now may be a bill or hillary will become jewish or atheists. i want to come to a conclusion about the bloggers because i think that is the most important thing. i was trying to show that if you are talking about truth, whether it is about iran, china, or darfur, you cannot go to the people that fabricate the truth to gain power. for the truth, you have to go to history. you have to go to culture. you have to remember that this iran sees its identity in its

greatest poets. iranians know these poets by heart even when they are illiterate. 750 years ago, a poet was in every iran in house. he talked about hypocritical clerics who drink wine in private and flog people in public. you had an astrologer poet who said that every time you pass by grave, pour a glass of wine on my grave remembering my life. in mystical poetry, these cultures that we called muslim are sensual, erotic, and colorful.

life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is not american thing. the woman in afghanistan, the woman in iran being raped in jail, the woman in saudi arabia who is the beignng flogged, they also want to be happy. they want to have a life and have liberty. this is a condescension to think that all things that have to do with human rights and freedom and democracy somehow our western. spare us your condescension. i come to the end of my top. -- i come to the end of my talk. the iranians movement of loggers and journalists can verify what

i say. the whole problem with truth and why so many of us do not want to hear it is that truth is always a call to action. you do not need to be political. the reason the movement in iran will be successful is because it is not merely political. i know is wrong to say this in washington, but that is why washington has been getting iran so wrong for so long. like south africa and eastern europe, this is a movement fighting for something far more important than politics. it is an existential movement. for 30 years, iranian women have been fighting against these laws through education.

there is a signature campaign. there is a book out in english. is the history. of the signature campaign -- there's a book out in english about the history of the signature campaign to change the laws. iran is important to us because iran is not going where the regime is going. if you want to fight a totalitarian system, you cannot be totalitarian yourself. military attacks, insults to the regime, calling for its overthrow, this is not with the aim of this movement is. the aim of this movement is not just a mere change in regime, but a change in mindsets. that is far more difficult. the change in mindset means

that the and the stock -- that the iend is not justified the means that you use. the means that you use will become the sum total of the end. the recent iran will teaches a great deal about ourselves -- the reason iran will teach us a great deal about ourselves and the region is because it has chosen to use democratic means to change and non-democratic system they have the guns and jails. what do we have? that is the point. iran and women use the 1 million signature campaign to educate women within and without the country. they have shown to women across the board that whether you are an orthodox muslim woman or an

agnostic, modern, open woman, these laws are against you. the laws that do not give custody of your child, the laws that near you by your father's wish that young age, the laws that do not allow you to become judges, these laws are against all of us. in the streets of tehran in june and later on, use of women with and without -- you saw women with and without a veil. you saw young and old, men and women, asking for freedom and openness. this is the strategy, to educate and devolve -- evolve against the guns. in politics, it is always

compromise. you need to have other areas in society where you can use other methods. this is what a democracy is. you politics, literature, humanities -- you have politics, literature, humanities. the writers, journalists, artists can become the conscience of the society. we use the truth as a weapon. that is what is happening right now in iran. the bloggers in iran, the first panel can talk more about this than i can. if they flog women for showing their hair, if they put bloggers in jail and torture them. if journalists are jailed for

telling the truth or showing a cartoon, that shows how vulnerable the regime is and how afraid they are. the bloggers'weapons of mass destruction are what they write, the women's hair that they show. it is lovely to talk about democracy when you have the microphone. we need to take this movement in iran seriously. we need to take it seriously not just for their sake. do not feel sorry for the iranian people. they take responsibility for their lives. they have refused to be victims. you need to support their voices and add your voice to them. you need to communicate to them.

you need to create a conversation with the iranians people. they're now in jail for reading. there were concerned they were trying to foment revolution because they were reading max weber. they are taking -- your best weapon is the culture. they are taking that culture. they're putting frederick douglass and had adams on the website. they are reminding us in america today, the terrible crisis is not financial. it is a crisis of vision and imagination. iran is here to remind you that the route to go against the blind cenosors is with a

conversation based on imagination. [applause] thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you very much. that was fascinating. it is a great privilege and pleasure to have you here on campus. your metaphor of the blind censor is telling. much of the world and certainly in the west, we hear about ahmadinejad, the nuclear program. we do not hear much about what you refer to as a traumatized society. what do you think is the cultural dynamic at this moment in iran? as you formulae your answer, i will invite those who have questions to move to the microphone.

>> we have to think the islamic republic for so many things. -- we have to thank the islamic republic for so many things. the sun in my hair is very important. the revolution forced us to not just question the world or the regime, but to question ourselves. that became part of a culture that seldom questioned itself. when they would talk about women and the way that women should be or the way muslim women are, we were forced to ask ourselves if this were true. we had to go to st. to read and find out if it was the truth. -- we had to go to history to read and find out if it was the truth.

they deprived us of connection to the world. many of my muslim students were in positions at the university. they would come to the class full of prejudices. wiring reading of " wuthering heights"? it is all about adultery. they would leave the questions full of curiosity. . . you mentioned the role of the voice of america, and various other broadcasts that have come in, in search of the truth, how does an iranian citizen today obtaining the truth about the world? >> part of it now is through the internet. that is how they do. of course, there are -- there is always access it. one of the amazing things in iran as in many took out 10 societies is that many, the

guardians of revolution who defended this revolution at the beginning, through contact, with the world and with what is happening, changed. and so there are always rogue elements within the regime, within the ministry of guidance that open the road that lets you publish a rogue book which then becomes censored. but mainly now i think it is through the internet. during my time we had a one-sided relationship with satellite dishes where we got our information year and, of course, bbc and all the others also provide information. >> let's go to your questions. >> dr. nafisi i was just listening to your comments here about faith. i'm just went if you think that iran can successfully democratize itself and reclaim that cultural identity?

and remained and islamic republic. >> well, i think the title islamic republic is a contradiction in terms. it's like the german republic, the communist. the republic supposedly is based on a democracy, where they would be many ideas. i don't think that it can remain and islam republic, and at the same time have that. first of all, religion used as an ideology does not represent the whole of the iranian people. we have muslims with many different ideas. we have jews, we have christian, we have others. and all their interests should be represented properly. many of the former revolutionaries, now are talking

about the secular open society. >> does that have traction as they talk about a secular open society? >> it does have a great deal of attention that the other panels will talk about it, but that is what iran is so exciting because you know they are really finding what democracy is, you know. and destroying the myth about democracy is simply westerã@ @ r brandishes this program, beyond why it wants weapons or

not, is particularly why he is so obsessed with the nuclear program very good >> i think you would be able to answer that much better. she has much more information than i do on this topic. first of all, i think whatever ahmadinejad is doing is out of frustration domestically and internationally. frustration them both domestically and internationally. and he takes these things as hostage, that if iran, like with the american tourists that they now have. you take on says agitate people hostage. and they think they can intimidate the west once they have the nuclear weapon. by, you know, sort of move to their side, or do as they want to. i think it is a very dangerous game they are playing, and it

definitely does not even have support inside iran. but really, you should talk about that. >> she has, actually. >> i mean here. >> yes. i would actually like to follow-up on that though because there is a lot of projection, and this will be our last question because i think we need to move onto the next part of the program. there's a lot of fear and get onto the iranian nuclear program. what role does that play, in your view, and this sort of national pride and national psychology of the country? >> well, you know, actually answer that with a question, this question that i asked a friend of mine who is a wonderful person. she is a lawyer in iran that and i told her about it. she said why do you people live over there think that people like us wake up in the morning and their first worry is we need to have a nuclear weapon? she says i'm worried about much of not having a job.

i'm worried about the future of even the house that i live in. the pollution is already killing us over here. so what she was saying is that that is not uppermost in the minds of most of us. and the second thing with national pride, i think every country, i mean, americans sometimes very crude talk about national pride, you know. so every country has their own national pride. but why do you think that iranians would be more proud of having nuclear weapons then being represented as a civilized country whose representative is not mr. ahmadinejad? why do you think they will feel less ashamed of having someone who comes here and denies holocaust and says we have no gays and we have the best system in the world, and whatever he says, embarrassing every mode. that does not embarrass us, but having, not having nuclear

weapons embarrass us? iranian's national pride is this amazing history. it is their poet, it's there philosophers. your national pride is mark twain and frederick douglass. our national pride is other. i don't accept tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> my philosophy is to ask questions when i think the answer might be a little hard to decide the case. >> after 34 years on the supreme court, justice john paul stevens will step down, and the best place to explore his life

and legacy is the new c-span video library. with more than 80 appearances dating back to 1985, search it, and share it. the c-span video library, cable's latest gift to america. >> this year's c-span studentscam competition as -- studentcam asks students to make documentary's. here is one of the third-place winners. ♪

>> america [pause] news media, the wealth of information and -- america's news media, the wealth of information. however, a closer look at our cable news also reveals one of america's latest -- greatest challenges. >> the first amendment was based on the notion that if there were many voices, the public would hear those voices and would find the truth, and that one opinion, one publication would balance another. >> the decline of civil discourse has become an obstacle in the pursuit of knowledge through news. mass media and -- informs our political decisions. media bias is not simply a problem of partisanship. it is a problem of peace or war, of solving our problems or descending into confusion.

as instability becomes a driving force behind our journalism today -- the line >> in many news outlets, particularly on television and on-line, the host has made a name for themselves by pushing a point of view and ridiculing the people who disagree with them. >> if you're going to be on the rush limbaugh show or key silberman or -- keys over ran -- keith olberman, that is what is up. that is what people want, and they watch it. >> the networks are trying hard to hang on to their audience. the cable people are trying to take those audiences away from the networks, and they are using a wide range of tactics to do that. >> let's try something more confrontational. let's try something less

respectful and see if our audience likes that, and for now, people are watching it because it is new and different and it's her blood boiling. >> i know there is what i would consider a great deal of instability between major personalities and the people they cover. >> true instability, true rudeness for its own sake is something that should be condemned on both sides of the aisle, and let's be honest. it happens on both sides of the aisle. there are some nasty things that sometimes in the heat of the moment, sometimes deliberately -- >> if you have to make your point in 10 seconds, and you're worried about becoming commercial break and whether you will be invited back next week, you're going to tend to scream, raise your voice, and say something outrageous. >> i think rudeness as one of the great hallmarks, and if you want to be rude and offensive

for the sake of being rude and offensive, i do not condone that. i do not know anyone who does. >> as they try to become more entertaining, one way is by schumer, by making fun of things, and unfortunate -- one way is by humor, and making fun of things. i make fun of someone for the way they spoke, the way they dress, whatever it might be. that gives the laughs, but it is unfair for the source. >> it makes for great theater, but it rarely works. >> within the top-ranked

network, "d.o. reilly factor" and special report are the talk shows. "d.o. reilly factor -- the o'reilly factor has the most viewers. >> get a advertising dollars by how high it your dollars -- your ratings are. >> people are very concerned about their ratings. that is good for the news organization they worked for. it is also good for their careers, but i expect a lot of them actually believe what they are saying. >> if it did not sell it would not be popular. if rush limbaugh was not popular he would not be carried on multiple outlets ever were. sure, it sells. that is why it is out there. >> we have got to get audiences, so when some guy on the news starts to shout and people

start to tune in, others say, that worked for him. i am going to try it. they shout, and people tune in. that will continue until people start to tune out. >> people have discovered this ability to generate ratings and make money from opposition forces, from arguments, yelling, ridiculed. >> once they decide i have had enough of this, i did not want to listen to people screaming all the time, i would rather have something else, then at that point we will look for something else that sells. my hope is that solid rational information. >> in a nationwide poll, 80% of americans say they think instability is a problem. in a separate study it has been shown americans have become less trusting of mass media since 1972 very good >> for so many people at this point get what

they consider to be their news from an outlook that is not providing news. it is providing commentary. >> i think it is quite easy to find the people who will reinforce your opinions and never listened to the other side. >> people say, that is wrong. you are wrong, i am right. that is being billed as news. news in its proper sense is objective, factual information, and to the extent that people are being misled about what is news and what is opinion, that to me is a problem, so i think what i would wish for would be to keep the same opinionated approach but add balance to it. >> anytime you of inject some sort of opinion, some sort of striking opinion, you're going more towards what i call commentating. >> therefore, seeing things and

not through a lens of reality but through a lens of opinion. >> to see all the winning entries of this year's competition, visit studentcam.org. >> let's meet another winner in the documentary competition. through a five minute to eight- minute video, we ask students to tell us about a challenge the country faces or one of the greatest strengths. matt, thank you for talking to us today. >> thank you. >> tell me, what did you mean by the end of stability? how did you come up with that name? >> brendan came up with it first, and i like it as soon as i heard it because the whole thing was about news, so the kind of breaking news story like

you hear of the news channel, and then the whole topic was about the end of civil discourse and news media and cable news, and we thought that was a big problem, and we thought that had really contributed. we put the two together. >> do you think cable news has contributed to the end of stability? >> we thought it does. that is pretty much what we take all whole thing, because we thought with so many news channels and everything that people with ratings were really concentrated with getting people to watch and two men that they were pretty much getting rid of civil discourse -- to tune in and that there were pretty much getting rid of civil discourse, yelling at people to get ratings to go up and to get people to tune in. >> have you think cable news has changed over the past couple years? >> i think it started off with just trying to relay news and tell people what is going on,

but now i think it has gotten into a competition for ratings and more toward entertainment, trying to entertain people, get them to tune in and what so they can make more money. >> how did you arrange your interviews? >> since we live in bloomington, the home of indiana university, we send an e-mail to the school of journalism, explaining what the competition was, what we were doing, and ask them if anyone could help, and we got a couple e-mails back, saying people would be interested in saying that, so we set of times and places and went to talk to them. >> what did you learn talking to everybody? >> we learned what they thought, how they thought the problems came hot. we asked them some of the same questions you are asking. it really allows us to get a

better understanding of news that sells. >> the you think america has benefited from having more news out lives? -- do you think america has benefited from having more news outlets democrats that is one reason cable news contributed to instability -- more news outlets? >> that is one reason cable news contributed to instability. if they feel they have a bigger need to get more viewers so they can compete with their rivals cable news channels, which gives them more incentives to yell, scream, and do things that get people to tune in. >> in your documentary, you mentioned public trust in the media. what is your opinion of public trust right now? >> i think more people to trust it. we showed in the video it has gone down, but i still think people trust the news pretty well because they do not really know much about what goes on.

me and brendan did not know much about it, so we started researching it and seeing how they compete for ratings and the need for that, and i do not think people understand much about that, but i think they trust it now. >> what are your plans after high school? >> right now it is to go to college. i have been thinking about medical school, but i guess i will cross that bridge when i come to it. >> thank you for talking of -- talking with us. congratulations on your win. let's watch a portion of that paused video. >> civil discourse has become an obstacle in news. mass media inform our decisions. media bias is not simply a problem of partisanship. it is a problem of peace or war, solving the problems are descending into confusion. has instability become the

driving force behind our television journalism today? >> you can watch his video and other winning entries at studentcam.org. >> all this month, see the winners of the documentary competition. middle school and high-school students submitted documentary's on one of the country's greatest strengths or a challenge the country is facing. what does every day at 6:50 eastern before "-- watch this every day at 6:50 eastern. for a preview of all the winners, visit studentcam.org. >> tonight, reaction to the appeals court decision on fcc rules regarding net neutrality. the court said the federal agency does not have authority to regulate how internet providers handle traffic over their networks. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span 2.

>> should we be prepared to admit that a republican president and a republican congress in february and march of 2013 will appeal -- wrote deal every radical bill passed? >> this one of the speakers of the republican conference? -- did you miss one of the speakers of the republican conference? we have over 1000 hours of video from last week or one year, every c-span program since. last week, john paul stevens announced that before the end of the summer, he will be retiring. the supreme court was the subject of an event we covered at georgetown university recently. it featured a group of women who argued cases, including ruth bader jennifer -- ginsberg.

>> she really is among the handful of supreme court litigator for whom it can be said she changed the law, so we are very privileged to have her with us today so she can speak about women in the supreme court from both sides of the bench, bring her perspective from both sides. we are also joined by professor carlin. she is a supreme example of someone who combines a successful academic career with an active supreme court practice, and just this morning, professor carlin was at the supreme court. next we have a partner and co-

head of the supreme court practice, before -- and before that, she was at the department of justice for many years, most recently in the office of department of justice that represents the united states, and before that, in the civil intelligence division. patti has argued a remarkable number of cases. 28 cases before the supreme court, including two this term, which makes for one of the most experienced advocate practicing today and certainly one of the most experienced women practicing before the supreme court. finally, we have virginia, a senior member of the supreme court and appellate practice. she has countless accomplishments to her name, and i am going to mention only one, which is the va is the author of the famous military briefer

and affirmative action cases. she argued the importance of diversity in the military. it was discussed extensively and widely thought to be one of if not the most influential in recent years. our panelists all have somewhat different backgrounds, but what they have in common is that they are all members of the supreme court bar, and i am using that not of the formal designation, but to describe a small group of experts but now dominate supreme court's practice, lawyers who specialize in supreme court advocacy of the surface regularly before the court -- and practice regularly before the court. for many years we did not have a player before the supreme court with the exception of the solicitors general office, and it was usually just lawyers who

found themselves in front of the supreme court one time. over the last 20 years or so, there has been a real change in the way the supreme court practices structure, and we have seen a small group of experts, many from private firms, turning supreme court advocacy into a much more specialized and elite practice, with the same group of supreme court veterans', many of them former supreme court clerks or lawyers or both, but the same group briefing and arguing more of the supreme court's cases. this specialization of supreme court practices raises a number of interesting questions, many of which are being addressed by georgetown's own leading academic in this area, but the one we want to focus on today is the question of gender diversity, because with some notable exceptions, it is fair to say this prestigious car has

been mostly comprised of men and that when then along with -- prestigious far has been mostly comprised of men and that when in -- that women along with people of color have been lacking. i will say that i saw the study and was not going to cite it because it did not sound right to me. i thought the numbers were too low, so i went through this afternoon, counting of the applicants who had appeared before the court this term, and so far this term, we have seen over 100 mailed or less, and only 15% female. i will point you to a washingtonian magazine article that came out early this year when the supreme court advocate announced she would be stepping by, and the article wondered

what this would mean for women before the supreme court because there were so few of that. i think we can assume, one thing we will not worry is if there is a future for men in the supreme court. we will be talking about where women are today and why, whether there is cause for optimism in the future, and how women students interested in appellate practice should think about preparing for the career. with that introduction, i will get out of the way and turned this over to our panelists. we reserve time for questions from the audience, because we want you to reduce the trade as well. i am going to start by an asking our panelists to talk for a few minutes about their own work and how their careers brought down

to a point where they're arguing before the supreme court, because i think you will see there have been some different path taken at this point. justice ginsburg, would you like to go? >> [inaudible] sallie who wanted to be the minister of her stage. her former husband applied for the same position. the question reads, of between persons, a colleague of mine

wasn't the its general counsel. -- was in the general counsel, and he said that was going to be the turning feuilleton, because until then, the supreme court had never seen a differential between men and lemon -- women said they did not want very good i was mostly a teacher. i agreed, and i said i would love to write the brief, and the legal director sir, we will write the brief, and that was

the beginning of my decade arguing cases before the supreme court. one does not get their automatically, as you know. one thing, i would be curious to hear the response of my panelists. i did not know of anyone who has excluded the apple practice before the supreme court for your -- practice before the supreme court. they are exhilarating, because when then simply were not fair, so who was the first -- women

simply were not there, so who was the first? >> [unintelligible] >> her husband was also in office. she was the only one carrier employees to said the last place women -- she was the only one. i am pleased to say the only place women were not there -- the supreme court appointed the first special master in a case between two states, so now there are no more closed physicians, -- closed positions, and i think it is time for me to ask my neighbor for her response. >> i went to law school because i wanted to be a civil rights lawyer, and i think unlike

anyone else, the first cases i argued were those where i filed the complaint, up because of the civil rights lawyer, i filed one as the voting rights case. the other one came after, and he had a problem. he said, what can i do for it? he said, would you file it for may? i said, sure, and he said, i need local council. it is sort of like, how deep it to the top of an oak tree from arrested on an acorn, and wait for it to grow, so that was how my practice started. it started as a civil rights practices in which some was appellate work.

i found a life that much better than trial work, because i watched the interpersonal conflicts, and one great thing is everything comes to you in a box, and there were few opportunities, relative to litigating in the trial court. then a friend of mine, who is sitting in the audience, is sort of like one of those old judy garland, mickey rooney movie said, i have a supreme court practice. let's build a clinic. we now run a supreme court clinic that has -- i think we have eight arguments affiliated with the clinic, and we had a steady state of about that number over the last couple years, because it turns out if you're willing to work for free,

there are not any more clients to be had, and luckily, we have day jobs and allow us to do that, so that is how i started my practice. after you have done a couple cases, more cases come to you. one of the cases i am going to be arguing next month came to us. we thought we might be a will to argue the case. >> thank you for inviting me. my career is probably more typical of the route women have taken, having significant opportunities in the supreme court, although it is probably a more recent innovation, and that is through the government. i started for revenues say. i started my out: career in the justice department and three did

my appellate career in the justice department, and when he became solicitor general, i give him a lot of credit -- diversified the hiring within the solicitor general's office, so it is not uniform, but predominately prior to that there have been hiring from appellate practice in law firms. in washington, d.c., people were recommended by former members. notwithstanding the number of people in law firms practicing and with practices recommending people, it was predominantly former males. it is still males. [laughter] they were recommending people,

and they were done the established pipeline. i give president clinton's attorney general credit in starting to look for other sources, starting in the justice department, were you have people arguing appeals cases and arguing appellate briefs, so he hired me and then promptly left the building. he did not want to work for me. then i woke in -- also went to the office for a 11 years, which gave me enormous opportunity to argue cases for the supreme court, and i think if you look at the statistics professor harris was talking about, you will steve predominantly they

are there because they are representing the government and governmental entities, so the question is how often are women arguing cases where they are not representing the government? i am at a law firm with tom goldstein, and we actually tried to make a living arguing cases. >> i think my of pellett career began when i came out of the first canal, because my father was first circuit judge of the time, and for many years the chief judge was a support -- from the court of appeals, and i growth in household for life around the dinner table was one

judge or the other from the third circuit analog clark's theory of law clerks were my babysitters -- and the law clerks. they were my baby sitters. i was very proud of my father, who was the judge who desegregated delaware schools and was the only judge who of held in brown vs. board of education, so i aspired to be a lawyer. i then went to buffalo law school, because i happen to be teaching in buffalo, new york, and have the good fortune through be appointed to harry edwards. i went on to work with justice brennan. i am sort of a typical example. then i went to a small sliver firm, and the -- small labor firm, and the virtues to that

instead of going to a large firm is when you have a case, it is your case, so i was arguing a case in the maryland supreme court, and if you filed a complaint, you worked on the case all the way through to the supreme court, so we represented a piece of the labour market, so we have a lot of supreme court cases. until this year, the preeminent woman partner was kenny clarke. i do not think she argued a supreme court case. she argued a lot of appellate cases. those tend to be argued predominantly by men. i was left office when my son came down with meningitis, so i decided i could not afford to change my life for the next year and a half, so i instead became a partner, and i would say, is much harder without the

government experience to have the practice. unfortunately, there are a number of cases every year to work on, but it is a good illustration of if you really want to do it, you should get the government experience instead of what i did with private practice. >> i cannot resist saying ahu what great lawyers we have on this panel, because every time they are at bat, i know we are going to get an excellent appellate argument, and there was a brief that made a real difference. the brief on behalf of the military leaders, leaders of the military academy, grab

everyone's attention, and it ought to be given as a model for how these should be written. it was not very long, but it was powerful. >> i had one question about people's careers and how they ended up doing the practice they do. virginia, you mentioned you have the good fortune to have a professor. but i feel my career was largely shaped for the good fortune i had as a professor, and i was wandering around a law school saying, i hope i can get a job and a law firm. here is what you do. you get some good credentials, and then you clerk, and i am going to work with you and make it happen because i think you are great. if he had not said that to me, none of that would have occurred to me, so i think that great good fortune was a big part of my career, and i am wondering if

any of the others of you have that kind of mentor at some early stage of your career that helped make it happen or at least help you make -- make you think that could happen? >> it is certainly true in my case. i was at columbia law school in my third year. i was at harvard for the first two, transferred to columbia, and apply for law firm of jobs, clerkship job, and i got zero responses, so a great teacher of constitutional law, who was in charge of getting clerkship for columbia students, took nihon -- took me on. he called every judge in the second circuit in the appeals court and district court, and finally he came and said, i have

an excellent candidate for you. the judge responded. she has a 4-year-old child, not only was i a woman, but i was a mother, and that put me out of the box. the deal was the judge would take a chance on me, but if i failed, there was a young man in my class who was going to work for a downtown firm who would be ready to take over. the professor never told me that though. i thought the judge hired me because he had three children, and he wanted his girls to have opportunities to make their way in the world without encountering discrimination. where would i have been without

the first job? she has a similar story. she was very high at stanford law school, and she could not get any job, says she volunteered to work -- i think it does for the l.a. county, work for free for four months, and she said, if you think i am worth it, you can put me there. progress comes slowly, and i know people of your age tend to be impatient. things do not change fast enough, but enormous change has occurred in my lifetime. >> i think mine was more the product of ignorance and the good fortune of having justice ginsburg before me. i did not have a lawyer in it,

so i had no idea what i was doing when i went to law school, and i discovered appellate litigation because i worked one summer in a firm that has a guy who used to be in the solicitor general's office, and he brought someone to talk to us over the summer, and i thought, what a cool job, and it actually had not occurred to mean -- to me, that someone should not do it because of gender. i kept trying and trying to get into an appellate career at the justice department, and no one actually told me you were not supposed to apply unless you're coming from the law firm, so i did. if health that i worked for the solicitor general's office -- it

helped that i work for the solicitor it -- solicitor general's office, so i have someone to recommend made. if someone told me there are all these barriers, you should actually cover your ears -- there are no barriers. just do what you want to do and fight for it, and that has to be a big part of the solution very good >> i had a professor in law school, to the real professors and who took me aside and adopted in may. i work for one over the summer. she left and became the head at the brooklyn d.e.a.'s office, so i spent my summer there and spent the rest of my summers of the legal defense fund, and it was one of the few places where the staff was have male and half female. ito was also have black and half white, and they had a view if leon lawyers work on the case,

-- if young lawyers work on the case -- there was never any question i would get to argue the case, and the person had worked on 35 supreme court cases, but he was not going to take over the case as long as i wanted to do it, so i feel very lucky about that. >> i think we are getting to a point where we are self- defeating. a lot of the opportunities have been for people who went to places where they have opportunities. they got a case, and they kept it all the way through. an opportunity to argue, and what we have seen in the last 10 years is the development of a specialist supreme court bar where people actually do not have the opportunity as often because there are not people who say you have to of a specialist handle your case, and i am one of those people, and i am

wondering if i'm defeating the promotion life, so i think we have to be particularly conscious of insuring those opportunities remain, and when people pick those specialists, they are picking a diverse group of specialists. >> maybe we can move into talking about where we are now. it is a new phenomenon. it is changing the nature of supreme court practice in all kinds of ways, and we can follow up a little bit, but where are we today? justice ginsburg pointed out wherever we are we have made a huge amount of progress in a huge amount of -- a short amount of time, so where we are now is better than where we were before, but how is this shaping up for women? is it happening for women in the

supreme court bar? >> i think within the solicitor general's office, we now have our first female solicitor general, appointed by president obama a little over a year ago, and that was an enormous stride, because not only as another woman appearing before the supreme court, but it is such a high-profile leadership position. i hope that will have a profound influence on inspiring women to look at this as a potential career path and opportunities, so i think that is something to be celebrated. we have a lot more women in the solicitor general's office. it has got -- not gotten anywhere near the halfway point, but it is between 1/4 and 1/3. it has stayed there for a while, but hopefully that will improve.

that is the prime source of supreme court argument every year, to be in the solicitor general's office. now we see some women in public defender's offices. we need them to keep the viewpoint. what i am wondering is we do not see as many when then representing states, so what needs to be done to diversify the practice within state, and in particular, a lot of states are developing their own solicitor general practice, so they are making work within the state government, but it seems to me -- forgive me if i am wrong. other than barbara underwood in new york, i am not aware of others. less her soul for doing that. >> we have some states with women as attorneys general, and

in public offices, it is not just the state -- the municipality. i in thinking particularly of chicago. she is excellent. she is a real tiger. [laughter] >> government will presumably still be a decent source of this, but to the extent we are getting more specialization in state government, we need to keep an eye on that, and i think the big question is what happens with private industry business cases and the supreme court, and mo'nique has done a fantastic job -- mahoney has done a fantastic job developing a supreme court practice. watkins has now announced her semi-retirement. i think she is teaching in

georgetown, and i think we have a bit of a transition period, and my hope is we will be a book tour expand opportunities for women who have to be hired for business cases and the supreme court, but that is the lowest percentage appearing before the supreme court. but as the new hurdle to be overcome -- that is the new hurdle to be overcome. >> i am optimistic about that. as you increase the number of women in the office, they go on into private practice and get cases and argued them, so i think credential and experience gives you the gravitas to say, let me have that case and argue it, and as the number of women go through the office and if

that credential, there are going to be more moving to private practice, and there are going to be more going up in private practice. i talked to the solicitor general in new york before barbara underwood, and she went for a while and had a private practice, supreme court practice, so i think that credential you get with the state or as the federal solicitors general office, can be the start of build in private practice. they are coming, and i am optimistic we will get our share. >> the other great factor is getting women in general counsel office around the world, because that can be a helpful factor, and having someone who actually believes women who can handle big cases, big decision-making, and i know the statistics are

not what i wanted to be, but they are not what they were 10 or 20 years ago. i know a lot of general counsel office have been putting pressure on law firms to diversify all their practices, including appellate litigation practice. >> can you speak at all to the picture with the supreme court clinics? another recent development -- stanford was the first, but since then a bunch of other law schools have started to become very active in supreme court practice, and how does that look in terms of participation of women? >> some clinics have female instructors. i think the one that just started -- in wax's going to be one of the instructors in that clinic. -- amy wax is going to be one of the instructors in that clinic. a lot of them do not have female

instructors, and if they do not, they are not going to have a woman arguing the case. i am sure many of our students would do a better job than many of the lawyers that we see. >> that being said, the interesting thing is how difficult now i think it is for women to do some of the business development that men do. it is not that all men have this quality, but i think most of the people who have the quality of our mail -- of just feeling the comfort of cold-calling someone who had the case decided in the court of appeals and saying, you do not know me. you might want to argue the case, but i am going to take your case from your. it is not that all men are better at it, but most of the people who are really good at it are male, and i am not sure if

it is from starting junior high school and going of two people you do not know and saying, will you dance with me? that's for me has been the hardest part of the practice. i have every confidence if someone asks me to write a brief i will do a good job, and if someone asks me to do oral argument, i will do a good job, but i find it hard to call somebody and say, you ought to do this, so there has been a number of beauty contests, where the supreme court takes the case, and then the lawyers think we ought to go out and look for a new lawyer to argue our case, and i have been in a couple of them, and i find myself saying, tell me about the case. here is my approach, and we are also talking to x and y, and they will name the men who argued a lot of cases, and they are very good, too. they will do a great job for you, and i wonder whether they say, you could pick me, or you

could pick her very good i will tell one story -- pick her. i will tell one story. in the 1990's, there was a civil rights case that the supreme court, and there were two in the case, and they could not agree who would argue the case, and the -- at that point, there would flip a coin. the two parties said, let's try to figure out who could argue the case, and the parties and the civil rights lawyer who has been involved before agreed i might be a good compromise, so they said to the lawyer at a leading law firm who was counsel for doing the case pro bono, we kind of agreed on them karlin, and he said, what? he said, i am not stepping aside for some junior woman. at which point, they decided to flip the coin. they decided to keep with a lawyer who argued the case of

the district court, because that was our practice. i did not think there is a woman who said, i am not letting some guy argue my case, so i do think there's a difference in an when in's comfort with self-promotion -- in women's comfort in self- promotion that makes it hard. whether you find it easy to call you have never met and say, you do not know me. give me your case. i i'm hoping young women can do it. the one case i argued two years ago, i had the state call me and say, we want you because you have not been bugging us. i would like to think my personality can also get me arguments by not bugging the person. .

that is the hardest problem and one i struggle with all the time, and i hold on this panel. >> if your willingness to write a brief and your willingness and ability to do an argument. i have no compunction about calling someone up and asking to work on their case, but that last little -- there is this precious thing, the argument -- give it to me. [laughter] that is the hard part of that. going out and rain making, i find it super easy, because you are offering completely to do something for someone else.

it is selfless. but when you are asking for their argument, that is a weird currency coming into the process. >> i remember my father once came to talk to the summer lawyers that were at the program was working, and they asked for 90 minutes about the oral arguments. they did not ask unquestioned about the breed. 98% of cases are decided on the breath -- brief. that is were the real action is, he said. but it's not sexy, right? it's the person standing up there giving the argument in the spotlight. but you can do as much to move the law by crafting a persuasive brief and submitting it, and i would say that i am biased. >> i would agree 100%.

the oral argument is a nice show. it's a fleeting. what stays with the court -- the court will start with the brief, the brief will be in chambers when the argument is over, the written part of the appellate process is ever so much more important than the half hour in court. and it helps -- if you have been the architect of the brief, if you have an advantage over someone coming in to make this speech and the oral argument. there is an advantage to having the brief writer present the case to the court, but i hope clients appreciate that what really counts is the brief.

>> the irony is the question they ask was, how many arguments you have done, not how many supreme court briefs have you written? it is the public face of the case. it is the meeting point of the justices and the lawyer for the first time, coming together, that first interaction of them in the decision process. it is not entirely unfair but it is ironic that the focus is so much on the argument. >> and one way you can see this -- but those of us that litigate a lot, va has been a major figure in terms of the briefs she has written, and everyone

understands the detail. and you read the amazing -- she did back then. if you read the oral argument transcript of the supreme court, you will her it referred to as the carter-phillips brief. when you filed a brief hi, it's listed by seniority. >> and he said, you will be counsel of record so you will get the credit for the breed. -- a brief. every time i have dealt with him he is wonderful. but the brief accounts for the most and i still refer to it as the carter-philips agreed because he is the person that argues for it. >> i view it as the brief for the military. [laughter] >> i think we have started to

talk around some of this. but if we could focus for a minute -- i'm in total agreement that the brief is the most important part. i am very invested in believing that. but there's something about the public role played by women lawyers when they argued before the court that i do think it is a shame that they are so under represented in that role, all lead before the message it conveys, what is this court about, what is this role about? and the numbers are low, they really are. they are not representative of women in population, practicing his lawyers, even a sense of the best lawyers i note, far fewer than 50% of them are women. why do we think there are these obstacles to participation by women? >> do you have the statistics

for women law clerks of the court? >> i was born as your impression of that. >> i think it is not much different. >> my rough sense is no. way below 50%. i remembered that we would have of women's lunch group, and some people thought that was controversial because it was closing. my view was that as long as we could meet in a restaurant without making a reservation, it could not be that controversial. it was a very low number when i was working. under 10. there was some thought that that may be part of -- >> i was thinking about this when i was preparing. i pulled out something i wrote, 10 things i wish i had known when starting out as an associate justice. i brought it with me if anyone wants to look at it.

none of them is are things that you would say to man. i would advance the controversial proposition that you don't have to tell male associates by saying, i don't think this is right, i could be wrong, but here's what i pay. don't ever start your answer this way. it's covering herself and making sure that nobody gets mad at you. it's a common female defense mechanism. don't do that. you have to say that the female law associates today, and that gives you a hint about why women may have a harder time becoming equal representatives in this very public process of supreme court argument. and there are 10 similar tips that you give debtor very gender-specific. i don't mean to overgeneralize. plenty of women can do it. but there is a difference on how women approach their work. >> jeff fischer, who works on

the panel, when i started working with tom, and you can say this, it's a hard time just getting female students to enroll in stanford in the equivalent numbers, to enroll in the clinic. even a law school, there seems to be a lot of self-selection of this practice dream. i don't know what this is correlated to the percentage of the law reserve -- the law review, clerking -- but so selection is free choice. it is self selection because it does not seem like a viable career path. then that is a problem that has to be dealt with and i think it has to be continued throughout careers. as equal as we are, women still

have the babies. the difficulties of juggling working parents and working motherhood, raising children -- i brought my daughter with me, this is allied to it -- it is an enormous challenge and is a hard one -- and people have to make their own choices. i'm a big believer in finding the balance that is right for you and doing it. how much of that changes people's career paths as they are going forward? >> that is the answer in appellate law. stop whining, you are the dermatologist of the law. a much more manageable practice. and i know even -- i don't have a full-time appellate practice. i have clans that have normal problems. [laughter] -- i have clients that have no problems. i have been working 60%, so it

is always easier it in the appellate practice to balance working motherhood. that can be the answer why women are not in rolling. >> i hate to disagree. but a lot of that depends. the solicitor general's office is the place to get experience. maybe they will get to the point where they will have a better developed opportunity for part- time there. lisa black did it for a little while, but when i went there, there was no part-time opportunities. that is a job that is a 90-hour a week job. i remember when i was there, and thank goodness no one had told me and i was too stupid to know that when i had my first child, there had actually been someone else to have had a child, but i remember the second time with my

daughter, a person who will remain nameless came in and said, no one stays here with two young children. no one does that. thankfully i just said, well, i am going to. and i did. but there are some messages and a lot of places where you have -- if you want the high-profile arguments, fight for the clients in the business, and jumbled up with family, it is not easy. and it may not be the right choice for an awful lot of people but it is part of the issue. >> i was surprised to hear that enrollment in the clinic is lower for women. in ancient days when i was at columbia, i was running at gender discrimination clinic, and there was another clinic, there were disproportionate number of women studying and

signing up for those clinics. i remember one exercise in particular. the school had a simulated constitutional litigation seminar. i had a seminar that was working on whatever i was working on. at that time the aclu was bringing in cases to establish that women have the same obligation as well as right to serve our juries as men. and constitutional litigation clinic, they did a report on that question, and my students who were working on the case against edwards that did go to the supreme court, they were ever so much better than in the simulated group, because this was a light case. it really mattered. -- this was a lie of the case.

it really mattered. -- live case. it really mattered. women were very enthusiastic about becoming part of those clinics. >> that is still true. if you look at clinical enrollment, we have a number of clinics that are disproportionately female. direct services clinics, the community laughlin, it's very heavily women. the euthanasia laughlin -- clinic -- but we have had trouble in the supreme court clinic getting women in. virginia was saying this a couple of minutes ago. if you're thinking about appellate practice generally, there is no better kind practiced a balance with. i do not have kids, but it is the balance more generally.

you can work on appellate briefs -- you always know when they are going to be viewed long before time. you can work on nights and weekends, for at home, it is amazing the place is now with the internet revolution, it's amazing the places that you can work on the brief. it's a fantastic practice, and if you look for example of government offices, not the s.g. office, but you look at the defense will office, women are quite well represented in that practice because in that practice the cases come to you. it does not require you to do business better but just a business doer. it is endlessly interesting if you like writing and research. there is nothing better than it. the supreme court practice has

this additional problem because of the scarcity of the argument opportunities, and the fact that the legal bar has become ever increasingly -- much more oligopoly lies over the last -- oligopolized over the last decade. somebody who has not argue the case before, the one place you see a difference there is for example justice ginsburg gave somebody an important oral argument at the supreme court in a case for the first time, we're the supreme court appoint someone to argue a justice from that circuit is responsible for

picking someone to argue the case. that was that the merits -- debbie merrit. but without your first case, it is hard to pick up your second case. [laughter] >> just before debbie, there was a former stephens clerk, a case from the seventh circuit -- these are cases where the parties agreed on the procedural point. so the court needed to have someone defend that the court of appeals, -- defend the court of appeals. i think i wrote the opinion in her case. i said something in the text about how well she had performed, even though it was an

impossible case where both parties agreed that what the court had done was wrong. >> the family-work balance issue is so important. appellate law really ought to lend itself to that, although i will say there are more emergencies that you would think, more tight time frames, people giving up wreaths two days before they heard you. i know many who came to me and said, it turns out i'm really bad with the deadline so i would like to be an appellate practice. [laughter] one should not exaggerate how easy it is, but what i have tough times worrying about, functionally speaking it ought to be doable but there is an odd intersection when you get to the

supreme court point, i think there are still people that think that it is part time, she's not really that committed to her career. i don't want someone who works part time to argue my supreme court case. i am good with it in other areas but this is the supreme court. i have a different vision of what a supreme court advocate laws like and it is not someone that works part time. i want someone more committed to my case. even though it may be functionally doable, they're still a bit of a problem in the way people conceptualize the person you send up to argue with the supreme court, and whether that matches up with someone working part time, whether they are working part-time or not. >> or whether it is even a she. it would be great to get more of justice ginsburg on the court,

and that is an important part of the dynamics, it was important for so many lawyers and clients i don't know the percentage of female judges, because most companies, they need to see more diversity on the bench. i think you mentioned in the beginning, the question of racial diversity and ethnic diversity, another problem and issue to deal with. it's always a question of -- enormous change from her vantage point, but as you get more change, there is a snowballing of desire for more rapid change. i think that is where you encountered the frustration. why don't we have at all?

why is there any barrier left? >> i have a client that has been my client for 25 years. if they have a matter that goes to the supreme court, they don't even have to think about using anybody else. i have a relationship with them. they do not care that i work part time for 18 years, when they have a problem i have been there for them to read the fact that i have a long-term relationship would get me business in those cases. and they have taken a couple of cases up. but in most appellate cases, you do not have a relationship. you're going in to get a short- term advantage with someone. and so it does not play the one thing i consider restraint i hope for myself and for many women, the ability to build a relationship with someone who has confidence in you and knows that you will be there for them. there is another aspect of what

you do well to take into account the appellate relationships. olivie>> looking out side the ud states -- looking outside the united states, seeing how the change. we had an exchange last week with the supreme court of canada. that supreme court sent a delegation, their chief who was a woman, and three associate justices. only one of those was a man. you think that people would say, my goodness, isn't that strange? nobody commented on it at all. no one noted that the delegation from canada was three women and one man. as the numbers grow, i think

will be three and four and maybe more. and i think that does make a difference. >> let me say in that regard, putting women on the bench, the president deserves enormous credit is jimmy carter. when he became president, there were none. or almost none there was one woman on the u.s. court of appeals in the entire country to read carter made her the first- ever secretary of education, but he was determined to put -- to change the complexion of the u.s. judiciary, as he put it, by putting -- selecting members of minority groups and women in numbers. and although he was our president only four years, by

the end of the presidency there was an enormous change in the complexion of the u.s. judiciary. and no president ever went back to the way it once was. that was the person who was determined to make a change and look for people for other presidents had not looked before. >> of what a major we have time for questions from the audience. with our panel is be prepared to offer any last words of advice for women students who may be considering a career in the supreme court or appellate practice more generally? what to expect and how to prepare. >> clerk, take federal courts -- because an ability to think across areas of law is one of

the most critical skills for an appellate lawyer to think about, witness, all those across areas -- if you can link different areas of law creatively, if you are likely better to be a lot better appellate lawyer. find a great professor of federal courts, that is critical, class certification, all those areas that cut across different subjects. if you have a great mentor in law school, talk to that person. when you have summer jobs, talk to people in practice areas that you like, formed friendships and relationships like that. clerking or working for the government, both the s.g. offices in the department of justice, that is the best way to go. >> i hear a lot of that. if you decide it is something you one, go for it.

don't let people tell you that is not the rule or the right way. i went to the government, which you're not supposed to go to the government. i just kept knocking, and you have to develop relationships, "have to work really hard, and have the type of work that people would be willing to stand behind and in doors. work for mentors. both female and male. there are plenty -- thank goodness there are plenty of males even before who are very supportive of women. don't assume that you have to have been no mentor to push you in this process. -- have to have a of a female mentor to push you in this process. i think it changes a lot by people pushing and insisting upon it.

>> if what you want to be as an appellate lawyer, the thing you should do in moscow is spend as much time as you can on pursuits of critical writing. persuasive legal writing. learn to do that, work for an organization when you graduate that may well turn out to be the government, state and local government in particular, and nonprofits that will let you take on appellate work early in your career. lots of the courts of appeal have programs -- the ninth circuit will not only give you a case to brief, but they will guarantee if you take a case out of their pro bono project, you will get oral argument time on the case. and start building a track record, because that track record is really important. in addition to what they were talking about, a clerk in work, don't be a jerk. a lot of how you will get

clients and get referrals is from the people you already know and the people you are working with now. the reputation you get early on in your career for doing a good job will follow you through your cases, and then if you're lucky enough and the supreme court comes along, if you look at that. even if you do not, i think my career has been rate but the appellate work i did more generally, i would be perfectly satisfied with that. i would not spend my entire life say, if i never get another supreme court argument, i wish i was struck by train. [laughter] >> i think we can pick up on the point that pattie introduced and we did not talk about it much. there aren't closed doors, but what happens when the baby

comes? i must say that in my own life, the luckiest thing i did was to pick my life partner and one of my classmates and college said to me you know marty -- my husband -- is so confident in his own ability that he would never regard you as any kind of threat. on the contrary, he will be your best booster, because he decided that we would share our lives together. so let different times the balance has been different ways. when marty was so long -- a young lawyer climbing up the ladder, i remember saying to him about my son, this child is four

years old and you haven't yet taken him to the park. then i got my first good job in d.c. when jimmy carter appointed me to the court of appeals. everyone assumed that i was commuting between new york and d.c. marty transferred to georgetown and there was not any question where we would live. he has become a super chef. [laughter] i have not made a meal in 30 years. so the support i have had from him, because he believed that my work originally was as important but now more important than his, but it takes that kind of strongman or whoever your

partner is, someone who regards you never is threatening, but someone who is a really good -- someone who should be helped along her way. >> you can much improve on that. -- you cannot much improve on that. [laughter] if you have questions, please come to the microphone. [laughter] >> on a similar note, i was wondering -- you're talking about it before -- i was wondering why aggressiveness has to be the domain of men. as i understand it in this society, to the top of -- to get to the top of any career, you

have to be aggressive. the law is very competitive and requires a certain amount of aggressiveness. and i will point out in our finals earlier this term, three out of the four finalists were women. and i can imagine them not being competitive. they work up here arguing before the justices. there seem to be all little bit about the bay whether or not being aggressive was -- thank you. whether it was required or whether non women should be or could be aggressive. any responses, thanks. >> navy justice ginsberg had the same experience that i did. i did not think that i had to be personally aggressive, but i did

not have to call up places to get me offers. i put that thing in the mail and some law review takes it. it doesn't require the same kind of selling of myself in which i feel like i am personally making a comparative, competitive claim. i think the academy -- that's one reason may be why i was attracted to the academy -- i could get the reward for doing the work without saying me, me, me. >> the word speaks for itself. -- the work speaks for itself. >> to me, asking people to argue their case for them. >> speaking of the first solicitor general. >> i wanted to add two things, one is to second justice in

berg's last point. what makes it work is that have a husband -- justice ginsburg's last point. what makes it work is to have a husband that's absolutely supported. -- supportive. the other thing i want to emphasize and mention, i certainly agree that the solicitor general's office is the place to go if you're interested in supreme court practice. but i also want to add, i hated oral arguments. i really hated them. briefing was great, but the scope of the issues you get, the variety, and they are all cutting edge, and brief writing is lots of fun. if you don't think you're going to like oral arguments, don't let that stop you because the

solicitor general's office is a great place to be. [applause] >> i completely agree, but i point out if i wonder if this was a male panel, adding, people would say that their impact -- the most important thing was that. >> she is quite a leader in the supreme court process. but for me, i love oral argument. except for the two days beforehand and the day afterwards, otherwise i love oral arguments. i don't know if aggressiveness is quite the word, but that is where i channel hit, and that is where i put my vigorous advocacy, my excitement about fighting for in defending my

client. and i challenge it -- and defending my client for the question is not whether you have to be aggressive or a zealous advocate in that sense. that is where it should be, right? that is the job. the question is, it is a challenge for women that that is not my interpersonal relationship with people outside writing briefs and the court room. for a lot of man, it can be, to keep that level of. do i have to become like that or will the world come to except women as channeling they do -- doing this is a list performance. you can have a nice conversation because you are not doing the pushy, aggressive tone. [unintelligible]

>> i have a problem being aggressive on behalf of by -- i don't have a problem being aggressive on behalf of my client. you don't want one of the self- help books, i'm my own best friend. you do want to think, i am my own client. i don't think it can be easier to hire patti, that called them and say you ought to higher pattie than to say you ought to hire me. it is not because she would be better that added. -- better at it. [laughter] >> there is a real generational difference in this regard. the question being aggressiveness, putting yourself i went to law school with nine women in a class of

500. there were two of us that fell that if we were called on in class, we had to get right because if we did not, we would be failing not just for ourselves but for women. we were accustomed to being in the limelight. we took it is our responsibility to teach our mail classmates and teachers that women had everything it takes to be successful in the law business. so the people you would not describe as aggressive in our law school classes, we felt that obligation to put ourselves for it.

-- florida. rigid forwar -- to put ourselves forward. >> dealing with masculine traits and whether you have to adopt them for yourself in order to be successful, is there a flipside comeback if there are some traditionally feminine traits that have a did you come on or is there a future in not being so aggressive in this recession -- a profession? >> while, if yes, i'd definitely have benefits. i had a long-term relationship with my favorite client of 20 years, and i think i built that relationship personally, it sharing about children and a variety of family favorite as my husband said, you put more personal things and a cover

letter that i would say to my dad. i am willing to get to know the person i am working with and i think that has been a benefit. but appellate work can be a one- night stand and not necessarily carry over as well. but i want to be who i am. >> i think that i have benefited in many ways from working part- time at law firm. it forced me to do an excellent -- to be of excellent delegator, to make an investment in junior lawyers, to spend a lot of time speaking at the front in because i was going to need their time. i could not be there all the time. i ended up with amazing associates who worked incredibly loyal to me. we had a very good working relationship and was forced on me by the fact that i work part time. many of my clients that were full-time, it was easier to not put the time and on the front

again. and then be left at the end without much, support from junior associates and the incredibly rewarding and worthwhile mentoring relationships. that grew out of necessity, the fact that i was working part time. for me, working part time, different for being a woman, it is had an enormous benefits. >> i think one thing, and this is not women in the supreme court but women in the workplace, generally -- generational leap, it is not just the woman who wants to take leave after the child is born. one person in our office was the best example of a person, the male in the office to made raising the children of priority just like women in the office.

we have a change generation only in this role and recognition of balancing work and family it is actually not just the female issue anymore. maybe that will slowly change things in a way. i think that is because of the presence of women in the work force generally, seeing that shift. as that changes, i think hopefully it puts more wind in the sales of women in the workplace and in the law profession. >> when sweden introduced parental leave and maternity leave, someone commented to me, well, only 10% of the lead time is taken by the man. and i thought that was a good beginning.

one of the most attractive law firm applications i ever got came from a georgetown graduate. he was going to georgetown in the evening program, and he was the primary caretaker of two then-young children, and the reason why he elected for the night program was that his wife had a good job at the world bank as an economist, and he was the one who was speaking the children of the school, going shopping in the light -- picking the children up at school, going shopping and the like. i think more and more coming to get women on the bench that look good people like that and instead of saying, i wouldn't touch him or her because of

that. a number of us now have had law clerks with two small children. the justices who have made that choice have never fell short changed, because the people are super efficient and they have a life that gives them a great deal of purpose of -- personal satisfaction. >> president carter looking in different places for new lawyers to appoint to judgeships and appointing new to the d.c. circuit, and i was wondering in a slightly related issue, if you

felt that the court, a supreme court and courts plural, would benefit from that happening with regard to religion and with regards to gender, with the court benefit from more religious diversity, looking in new places that it has not looked before? >> were not representative of the united states so far as religion is concerned. we have on the court six catholics, two views, and only one protestant. -- t wo jews, and only one protestant. but i don't think any of us would like to be identified as the jewish justice or a catholic justice. we happen to have a certain

religious heritage. we cannot be chosen by the courts on that basis, i think. >> question on a point that justice ginsburg made. you alluded to some of the old days when you're in your law school case in the extra level of pressure that you felt to represent the capabilities of any or all female law students at the time. i wonder if the panel feels this similar type of pressure or proprietorship for that extra level of representation. if that is true, to what extent do you impart that to other women who may be coming through the pipeline, or are we so successful at this point that you do not think about it at all? >> i think about it all the time. particularly with respect of

part time. i been working part-time for 18 years and i'm aware of the stigma of part time. i always say yes, if someone wants me to do extra, i never say no or try to use my kids as an excuse not to take on a project. yes, it is not been so much my gender, because there is a critical mass in the other appellate practices that i don't have to prove any more that women can do it. but i certainly felt a great deal of pressure to show that part-time people can work. i feel very strongly that it has made my life possible as a mother and a lawyer. i would hate to give a bad reputation. >> i think we probably all feel that way. to the extent that virginia and

others may have done it, and you did it so successfully, built up tremendous reputations, i think you have more succeeded -- more than succeeded in doing that for other people. i know i feel very conscious all the time, because -- it is my own personality, on the one who wants to begin with an apology for asking the question, thank goodness justice stevens says the same thing. he is my hero. [laughter] he comes off much better when he does it. [laughter] it's part because my nature is to feel and i have to work eight times as hard just to get it right and i'm introspective by nature, but i do worry that people will say if you do not do it right, then they will be

wondering -- i had a case where i was chosen over a male to handle the case before the supreme court, and was apparently very controversial a decision and i felt acutely conscious that if i do not come in had not absolute highest level, and then you are absolutely killing yourself, if you have no balance in your killing yourself, and that is the fight that i found myself then, trying to be the absolute best, because that is my nature is so i want to do right by my gender, and i am conscious about the repercussions of not doing something, not being the absolute best. it will affect not just you but others. >> i think sometimes the hardest thing in the way is the sense that you were never better than the last thing you did.

it's not even a sixth -- the pressure is always there that if you screw up this time, no one will remember that you did anything good before this time. i think that fear and the fear that people will think you've done a terrible job here, if it must've been a terrible job up to now, that never goes away. you never have enough time to do everything and to do everything well. so whether you have kids or your scholarship or your family, at that stage in life i am at, you think about your parents. you can never be a good enough lawyer or a daughter, a good enough partner, a good enough friend, a good and a scholar simultaneously. what is the thing that today i am going to do and i have passed away? -- is hal- in a half-assed way?

[laughter] the balance is very hard. the balance with kids, don't think if you decide not to have children that is going to be all that much easier unless you decide you're only going to do one thing. if you decide you were only going to do one thing, if you are smart and dedicated, you can do that one thing in an excellent way. but otherwise, you will always have the sense that you are shortchanging something. that impression will never go away. it will only get worse. i worry about it more now. >> stop, stop. [laughter] >> on that note -- the me qoute let me -- let me

quote something from one of my friends, a nobel prize winner in 1980, a nobel prize winner in medicine, she wrote a book called "in praise of imperfection excuse she described what she meant by that title. she took a poll from william butler yeats, in life one must choose. she said that she in her own life had to come to agree with the poet. you cannot achieve perfection in your work and your life. but, he said, in my imperfect way i have lived my life and derived in estimable choi from

the things i have done. i have come to conclude that imperfection rather than perfection is the natural way of humankind. >> i want thank you all for coming. i have enjoyed your perspectives. i want your thoughts about increase female participation is a good thing. is equality of opportunity or to you generally believed that more women participating in the creation and advancement all all will have some beneficial impact on society and on balal? -- and on bathe law? >> i believe in the inherent opportunity. i think it is an inherent good. i can defend that proposition other than believing in it.

i also believe that we bring to bear on the profession, when we practice our daughters are watching us and all women are watching the spirit we open up opportunities for the generation that comes after a spirit that is a good thing for everyone to think that they have a possibility to do the thing they choose to do. yes, i think it is a good thing for people to feel that they have an equal chance at almost everything, not just arguing before the supreme court. the boilers and to quot and t make there's a variety of things? of flavor gets lost and you cannot pinpoint quite what it is because you do not know exactly where it comes from. i think that is true. i do not think that's -- did i

argued the bankruptcy case i argued differently than tommy would have? i don't think it is bankruptcy in a different voice that does that. not a heiss, a squeaky voice. i don't think it was that so much, but over the course of dozens of cases in dozens of arguments, the fact that people are different from one another in a variety of ways will make a difference to the quality of balal. it is that flavor that will be lost, but you cannot distill about three is not white chocolate chip ice cream with a woman is the chip. -- if is not chocolate chip ice cream where the woman is the chip. >> i think we're going to take one more question. >> thank you for being here. i'm curious about the contradiction between the nature

of appellate work being well- suited for the traditional female and the fact that there is last applicants in the clinics -- less applicants in the clinics. there is no substantive expertise that you have to learn -- well, there is, of course, but no substantive expertise in the law. i believe in appellate legislation, but you have to have confidence, a skill in selling it like a beauty contests, knowing a little bit about an area and putting it up as knowing more, do you know what i mean? is that equivalent to the dynamic? >> i always say that in addition to the processes of expertise, develop a substantive expertise in a particular sector of the economy and business, because there is a great joy in expertise.

i still love for someone to call me with a label all question, and i can answer it. there is a joy and expertise that i think is extremely valuable and it is always worth doing that in addition to your supreme court offered. and most will tell you that they have some substantive answers to these -- expertise. you are an obvious example of your civil rights expert taste. i don't think i know very many supreme court lawyers to do not have an underlying expertise. >> i do not. [laughter] >> the appellate advocate is talking to a generalist bench. the appellate advocate will learn an enormous amount of the tiny corner of balal the --tiny

core ofthe law. -- tiny corner of the law. they may learn things that are may be too advanced for the bench. [laughter] when i was growing up, i thought that i would be a teacher. and in my advocacy, even what i did today, that is mostly what i am doing, trying to impart what i know two people -- know to people, ought to take people step by step to where i like them to go. some people come to it without knowing anything about that particular field can be helpful rather than harmful.

>> thank you, justice ginsburg, i will be recording mess. i had an argument the other day in the case in what i call my expertise, translation, taking a complicated problem in a specialized area of the law and translating it into the language of generalists judges, the legal concepts that they tend to grapple with and how they are likely to approach the issue. the intermediary between the specialist. i am a specialist and being the intermediate between the specialist in the case and the appellate court. and just backing up to the prior question, one of the reasons it is important because i think everybody -- like religious diversity, i don't believe in reincarnation