driven naval aircraft observation plane. >> a nice term for a spy plane. >> yes, e.c.-121. and we got the hit order, the hit speech, so i said to john, see if you can't find kennedy's 1961 cuban missile crisis speech. little did i know he was having two speeches written so we labored for a couple of days. it had to be a quick response time, and submitted the draft of a speech to r.n. and then watched the press conference or the announcement that night what happened and r.n. announced that he wasn't striking. we had called for targets in north korea, by the way, and

everything was under rocks, in mountainsides, harbors were built. nothing exposed except a civilian population so a countervailing strike would have been nothing so there was no point in doing that. what was the ultimate reason? president nixon thought that by not reacting militarily in that early provocation, whether we committed the provocation or they committed the provocation by shooting down the 121, sending a signal to the chinese that we intended to pursue a reasonable course, and would not resort immediately to force. the sino-soviet split came as a result of the cuban missile crisis. that's where it really broke into the open. the chinese condemned the soviets for backing down, saying they were not revolutionaries

after all, they had basically lost their revolutionary fervor and it was china that was going to carry on with this vast revolutionary warfare, people's war, so on, so forth, national liberation movement. >> let me give you an alternative view of the origin of the sino-soviet. it was krushchev's attack that told mao tse-tung that the man he relied on for his own political credibility in china, stalin, had been taken down, so krushchev, in effect, was undermining mao's authority within the communist movement which is not to say that the cuban missile crisis was not. >> it was a scab -- if i can put it. >> since we're in the memorial here with distinguished naval persons like our national

archivist here, let me take the naval view of your question. could we have taken action earlier? my view is that we could have mined the entire north vietnamese coast without bringing china in. had we embarked on the kind of christmas bombing, b-52 saturation bombing, or taken a lot more of the protected sites off the protected target list, i think that would have brought the chinese reinforcement, not necessarily brought them into the war covertly, i don't think that would have happened, but they would have greatly increased their support and i really want to hear both dick's response to this but the hostility between the vietnamese and the chinese goes back millennia and the chinese were

not that comfortable in supporting vietnam. certainly they supported them in solidarity with their communist brothers but their national dislike of the vietnamese made a much more complex issue. i personally think we could have brought a better and earlier end to the war had we mined particularly enforced a mining operation but not increasing the bombing. >> what i find interesting, significant about this exchange, is that the way president nixon combined the use of military strength and diplomacy and diplomacy -- military capability was always the servant of diplomacy and i think he felt that, related to the vietnam situation, he felt that his opening to the chinese would so

demoralize the vietnamese, it would change the dynamic of the paris negotiations about ending the vietnam war. and i think there he had to have been disappointed in the degree to which the vietnamese toughed it out and of course you remember the relation had deteriorated to the point where sau ping tried to teach the vietnamese a lesson, that when ping came to washington on his triumphal conclusion of the normalization process, he told president carter he was going to teach the vietnamese a lesson. they had a border punch-up. the vietnamese did actually give the chinese a bleed nose. they didn't come out very well out of it, but that level of hostility was there and has been there as you said for centuries

and it's still there in the balance in the region today. but, again, for president nixon, the military was always a component with the diplomatic, the political deal being the ultimate objective. >> i'd just like to make one point that has not been made, although you mentioned the president's book. there is a corpus of 10 books that richard nixon has written and it wasn't just six crises after having lost the governorship in california and writing about six major crises of his life. i think i have all of them and i think i have all of them signed by r.n., a great treasure. if you take those 10 books

together and i have not re-read them in recent years, but what i do remember of them, is that you have a complete world view, that is complete, not ideological and closed in thought, but you can also test the evolution of mr. nixon's thinking in reaction to real events. he recognized the opening as we discussed with the article in october 1967, foreign affairs, which was my job to explain, within a few months. people didn't pay any attention to it. >> no, but there was, excuse me for interrupting, some people were paying attention and the. >> the literatey like you were paying attention. >> the chinese were. one of the things ed cox said that richard nixon read history and thought about it deeply.

when he had his first meeting with jo li, he said i've read your six crises and it's not a bad book and to brag slightly, when i joined the national security council staff, i had just finished a 600 page book analyzing chinese politics. the chinese translated that book as they did, of course, mr. nixon's writings, and were getting word. >> it you get your royalties? >> unfortunately, no royalties. the point is that the chinese did really want to understand the thinking of their counterparts. >> there is a critical point -- you're absolutely right about that. another critical point, the american press didn't want to understand richard nixon's positions and i want to relate a

very humorous incident that took place in key biscayne in the fall, the summer-fall of 1968. martin anderson and his wife, also a great scholar, and i, were talking with mr. nixon and i believe alan greenspan was there, too. beebe rabozo was there and r.n. himself and we were discussing the press treatment of r.n.'s discussion of many issues and he said, damn it, the press is not paying attention to what i'm saying on the issues and i've spoken on every darned issue there is and martin and i said, yes, sir, we know. and i had been keeping issues for about two years of richard nixon's statements and i had pat buchanan sending me the speeches

and i was cutting them up and this was before computers and xerox machines. i'd slice it out and put it in cards on a shoe box. there's a story within the story. this is while i was at the hoover institution. we had about 15 or 16 people on the staff and some people who would assemble my stuff and one of the side tasks in doing this for the year book on international communist affairs was to use one of the people to collect the richard nixon statements and i would categorize them so i had a shoe box full of cards and one day i gave it to a young ladder and i said, are you doing this work and she said, yes, i am, sir, and we got it done and i thought, where have i seen her before? on the cover of "time" magazine was the story of an interracial

marriage that had taken place among two stanford students, one of them being dean rusk's daughter. dean rusk's daughter was organizing my nixon issues cards. so i went back the next day and said, excuse me, you're margaret, you are who i think you are, aren't you? and she said, yes, mr. allen, but i need this job and my husband and i need the money i'm making in this job and i would never, ever say anything to my father. i went away almost in tears and didn't say a word, thought, well, fat's in the fire. i later got a chance to tell secretary rusk that story and he was gobsmacked by what happened. fast forward, those cards, mr. nixon at that meeting said, allen and anderson, get your

rear ends on an airplane right now and get up to new york and within four days with the aid of bill casey who came as a volunteer to the campaign, we put together a 168-page book of nixon on the issues, had them printed. i designed them and i had one copy in leather bound entitled "nixon socks it to 'em" and it was carried to the plane by mary fronning of my staff in new york and given to mr. nixon, the one leatherbound copy and he said, that's great, give it to the press and martin anderson handed it out to the press and never again for the rest of the campaign did the question of nixon on the issues ever come up. >> you raise a very good point about mr. nixon and during the buildup to the 1968 election, there was a period of time when he said to the staff, you're not going to see me for the next

nine months, i'm going to be traveling. you go ahead and do what you have to do, but i'm going to south america, to the mideast, to asia and he did that with one person accompanying him and he built up a dossier. >> normally pat buchanan. >> right. on the issues but this opens up other areas, of course, the cold war wasn't just about china and vietnam but it was also about the mideast. and what was going on in the mideast and of course the 1973 war in the mideast and he was prepared to deal with what came up in the yom kippur war, the threat to israel which he then took care of personally. i mean, he made sure resupplies were on the way and he made sure -- the soviets already left egypt but it opened the

relationship between egypt and the united states and the relationship in the military. would someone like to comment on the mideast part of the cold war and when mr. nixon did then? >> one quick vignette and then i'll pass it on but since we're in the navy memorial here, the way that president nixon, it was -- it was hanging in the balance in 1973, as you remember, and for the first time the russian his had given the egyptians and the syrians hand-held heat-seeking missiles and they were devastating the israeli air force and they needed replacements. they needed a-4's and phantoms. not one of our allies in nato would allow landing rights and fighters can't make it across the atlantic and across the mediterranean so within as you

know, richard nixon spent time in world war ii on carriers and was aware of their capabilities and he said why don't you line up aircraft carriers and hop scotch them over. within two days, the air force had carriers strategically placed and they got to israel before they lost their air force. >> golda miier knew those were on the way, they could go on the offensive again with the egyptian armies and there was the other part of it when israel had trapped the egyptian armies in southern sinai, the president said, no, stop. and that led to the relationship between egypt and the united states. is that correct? >> i think that's exactly right and it was, again, a great strategic insight that propelled him to make the decisions that

he made at the time. there was a lot of hesitation internally at that time but he saw the shape of what could come out of it if the players on the chessboard were treated accordingly. it's even more remarkable that right now there's great reason to worry about a reversal of all of that in terms it of an egyptian-israeli relationship and what will come as a result of the mideast today. i wish we had r.n. around so we could get some thinking and guidance on how to handle the middle east because it's sorely needed. >> go back to the cards. >> i guess we're all a little bit in our anecdotage so i can't resist telling. >> "anecdotage?"

>> i can't resist telling the story of the trip i took with dick early in the administration, we went to libya. >> we were the last white house officials to visit libya before the takeover by qaddafi. >> and i sat next to the defense minister, right before qaddafi took over and king edrus was in greece getting medical treatment. and the defense minister said, well, we were very impressed with how your navy pilots flew against the egyptians and i said, they weren't navy pilots, they were israelis. the israelis have phantoms and he said, oh, yes, but we lived with the jews for a thousand years, they can't fly airplanes. this was the defense minister. >> was that when they served me lamb. >> lamb's eye, right. [laughter] >> the point was, another thing

john did for me on that trip was to arrange for me to fly in the back seat of an f-4 with a fuel ordnance strike but shortly thereafter, qaddafi took over and the big issue was my god they're going to raise the price of oil from $5 a barrel. >> that's an interesting observation. you did refer to, with respect to the resupply, that the president himself said, how about lining up aircraft carriers to get them there. there was resistance in the defense department and the state department. they were trying to think what to do, but president nixon because that issues box and because he thought it out in advance, said, we're going to do this, how about doing it this way, let's get done, and the consequences of that stretched out many years.

>> what else would be new in the state department for a white house initiative? >> let me ask since we're coming out with all these inside baseball stories, something about his long enduring concern with maintaining an effective relationship with the chinese, and that relates to his reaction to the shoot-up of the students. he privately made it very clear to president bush that the relationship with china could not be destroyed by the public reaction to the shooting of the student demonstrators and that led to the secret trip that brent scowcroft took in the summer of 1989 to try to sustain the relationship through what was obviously a period where the

domestic basis of political support for the chinese had been seriously eroded, undermined by tiananmen. the other part of it, which i was in the middle of, was in 1990, i was negotiating a settlement to the cambodian conflict and the issue of trying to deal with our p.o.w.-m.i.a. issue as it related to vietnam, and we were having negotiations through the united nations security council first in new york and then in paris, and this was after tiananmen and dealing with the chinese on a direct bilateral basis was still a no-no but we were dealing with them through the u.n. and president nixon knew i was carrying out this negotiation. i was the assistant secretary for east asia at that point. and he invited me to dinner at

his house in saddle river, new jersey, and he grilled me on what our objectives were in negotiating with the chinese, what were we going to do with vietnam, because he was very worried that we were going to somehow go too easy on the vietnamese and somehow compromise our dealings with the chinese, and for whatever it's worth, i think the dinner discussion reassured him and now if you look at the outcome of the cambodia settlement and the road map to normalizing with vietnam, if there was any beneficiary of that negotiation, which did get all of the major powers who had been involved in indochina since the french-colonial period, it was the chinese, because with the french out, the british out, the americans out, china's just over

the border. >> that's interesting. one of the jobs as national security adviser and council staff is to brief former presidents from time to time and i once went up to new york in 1981 and brought a leading soviet specialist, richard pipes, and china specialist, jim lily, and on the way in, mr. nixon said to me, called in a car, and we had big clunky phones and he said are those people with you? and i said, yes, sir. and he said, tell them to go shopping for a while before we have dinner, i want to talk to you. so i sat down with him alone and he said, all right, now, allen, i want you to tell me what's going on inside. i want to know what's going on, all of the details there. well, i had to sort of bunt my way through that afternoon because his long arm and his

mind were still very much in the present of that day. he knew exactly what was going on. he kept the at the tetrodes, ifu will, into various parts of the government. he could talk to dick solomon, to me, to al haig, to anyone he wanted to because people would answer his telephone call and answer his summons and that night we had a dinner in that brownstone in new york city and he displayed all of the mastery that he had had for a long time and never lost, never lost until the very end. >> let me add one other story. you've got my juices flowing, about how important china was to this man. after i served on the national security council staff to the summer of 1976 and then i went

to the rand corporation for what turned out to be a decade. anyway, early 1977, i'm sitting in my office and my secretary, eyes wide open, says, president nixon's on the line. when i worked for henry kissinger, the president never called directly to staff levels like us. but president nixon had just recovered from his phlebitis and of course was in that dark situation after his resignation and he grilled me for over half an hour, what's going on in china? i don't think he wanted to call henry kissinger to find that out. he knew what i was up to and about. and he hung up at the end of this half hour and i said that, son of a gun, he's going to

rehabilitate himself by going to china and sure enough, a few months later, it was announced that the chinese had invited him as their old friend to come back to china and it began, if you like, the political rehabilitation as an international figure of richard nixon. >> that's an extremely important point. i went out to see him at san clemente afterwards and we walked the beach a little bit and he talked of a program, a get-well program. he didn't use those words, but a get-well program, shortly after he had gone out to california. and he had a plan each then, a strategic plan, that he was going to implement, and he was going to travel, and it was an amazing thing to watch a plan that he set out once more, again, he has had plans all his

life, strategic plans that unfolded and the get-well plan was extremely well thought through and masterfully executed. 10 books,, a comprehensive -- my thought is that coming up on r.n.'s centennial for 2013, it might be a very good idea to put together the 10 in a set so that they're in just not disparate volumes but that they're republished and put together in a boxed set. >> they're extraordinary books that reverberate through the day. he was one of the first to write about the muslim countries and the importance for the future. this was long before others focused on this. you could see it growing from book to book to book. i remember in 1974 as we rose in

marine one and went by the washington monument, he was still president until noon, what do you say to the president, and i said, mr. president, 10 years, you'll be back. sure enough, 10 years later, on the cover of "newsweek" magazine, after he made a presentation, that extraordinary ability of him to present what was going on in the world. >> ed, i have snuck up behind you and that's a perfect note to conclude this forum on. we could go on all afternoon. we expect more forums and more talks about the 37th president with these people and others but you see what we get into. thank you for watching. thank you for coming. we have another forum on june 13. thank you. [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> coming up on c-span, all look at how social media can be used as a tool to promote civic engagement.

then a discussion about the social, economic and political forces of dividing and uniting americans did it. at 7:00 a.m. eastern, the news of the day and your reaction on c-span's "washington journal." now, a discussion on how social media can be used as a tool to promote civic engagement. panelists talk about how young people use social media to be more informed and proactive through activism, politics and entrepreneurship. hosted by the ronald reagan presidential foundation, this is an hour and a half. reagan presidential foundation, this is an hour and a half. >> newt gingrich announced he was running for president, not through a press conference, but by issuing statements on facebook and twitter. is this really the predominant way we're sharing news? a true story. two years ago, while lying on a beach in hawaii with my family, my niece gets a text from her

friend and it said o.m.g., michael jason is dead. when we got in the car, i turned on the news and the text was correct. a week and a half ago, i was in the housplaying with the kids and my husband was on facebook. he said that all of his friends were posting on facebook that osama bin laden was dead. we quickly turned on cnn and sure enough, and had my husband not been on facebook, who knows how many hours would have ne by before we heard this story. in both instances, i learned about the news from social media. yes, i confirmed what was going on by turning on the television news, but that wasn't my first point of contact. what does this really mean about the way we engage with one another and shares information. when i was asked to give today's introduction, i immediately got nervous. not because speaking in public

makes me uncomfortable, but because the topic, mixed with the audience, made me intimidated because i would be remiss to think that i know more about social media than you. but through my job as director of communications for the reagan foundation, i have learned the importance and reach of social media, whether facebook, twitter, youtube, in getting out our message and the message of ronald reagan and pulling people together through the power of his words. by using current technology of today, we can insntly send out information which not only keeps ronald reagan current in this news cycle, but reaches out to everyone, introducing his policies to people who may just now be learning about him. following e raid on bin laden's compound, we immediately added a quote on our facebook and twitter pages from ronald reagan's remarks a day

after the united states air strikes against libya in 1986. we posted "terrorism is the preferred method of weak and evil men and in order for teelve evil to succeed, it's only necessary that good men do nothing. we demonstrated that doing nothing is not america's way." that quote was read, retweeted, reposted and commented on by thousands of people, who, without the advent of social media, we wld not have been able to reach, at least not as quickly or as wide spread. social media becomes the opportunity to speak with people from all over the world that might not have had the opportunity to speak with otherwise in an instantaneous approach, to spread your message, share your cause, rally the troops. during president reagan's farewell address to the nation, he reflected back on the things

he had done and said and remarked, i want a nickname, the great communicator, but i never thought it was my style or the words i used that made the difference, it was the content. i wasn't a great communicator but communicated great things. obviously, social media as understood today didn't exist when president reagan was president. his ideas oris content were communicated through television, radio, newspaper, public speeches. we can only guess now how his messages and causes would have been spread differently if facebook and twitter were around. that's why it's our job at the reagan foundation to communicate his ideas through social media to help continue his legacy and share his principles today and into the future. as ronald reagan once said, let us be sure that those who come after us will say of us in our time that in our time we d everything that could be done. thank you.

>> thank you very much, melissa. before we get started today, i wanted to acknowledge a few of our guests. mr. stanley mantooth, ventura county superintendent of schools. thank you for coming. [applause] we also have with us today marty tippens murphy, a member of our national advisory council and does amazing work with the organization, facing history and ourselves. [applause] and also her colleague from facing history and ourselves, ms. mary hendra, thank you for coming. [applause] and we are also delighted to have christian linke, program director at the arslin program whose work focuses on youth civic engagement, responsible for the attendance of mr. kenny

and his students who are tweeting and facebooking and giving commentary through this program today. thank you very much. alsohello to our live audience of students and people watching on the internet. thank you for spending about 90 minutes of your time today listening in on this important conversation. at the end of the last millennium, "time life" magazine selected johan gut berg's printing press as the single most important invention, beating outaccines, telephones, refrigerators, and the personal computer. why? why is it something that helps mass produce books is considered more important than cars which changes the way industry and transportation works? why is it that the printing press is moremportant than vaccine which is saving countless lives across the globe, and y is it more important than the computer?

why? because sir frances bacon once said, knowledge is power. books were the first item in the history of mankind to be mass produced. that would take a scribe countless hours to copy could be copied hundreds and thousands of times at a fast rate. this led to a tremendous rise in literacy rates. no longer did you have to be the son of a nobleman or member of the clergy to obtain a manuscript and read. reading and books and the ideas within the books were suddenly available to large segments of the population. what did this mean? it meant pretty drastic changes in the way the world worked. in religion, the church clergy were no longer the only ones able to read and interpret the bible. this led to the reformation of the catholic church and drastic changes in the way christianity and religion worked. in the united states, printing

enabled men like benjamin franklin to rise to fame and influence. and the ideas that led to the american revolution, the ideas of russo, locke, payne, jefferson, these were spread through the printing press. as history moved forward, mass communication evolved, became quicker and more efficient and reached a larger audience. in the 1930's and 1940's, president roosevelt used a radio to effectively communicate with an entire country during the fireside chats during the depression and world war ii. in the 1960's, john f. kennedy used good looks, charisma and the power of television to ride a wave to the presidency. and ronald reagan, the namesake of this library and museum, used mass communication first to rise to prominence as a radio announcer and mov star and then as president he utilized mass communication to console

the nation after the explosion of the challenger space shuttle, to denounce the evils of communist regimes, bring down the berlin wall and restore america's confidence in itself. now we have the next iteration of mass communication in the form of social media, the quickest, cheapest, most efficient way to share information with a large audience. sites like facebook, youtube, twitter, they've taken the power of guttenberg's printing press and placed it in the hands of anyone who has access to a computer or smart phone. as recently as a decade ago, if i told you you could have a piece of equipment the size of a candy bar, put it in your pocket and you could communicate with anyone, anywhere in the world you would think i was crazy. now it's an everyday reality. as social media evolves, we see the further demockization of mass communication.

you don't have to go through a publisher to share your thoughts and ideas with the world. you can blog, tweet and use youtube to send it in seconds. it's easier than ever before for companies, organizaons, politicians and celebrities to communicate with and inspire followers, encouraging them to buy goods, volunteer services and organize in an effort to better their world. what does that mean for you, the students and educators in our audience today? it means that you have a tremendous amount of power. it means that you have the power to share your ideas, to influence others, to connect with those who share your passions, to engage with those who think differently than y do and effect positive change. president eisenhower once said that there is nothing wrong with america that the faith, love of

freedom, intelligence and love of its citizens cannot cure and social media offers an opportunity for citizens both in america and abroad to make their communities better. today's panel will examine the connections between being civically engagednd the use of social media, with a focus on how young people can leverage their use of social media as tools to promote civic engagement. our panelists come to us from a diverse group of organizations. at the far end of the table, from the harry potter alliance, a group that uses mythology from the harry potter series to inspire good deeds, we have mr. andrew slack. from the national conference on citizenship, which is a congressionally chaered organization, which, among many other things, measures the civic health of the country, we have

christen campbell edirector of new media and programs. from splash life, a movement that works with members to volunteer, donate, exercise citizenship, produce, share content, in exchange for points that can unlock deals from anything from textbooks to jeans to laptops and healthcare, we ha melissa helmbrecht. and from the digital youth network, a group that gives students digital tools to foster engaged, informed and collaborative citizens, we have mr. akili lee. and i'm excited because a couple of our panelists will be tweeting live from stage as the panel is going on. sohough the work they do is quite different, they all seek to promote civic engagement and i'm looking forward to the

conversation we're going to have and you're probably tired of listening to me speak so i'm going to begin with our panelists and open up with a question that some of you who went out to classrooms in the last week or so, we asked you the same question and i don't think it's easy to answer which is why i thought i would put it to them because they're smart people and probably have good ideas. but my first question is, to give you context, what does it mean to be civically engaged and if you could also share a bit and talk about how your organization works to promote civic engagement. i'll start closest to me and we'll move our way down for this one and we'll open it up. feel free to jump in and respond. akili? >> o.k. again, i think this is a terminal definitely has a different meaning to different people and i think that's o.k. and should embrace that to some extent. for me, i would define being civically engaged as being an active member of your community, however you want to define

community, from your school to your block to your city, your country, looking at yourself as a global citizen, but how are you, one, staying aware of what's going on around you and how are you taking an active part in determining what goes on around you so recognizing that everything around you is essentially mallea right? it can all be changed and how can you leverage your skills, media, activism, how can you leverage those skills that you have, whatever's unique to you, to make sure you're contributing to the reality around you. .

printing press to television and now to the internet, it redefines how we approach literacy. how do you communicate can get information? the same comments we heard about osama bin laden, michael jackson, to twitter or facebook, people are internet it -- interacting in different ways. you used to have to rely on the printing press. only a certain number of folks said resources to publish books

and newspapers. right now you can do anything from a blog to your website and web magazine. you can do all that with an access to smartphone or a mputer. from our perspective, we are saying, how can we work with young people to leverage technology, understanding that it is a different landscape. whether it is digital media, we want you to be an informed citizen who can leverage skills to be more active and impact what is going on around you. >> melissa, question. -- same question. >> all of your high school students. i remember when you were in high school -- when i was in high school. what i thought it meant sickly

in gage was to believe what my parents believe. when i was in ninth grade, everybody that my parents wanted to vote for, what they cared about, is what i cared about. i think that part of becoming pacifically engaged -- civically engaged means making up your own mind for what you stand for and what you believe in. high school is the time when you start to explore all kinds o political issues and social causes. you begin to decide what it is you believe and what you want to stand for. i think civic engagement is different at different phases of your life. as high school students, the most important thing is to figure out what you're going to

stand for and what you are going to believe by pticipating in the school the day program, by falling current events, wyclef wanted to run for president of haiti. well was that about? there are all of these issues. to not be a spectator but to research and use the internet to search if you hear something like he wants to run for president of haiti. to get on google lead to figure out why he wants to do that, what it means. and to develop your own independent ideas. >> thank you. i think i would echo of a lot of what the first analysts have said. we were discussing backstage how challenging this question is. civic engagement mean so many different things to some many people. it is a personal experience and a lot of ways.

it makes it hard to talk about it and how you promote it. from my perspective, and my organization, i would say that i think of the more as the process of taking an active role in creating the community want to live in. that cane done in a variety of ways. it is volunteering, it is community service. it is contacting your congressman. it is staying connected to information and current events. it is doing favors for neighbors. it is a diverse set of skills and activities and actions and behavior's that leads someone to be civic clean days. i think it is more of wanting to make a contribution to the greater good than playing an active role in that. i think that is what it means. one of the ways that we do that at the national conference on citizenship is we measure

participation and a lot of the areas i mentioned. but what we really want to do is understand more of the challees in our communities and how people are connecting with each other's and what sort of policies, initiatives can be developed to help people be more active participants. one of the things i think that online engagement does to help inform us is, we are a 65 year- old institution. we were founded in 1946. what it means to be an active citizen in 2011 is not the same thing it meant in 1946. in a lot of ways i think we are charged to define a modern citizenship and what ways are people currently are engaged. that is why it is important to have conversations like this. in a lot of ways, and even in surveys and metrics to not

capture those activities because they are so rapidly expanding and evolving. in the same way that the census used to a you, do you put a bumper sticker on your car or do you put a lawn sign in your yard for a politician or a candidate, now it is important to say, do you put your cost on facebook? do you support a political candidate through online engagement? a lot of the ways that people are interacting with each other are changing because of these tools. it is important that the way we measure that government that can keep up with this. >> thank you. it is an honor to be here again. my name is andrew. i think all three of you just answer that question. i almost want to just skip. but i have one thing to add that is a different approach to the question. who here is 14?

raise your hands. 15? 16? 17? 18? 19? 44? [laughter] i cannot see you if you're watching this on web cast but, hi. one of our members in the harry potter alliance and someone who lived close to me in boston became close friends. her name is faster. she died at the end of august at age 16. she did so much in terms of civic engagement. she had cancer when we met. she died. her death was something that changed me and our friendship. it got me thinking about a lot of things. i am close to her family still. the way she liv is more important to me than the fact

that she died. i bring this up for a reason. here is a shocking statistic, 100% of babies born today are going to die. that is injustice. it is a job. we are all going to die. there is a story i heard about this that is inirational. it ties into the question. i feel like i am rambling. there is a little boy waved in the ocean, flopping around. having fun. thinking about girl waves. all of a sudden, he realized what is going to happen to him. he saw he is going to smash into the shore. he was miserable over this. he was scared and sad and felt like his life was pointless. he starts moping around thinking he is so smart and house tput

all the other ways that are happy. if only they knew we were going to die. then he saw a girl wave that was happy. sheooked and asked him why he was sad. he said you do not understand the truth. we are all moving quickly to the shore. when we do, we're going to smash apart and be nothing. we are going to die. she smiled and looked at him and said, you do not understand. you're not just a wave, you a part of the ocea to me, that is the fundamental reality as to how we want to think about civic engagement verses nothing. do you want to have an attitude that is all about me? if you want to have that, i am cool with that. but if you wanted to be all-out of you, you, you,.

it is not that happy. it does not bring that much happiness. the reality is that we are all uned in some way. some larger way. we are all part of the ocean. we can think about something bigger than ourselves. we can give love. the weapon we have is love. for those of red "harryotter ," it is the most powerful thing. love is something that the more you give, the more you get. it keeps spreading. there is lot of people who need love. there are a lot of people next to you who need that. you need love. ife spread that, that matters a great deal. if we have a sophisticated understanding of people in washington and the people in the u.n. that we pay, they make decisions that end up affecting the people we love and people we

never met we would love. they will affect their level of happiness and suffering. we begin to develop a sophisticated approach. thinking about the people sitting next year, the people in your community who may feel lonely or six. and the people who are in our larger world. systematically, politically. these are all forms of civic engagement. the fundamental truth is that no matter what you feel about politics or whatever, we are part of the notion. we are holding each other here. it mak our lives so much more meaningful and exciting than this sort of self-centered approach to life. that is my philosophical answer. >> thank you very much. i want to pick up that idea of being part of the ocean. to tie that into our next

question, how does social media help foster civil engagement? social media helps us to see how big the ocean is and how big our reach can be. it helps us realize we are not just a wave. we are part of a much larger movement. my question to you is, how does it help foster engagement? if you could share some examples from the work you do. if you feel you have a good response, you can chime in. how the social media help? >> one way is because no longer do people have to wait for an organization to come to them and ask them to vote or to serve or to get their friends involved in something. they can stand up and say this is what is important to me. i want to do that. it is helping to foster a power

shift in terms of becoming less centralized and the coming to a network based strategy and seeing how empowering their supporters to be advocates on their behalf aually decreases them of their workload and gets more people involved in the process. that is important. i think social media provides a low-cost, low barrier of entry, easy way for people to take action where they might not have been able to otherwise before, whether it is volunteering, sharing their opinion, getting other people involved. our report that measures the civic actions and behavior of our country as well as community, it found that in a lot of ways, the internet is benefiting health. people, young people who use the

internet for civic purposes are more likely to be involved off line as well. there have been other studies that -- the macarthur foundation. they found the same thing. people who pursue their interests are more likely to lly and the civic leaga engaged. they are more likely to vote. >> i will throw out a couple of examples. first of all, the harry potte alliance uses parallels from "harry potter" to inspire fans to be heroes. we work for other things besides harry potter. one of those is a group called "nerd fighters." they are nerds who fight.

unlike ordinary people who are made of muscle and bone and flesh and the nerves, nerds are made of the force of boston. it is only the force of boston to beckon fight the world soccer. that is the amount of suck in the world. one of the leaders of this community, john and hank green, they make these amazing youtuber videos. every week. they are brothers, they discarded as a project where they were video blogging to each other. they are really funny and interesting. you can check them out on youtube. just a quick example. they call their following the nerd fighters.

for his birthday there were going to do a big thing. it was going to be a big surprise. they get hundreds of thousands of these every week. they have a strong following. every year to a takeover youtube with people taking over youtube about what is awesome in the world. youtube has partnered with them. it has been amazing. it has increased awareness for all of these organizations. to speak to his birthday, on his birthday last year, johnson, hank, you are 30. i realize you do not like many things. you do not like stuff. i did not know what toet you. but then i remembered you like oxygen. for your 30th birthday, we have planted 20,000 trees in your name. then he showed a 10 minute video of people in iraq, all over the united states, almost every

continent except antarctica. this beautiful music of people planting trees with signs a said happy birthday, fohank. we work with them in the aftermath of the earthquake in haiti. we worked with all of these different people. we reached out to everyone we possibly new including j.k. rowling who sent us seven harry potter bucks. we reached out to the actors in the movies. they donated things and we sd them. you could get a raffle ticket to get those books. or for $70, you can get the guy who played draco sign something. we had all othese famous authors and you to celebrities get on these weathercasts. we were pleading -- tweeting

hhh. we raised over $123,000 from small donations. that sent five cargo planes full of medical supplies. each of them was named after a different harry potter character. we all have the power to create these contagious things. who is on facebook? who is on twittered? anybody on youtube? if you did not raise your hands, i would recommend doing it. you are all the sudden famous in this weird way. time magazine made the person of the year you, meaning all of you. we are the ones recreating our world. we have that chance. you're not in this isolated world with in your school and

community. you get on t internet and put something up, and one can see it. that is the difference between now and the 1990's. that is totally different and exciting. it means we can make things better contagious. sometimes they will not be contagious, sometimes they are. i used to be a comedian. i put up three videos. i could not believe that some many people watch them. we're living in a different age. we'll talk more about that. there is so much good we can do. you guys come up with ideas and work with other people to come up with ideas on how that can work. >> i would echo a lot of what he was saying. we're talking about how social media technology foster civic engagement. it is redefining how we look at community. now we are no longer restrain to making connections with people who go to our school and

church or who might be in some sort of a club. you can find people connected around one particular piece of content. at this point you are not limited by what you can see. if i can go in- online for basketball, politic what average maybe, youre making authentic connections with people than you would have been able to do 20 years ago. it is that connection from person to person, we are social people. what motivates us is not just our own interest but how those interests can relate to helping to connect with somebody else. now that we can develop community in a different way, th is what provides lot more connections that precious and motiva us to be more engaged.

>> i think that your generation has a huge responsibility. there is so many challenges that we face as a nation and as a world. everything from the economy, we all know people who are out of work who cannot find jobs. there is the issue of climate change, global warming, there are wars around the world. there are all of these challenges that we face. some of it is not new. our parents faced challenges. our grandparents his face huge challenges. ronald reagan dealt with the challenge of communism in the world. i do think this is a different time. your generation, you guys are going to be called on to deal with some pretty big challenges. one of the things you have that

your parents did not have, that your parents to grant -- bram paris did not have, is a way to gain political power and to have a voice that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. if my grandparents wanted to get a message to the president of the united states, or to round up 1000 people for a cause, it would take years or it might be impossible. but today, you have direct access to people in power through social media. you can get on the president's facebook page. you can get on the white house page. each of your local elected officials, if you have issues in your own community where there are potholes in your road

or a crime in your neighborhood, you have immediate access to people in power who can do something about it through social media. you can create facebook group and get hundreds of your friends to join. people will pay attention. you have no lack of accs o power for the first time in history. in the entire history of the world, young people have a voice. they have a seat at the table. they have no way of gaining access to people in power and to government agency and to their local official -- officials and to companies that make decisions that impact millions of lives. with that? s and with that power that has never existed, there is also a great responsibility.

i think that social media that was invented by your generation, it is going to change the world. if you leverage it in the right way. >> that was an awesome spider- man reference. anyone seen the first one? uncle ben before he got killed? with great power comes great responsibility. do not make uncle ben die in vain. [laughter] >> i wanted to ask a question. you're asked bridget mentioning challenges. you talkbout how young people have a voice and a seat at the table. one of the things that is sometimes said about this generation is that they're given the label of "slacktivists." that you're not reay engaged

if you click. you're not doing the same thing like malcolm glad well who wrote a piece in the "new yorker" who saidhat people are not the same sort of activist in the 1960's were sting at lunch counters. i wanted to get your thoughts to that charge. >> there are some good points there. balaing the responsibility without access, we need to think around, it is not necessarily the same thing if i like a facebook page. we need to make sure there is a transition from this digital, passive engagement. how does that connects to what she may actually be doing in yourommunity, donations, mobilizing some other folks. if you're going to be engaged around something, you have to be

doing something. liking and shang a page it does maybe have limite impact or commitment but what they are our tools and the tools box. if we have responsibilities to impact change and we have is different landscape, we do not want to discount or a means for one person to share that link with 10 people and those 10 people to share with their friends. then within one hour you have something that is spread out to 10,000 people. it might be a passive level of engagement that engagement, sharing that link, leads to 10% of these people taking up that issue or having a better understanding of what the issue may be. they're able to get more dply involved. we need to appreciate that. the other side of it as well is what i would push back on any other adult who calls this a slacker passive person.

we have the responsibility to work with you guys that we understand how you lerage and use the space. how you might better use facebook, twitter, msaging, the skills that you guys are the have. how does that impact the civil- rights era? there is nothing new under the sun in my mind. we have different tools to have certain types of impact. because there is another generaon, there are adults who have -- should have perspective. we should work with young people to make sure that they are educating adults so we understand the space a little bit better. we need to work together to make sure we're not discounting everything you guys are doing. we need to be careful in understanding which each small thing, we need to understand how

one shift can have a large impact over time. whether it is the schools, parents, or you guys been more clear about it with yourselves, how do we leverage all of these tools to have an impact and be clear on what the impacts to what are, too. thank you care about global warming, it is not really that much. if you do have a clear goal, some sort of impact of these you can look at and say, i influence something. i was a part of this community the cared about this thing, i think that is worth recognizing. i am glad you asked that question. it kind of goes -- somebody

texted a minute ago, i wish my parents could hear this discussion. because our our generation, these were invented by as. there is this inherent misunderstanding that you are just playing around on facebook all day. it is not necessarily about that. even in the case that it is, and people are whacking things on facebook or joining causes that they are not -- people are liking the things on facebook, it is an on ramp to civic engagement. maybe next time, i can ask you for a $5 donation. maybe the time after that, you'll help me champion 18. nobody comes in through social

media saying, i am ready to cure cancer. they say, i am going to take big steps to find ways that i can use my networko make a difference. social media provides the opportunity for that. it is a means to an end. there are some inherent values in actions that occur that are taken for granted. with people who we might not get to talk to on a daily basis. >> i need five hours to talk about this question.

he has a big head, like their dad. that article -- like arrogant. that article was ridiculous. it raises too many questions. people take for granted the power of social media. he did raise some important questions. his summation of the civil- rights movement was oversimplified. beyond that, he is one of the coolest people out there, and i do not know when he decided to become an older man complaining about the kids today. that is what happens in that article. what about egypt? what about tunisia? people are using facebook and twitter to end the dictatorships. what do you think now? he ss, i still think the same think i thought before.

there are valuable questions that he posed in that article, but beyond that, the reason why it is such a silly question, it is like saying, telephones are part of our lives. everybody uses a phone in some way. it permanently changes everything, it is part of your life. evaluating whether or not that is important, it is silly. critiquing this idea of using facebook -- it strikes me as what are we even talking about? it exists. by the way, i take special offense to determine slacktivist.

it is my last name, if you did not catch that. you will run positions of the beginnings of great power. if anyone wants to be an actor or a comedian, do it now. did not say that -- do it right now. do it with a cau. there are ways to do it, talk to me later. e-mail me. i will give you some tips on how to make a video viral. just but kittens in the video, people will watch it. everyone is going to think that is hilarious. make a purity of a movie. you can do these things and create a change that we never could have before. we are at the ronald reagan library. this is someone who has known as

the great communicator. right now, president obama, he would not be president or enough for social media. somebody else would have been president. we are looking at huge things. we are towering figures of history now, all of us. thomas friedman, w i do not always -- he had a great " were he said, the only composition that -- competition that exists now is the ones between u and our imaginations. imagine kittens. you can make a video that it's a million of views. i know the guy made evolution of dance. has anyone seen that video?

this is ridiculous. you can put in a message in those videos. have some fine bread i do not like -- have some fun it. why do we have to make everything so serious? we can have fun and still puts any message of how you can get involved in issues that matter. we are seeing that change in egypt and across the middle east rit now. we are seeing it in our own communities. if you do not think that you have power, that is okay. you can get the world to understand you on facebook and twitter a youtube. these are powerful things. use it.

>> i am not following kittens. >> all rights. we have about five minutes before we get to the audience submitted questions. i want to take about a minute a piece for this question. innovative ways in which organizations are encouraging civic engagement, especially with the age we have today. the ways that your work reaches out to this audience. >> about five weeks ago, i launched a website. th website, as you come in there, there are these opportunities to take action and make a differencand learn about issues that affect young

people. as you learn about those issues, you read the articles, you comment on them, or you share them on facook, you are -- you ear points. we have built this point program around causes. the more points you earn, you start to get deals and discounts and awards on everything that you buy from computers to airline tickets to anything you can imagine. one of the things that we think splashlife ist that if you are going to take the time to invest in the things around you or in your own lives

, you'll earn points. the more you invest in yourself and the world, at the more splashlife invests in new. we have members who have earned the thousands of points already. you earn points the more you do. that is so we are doing. -- that is what we are doing. >> as i mentionedefore, a lot of what the power that these tools do is it does not require nonprofit or corporations or government to empower people. there are a lot of tools to let people do thingshemselves. i was not sure if i was going to

mention this. i just saw that somebody treated -- tweeted me because it was my birthday. i decided to donate my birthday to charity drive i started a cause on facebook, which allows me to tell people, instead of buying me a gift for my birthday, give a donation to this cause. if you want to check it out, bit.ly.kc/bday. you can check out the team that i selected. i knew i was going to get to talk about this today they do a lot of communication and mobilization.

i just think that is a great cause. that ian example of a time when you did not need an organization to ask you to be involved. another -- there are a couple of applicaons. if you have 10 minutes and a cell phone, you can volunteer. i can sit at the airport, which i will be doing later today, and died in volunteer. there are all -- and i kind of volunteered. there are all kinds of awesome ways that people can get involved. if you are cpr-certified, you can download this application. if someone in your immediate vicinity goes into cardiac arrest, it will send you a text message there is a person three

doors down from now that need cpr and you can go over anday that person's life. that is one of the most innovative, a maze of examples i can think of all the way that and a government can -- institution has been able to use these tools. one other example is this -- it is not always about the tools. we think a lot about -- my organization hosted a panel recently. we host a fellow from egypt. one of the comments that came out of that discussion was somebody said, the revolution will it have happened on papyrus if it had to. it was less about the tools and more about the will of the people. i thought that was poignant. make sure we recognize them as tools and not as the be all and

end all. the people of egypt over through mubarak and they used twitter to help do that. i could take five hours to talk about examples of amazing things that people are doing. a another example -- but you guys remember when the ipad came out? there- there were all these conversations about how horrible of the name ipad was. everybody was making jokes about feminine hygiene products and it was uncomfortable and there was this itampon, and everybody was mortified. a friend of mine, sheet used the opportunity to take that name where people were telling these >> jokes. these are all funny jokes, but

did you know that x number of women in africa do not ha access to a feminine hygiene products? while you are joking about ipad, you might consider giving to this organization. who is providing the services to women in africa. that was something that was not about twitter. it was not about the fact that twitter did it. she saw something that was happening and turn that into an authentic opportunity. i think that is so powerful. >> that is so cool. what we are doing in the harry potter alliance, we are using parallels from harry potter. who has seen the movies? who is looking forward to july 15?

we are fighting in the rea world. we are doing a whole campaign. everything from that to child slavery. it turns out that a lot of dark chocolate is made from child slaves in the ivory coast. fair trade chocolate can make that not happen. it can make that evaporate. we have over 15,000 signatures right now. i am about to meet with warner brothers this week to talk to them about how we can work together to make that happen. we are in the middle of doing all these wonderful things. we are building a library in brooklyn, in a charter school. we have donated over 75,000

books across the world. these -- this is all through social media. beyond that, there was this quotation. we do not need magic to change the world, we have all the power inside of us already. we have the power to a imagine better. we are creating a new organization called imagine better. let's fight the sky people and protect the pandora in our world. that kind of stuff. bringing together all this stuff so that we are all working together to imagine better. that is what we are all doing.

that is why we are all doing every time we log onto facebook. we see magic is an amoral force. so is social media. let's try to use this magic for good, defense against the dark arts. that is why we are working to do. everybody can get involved with us at hpa.org. >> how many of you guys are able to access facebook while you are in school? or any social network? that is a pretty surprising number, actually.

how about youtube? a little bit of a mix, which is good. going back to thitool box, that all of these out let's -- out beds are told that you can put into a tool box to help accomplish a goal. one thing that i would throw out there, how are we helping you guys get access and the skills? from our end, all lot of the work that we have been doing, we developed a social learning network wre all the schools that we work with, all the participants, can continue to connect to all of their peers,

mentor and all the work they're doing on line. we will bring all of the interactions and say, we appreciate that and we understand the value in it that. we know the connections, that is a very important thing. how can we design perience is around that? we are desperately trying to make sure that we can look -- we are trying to make sure that we can bring more of that into the classroom or an after-school space, etc. we have a partnership with chicago public library where we are trying to free vix the library experience. if you guys go into any library, be as quiet as possible. it is not really much of a dynamic eerience. it has been the same thing for

however long. we have opened up a 5000 square- foot space for teenagers to engage in digital media inside of the library. it is strictly for teenagers. any kid in the city that has a library card can get access to equipment, laptops, cameras, deo games. they can get access to mentors, a professional artists. you can get connected with a professional video editor. they can help you hold that craft. -- hone that craft. if you identify a cause or you want to express yourself in a certain way, you have that tool box that is being developed over time so that you are getting power to be even more impact will in terms of these

environments. a challenge to all of us working with folks is to lten to you in terms of how you want to communicate. we need to figure out how we can bring that in a little bit more. a lot of examples that you guys have talked about, can we not just point them -- if we are limited by our creativity, you guys can have the greatest idea. i was having a conversation with a group out of the bay area. they are developing an application or they can tap into their own networks. that is something that the kids can think up. we can work would be teenagers to develop those things.

we have that transparency to make these connections, but can we take it a step further? what are the skills that you can develop over time thawill allow you to make the most out of these spaces? >> excellent. thank you very much. one of the cool things about this panel is that even though we have been the ones talking for the most part, you guys have been in on the conversation through social media. we want to use the rest of our cattle. we have about 15 or 20 minutes -- the rest of our panel. we will go back and forth. i will turn to janet, it has been monitoring the online conversation. if anyone has a questio you can line up over here. we have a microphone.

if anyone has a question, we will do that. we will go ahead and ask jenna to submit one of the student's question. >> our first question is, how can we get our technical -- technophobic parents into this conversation? >> one thing that helps out a lot is that parents think that he might be on facebook wasting yo time, you guys also need to help your parents understand what the value of that is. if you are organizing a group to do something, if you have this how do you make

sure you put that out in front of your parents? parents love to see their kids create new things. they are making so many assumptions about what it is that you are happening when you are staring at this phone all day or a laptop all day. beheld you. that gap and create these conversations with parents? >> i think one of the things that is important is the same way that it is important how to get your friends involved, make it psonal. to show them the value of this and why it is important. my parents for to me that they would never join facebook. am a afraid of it, it is too much personal information, and nobody needs to know what i meeting for breakfast. i will never do it. my brother joined the army.

my brother's capt. since my parenta letter and said we started a facebook fayed -- a facebook page for the troupe. if that is the right word. you better believe that my parents both have facebook accounts in about 36 seconds. it was the first time they ever really felt like it provided them a very specific reasons and a very specific value add. in the same way that we talked to our friends about it, we have to talk to your parents about it in the same way a great big you could sit down with me and we could understand together how facebook works and i could show you about a facebook caused and i could tell you how to set up this profile. >> i usually get the opposite

question. when i am talking to young people. how do i keep my parents off my facebook page because it is private and i do not want them to know everything that is going on in my life? making it a personal is probably one of the mt important things. our parents did not grow up with these tools. even more important than getting them involved is helping to educate them so that day at least supports you in your efforts to reduce social media to become cynically engaged. -- civically ingates. it is a whole new world. my mom is also on facebook and it takes time, butnce they are

on, there is just as addictive. >> once people do it, it makes all the difference. in 2003, my mom said, i really want to learn the computer. there are certain people that are meant for the computer and there are certain people who are not. you are just one of those people who are not. now, on her own initiative, she is riding on my facebook walt all the time about how much she loves me. -- writing on my facebook walt all the time abouow much she loves me. he teaches questions -- she teaches a class is on spirituality right now. she knows more about things than i do.

i would encourage you to show your parents se examples that we talked about today. >> excellent. it looks like most of our questions are coming in online. >> the birthday girl's name is misspelled. >> i did not even notice. >> most of our questions are coming in online. i saw a waterfall of questions. let me go back to janet. >> how do i convince my principle to let us use facebook, twitter, etc.? >> challenging. one way that i have seen this done that i thought was really interesting is that it was a school in texas anit was a

high school. a teacher started doing it and she was letting people tweet during her class. students who did not always speak up felt like they could ask questions or they goods -- that way, the thing that was helpful what it laet stude nts check notes that they might have missed when they were studyi. when the teacher was traveling, she could tweet into the class. i am watching you. there are a lot of challenges. one of the things that she was very transparent about, its hard for me to know of my students are actually paying attention. it is so easy to get distracted. maybe something like that where

you could experiment with it a little bit. see if you could create some case studies and make a presentation to yourif you can n where yosay is is how it could benefit are learning and firemen and we could better developed 21st century skills, and this is the code of conduct, or rules of participation that we would all agree to abide by -- then i would hope that a principal would be receptive to hearing this, all well brought through idea like that -- a well thought through idea like that. >> one of the big concerns i have heard from educators is that in using social media and classes, you have issues of

online bullying and safety issues that would have to be grappled with. but that code of conduct is important, showing a principles and your teachers that you are using social media responsibly, that you are using it to further your education, to oanize your student groups on campus, to promote your smart steams -- sports teams, and not negative behavior, i think that is an important step in having social media tools brought into the classroom and for you to be able to text in class. all the thgs that students want to do but are banned in schools, it is the responsible use, i think, that administrators are worried about.

i am sure they see the value of it. but there are school safety concerns and things that trumped everything else. >> the one i was going to say -- a couple of things. your principal is not the first person to have the challenge to be convinced to bring technology for social media it into the classroom. recognize that the principle has to answer to a lot of other folks, and it is not even their decision some time, and the district might dictate what computer network can be accessed. but educators should hear from you guys. their answers make a lot of sense -- what the projectwod look like and make sure that is transparent, start that conversation with them. but educators are impacted by other educators.

there have been a lot of work over the last four or five years on these kinds of models for how to bring technology and social media into the classom space. when we talk about these case studies that are the easiest ways to convince people, you showed them a web page force house someone has already done it, you can put that in front of the principal isn't easy and quick way to make that argument instead of figuring it out on your run. pbs just did a great documentary, and i will try posted to my twitter later, they talked about these issues that came out a couple of months ago. it focuses on how different people are using different media in different ways and how impacts scols. finding a lot of these conversations that already exist, if you ask the teachers in the room, they are already familiar with that.

they are interacting with each other. they' thinking about how they can be better teachers. they recognize at that level the value of it. you can partner with them to bottle that conversation ought to the principles and the people at the district level in your respective areas as well. i'll try to add onto the hashtag at some point and start the conversation. sometimes they think that everything about facebook or twitter is bad paired we need to make sure that we're tackling the issue of how people are using social media and bring it into the classroom. bullying issues are real, but we are getting too afraid of engaging in any conversation because of those issues. we see cyber bullying thrown out there and it stops everyone in

their tracks. but it is also in the hallway and outside the school, bullying issues are already there. the question is now, do we understand social media and take what we know about bullying or what ever is you and bring that end to have some order around how we would engage in some of these tools. >> as organizers, is gd to think about -- do not think about the principle as your enemy. think of them as your friend and think about their different way of looking at it, different interests. you can work together to find similar common ground. you put the face -- out facebook group and say that my school should win the blue ribbon and get a lot of people around it, they will like that. look at all the amazing ways you can do that and use good media for the school and showed young people in our school doing good

things. go to your school board meetings and bring it up in positive ways. the mature young adults and dress appropriately and speak well. that really goes far. >> thank you, and i ink we have maybe time for one more questi. it looks like we have an audience member with a question here. go ahead. >> my name is chris, and happy birthday, a christian. how can social media be used in negative ways and how will people -- young people know the difference? >> that is a really important question. some of the things mentioned about cyber bullying are definitely negative. you have to tweet responsibly. it is certainly not all great

and positive and helpful. there are some real challenges assoated with it, particularly one of the things is that you can put anything as a citizen journalist on the internet and it does not have to be packed checked for correct. it did not have to be respectful or any of that. a lot of times we perpetuate a lot of misinformation and in mesa really hard to distinguish opinion from fact. or to even know if those facts are correct. that is really challenging. it is important for even schools, if we are talking about how can schools encourage this, it is helping people understand how to research, how determine facts, how the top respectfully about current events, how to make sure that everything that they are putting out there is actually correct

and accurate, especially when it comes to political statements. we are seeing so much partisan ships and hateful message is being perpetuated very quickly online by political candidates and by citizens as well. it is important to use to use politifact.com. other websites like that. check twice, san the ones. make sure it did you really bill -- check twice, send once. make sure that you really are correct. >> one of the biggest challenges that young people face in terms of social media and taking stands for things and making public comments is that when you

do, it is searchable by the world. a lot of conversation in the mi and the press and college campuses and job recruiters offices is that the stuff you put on line, do not think that just your friends are seeing it. people are seeing it that you may interview with for a job one day or who may be evaluating your college application and determining whether to admit you as a student. realize that one of the biggest negatives or drawbacks that i have seen is that people post things in a bad mood -- is so instantaneous. you can write anything in a moment. then it is hard to get rid of that. it can have an impact on your life. always realize when you are involved in social media, when you are tweeting and joining

groups, it is public. other people are going to hold you accountable for what you are doing. other than that, i think it is positive, and the positives far outweigh the negative, and that you had the potential like no other generation, like no other people in history, to take these tools and to change the world with them. >> one quick example, just to make that real. when osama bin laden was killed and everything was spread out over twitter, this guy recognized in a lot of articles appeared a lot of people were on facebook and twitter just retweeting a quote attribud to martin luther king. people knew what they were trying to say an what they were trying to cony, and they were trying to influence others to get their ideas about their about this point, but fiber six

hours passes and someone does a google search and realizes about two-thirds of the " is something mlk actually said and someone attacked an extra sentence on to that, intentionally, unintentionally, who knows? people were tetweeting that. you have to think about t quality of the messaging that you put out there. it is such a fast paced piece that you have to figure out to do your research and balance that out with having impact full messaging as well. >> i see there are a couple of more questions. but we are just about of time. after weekend, if you want has the panelists in purpose -- in person, afterwards, we will do that because we want to make sure we get yr questions answered. we're going to wrap up but come back afterwards.

>> 5 more hours. >> i just want to wrap up and share few highlights and things i heard from our panelists and say a few thank yous, some things that stuck with me today. leveraging yr skills when you get into the social media environment, become active and engaged in your community. from melissa, making up your own mind on what you believe in, stepping out and using this time of your life to figure out who you are and what you stand for 3 from landrieu, -- and what you stand for. social media is an on ramp to civic engagement, it is n all of the civic engagement. i like to thank our remarkable

panelist for spending a few hours of their valuable time to be with us here today. thank you so much. [applause] >> i also like to thank melissa, who made the rough opening remarks today. they give for contributing to our discussion today. i would like to thank my colleagues at the annenberg presidential learning center for all the behind-the-scenes stuff they have been doing tay. our tech team set up a new set up for what we're doing. thank you for graphics team for making today goes smoothly. and finally, a big huge thank- you to all of you, to the students, the teachers here in person and are watching with us online, for deciding that this is a discussion important enough to take part in and to contribute. i have enjoyed seeing the things going on in the back panels.

. .

i am a physician. i am a baby boomer. i am 64. you have not really talked about the enormous ship to the lifetime. i have seen over my in the 1950's we were all proceeding on new and different terms. there was not merely the enormous difference between rich and poor there is now. i have always wondered why it is that most people, the working class, white or black, the middle class, are of voting for candidates whose interests, who are promoting policies do not

promote their interests. these people are not affected by the deficit. this economy ran a much better when demand was higher, when the inequality was lower. this has no attraction with the majority of people today. jim, what is the matter with kansas? [laughter] >> that is exactly right. for a lot of these people, the metaphorical kansans, they have seen red and blue administrations come and go, come and go. economic circumstances have have not changed for them. if you see a myriad administrations of varying parties come and go, and economic circumstances do not change the matter which party is in power, pretty soon you figure out it does that make any sense to vote on the basis of economic issues.

that is going to be pretty much the same. you're on the periphery of the economy. you're not in the court. what do you decide to vote on? you vote on those things that could yield some change or that you imagine could change. but it is not economics because you have never seen it change the matter who is in power. that is what is going on in kansas. > >> in the new deal time, we were not liberal or social. the new deal coalition was southern segregationists who believed every word in the bible was true conservative catholics of a former republican progressives of the northeast. let's get that clear. the country is more socially liberal on abortion, gay rights, divorce, you name it. at the economic level, there has

been a shift from new deal liberalism to economic conservatism. it's part of that was the fact that a lot of the social issues have been nationalized in the course of the last half century. no one asked to john f. kennedy or franklin roosevelt what they felt about a marriage. -- gay marriage. or censorship of the movie. those things were contested at the city level. >> the reference to kansas, there is this book written called, "what is the matter with kansas?" he looked at why so many people economic interests. -- vote against their economic interests. jim's answer is a provocative one. what divides us might be less class than it is life style. you could argue that perhaps the

political class's direct these other issues to get people riled up. people will disagree about the right economic prescription. >> i am going to throw a bomb. the title of this session is, "can the united states state united?" i am from illinois, god forbid. we grow up on lincoln . given the divisions, should we stay united. ? >> gregory? mr. social cohesion? should this country stay divided? >> we started this session assuming we all agreed that, absolutely, that seems to be the general point. perhaps you believe otherwise.

>> politics say we should not. >> anybody else? i suppose that your worker, bill, and your workers are that people are opting not to stay united. we have a big group of united states, but if you live in where 99 percent of the people voted the way you did and have the same sensibility, we are succeeding from.com -- some common spaces. >> can we develop the new institutions to make diversity its strength? the old institutions did not -- have lost their hold. that is the political question. >>can you explain what these institutions are? >>the church. people used to belong to

mainline churches. churches worked hard work early. people went to rotary clubs. churches worked hierarchyaly. now people do not see themselves as that. they see themselves as sovereign individuals. >> i am a teacher. i did not hear anything about education. immigrants. some of us did not come here as my mother's native american and my father is black. some of our voices are being left out. in social media there is a way for people to input. the problem is not everybody has broad band. i did not see a discussion of the equity of access to the conversations that are going on other than in the press. how can we change what education, for people working with kids, how can we use social needed to change? >> jim, do you have any ideas?

michael did allude to the fact that we cannot presuppose that we are in a society where everyone has the right of access to the same type of choices when we're talking about gated communities. education is a valuable point. do you have ideas? >> political literacy is very uneven across individuals and communities. of course, you can predict in these poor immigrants and minority communities. i think that it is helpful to think of other institutions apart from just schools as educators. the political parties play a role. so do advocacy groups. there are other institutions out there that can play the role in

elevating the level of political knowledge then just public schools. the literacy enterprise and public schools is politicized. possibly the way to approach the political knowledge is through other means. i like your point about -- i >> think increasingly, not long ago that felt it was a luxury, the bandwidth you had to access the informations superhighway, that is an important measure of how one can participate in civic life. we have a team of people at the think tank thinking about, shouldn't this be a public right? how do we turn thinking about that?

the penetration of broadband is not uniform across the country. remains expensive. >>another question to your right. >>i would like to come back to what our professors are basing on the rationale and reasoning why we have this great divide in the local community where citizens are living. there was a statement made that i would like to challenge. which came first, the chicken or the eight? the statement was that people do not make a decision for where they live having anything to do with politics. in part, that may be true. but it leaves out the entire supreme court decision about one-man, one-vote. since the 1970's, we have seen at the state level, the county level, one man, of vote vote --

one vote. they tend to redistrict where they will get the majority of votes. is it that people have moved into the community because of their culture or the school and then the leadership says, oh my goodness, we would like to win a state office for a local office so we are going to redistricting gerrymander where all of these people with the same view and the same lines, even if that is probably not true, but politically are the same. how can you make the social decision without looking at redistricting and the lack of leadership and what technology has played in their role about gerrymandering. > here is the short story on redistricting. we look at stuff at the county level.

congressional district, over time, have gotten more partisan. it did not become more partisan at the time of redistricting. it became between redistricting is as people began to move or change their view. redistricting has not, overall, has not increased partisanship in congress. >> and jim? >> i have a slightly different take on a question. i will try to answer from some recent survey data. some recent survey data by knowledge networks suggests as many as 30% of movers take into account the partisan competition of the destination when they consider a move. it is not the primary consideration. it is not first on the list.

first on the list has been job and family and friends. notice something about family and friends. many times family and friends are partners. if you make your decision on a destination, and may often be a decision that source you indirectly. that is interesting that even if you do not explicitly take into account the partisan composition of destinations when your plotting a move, you can still wind up supporting yourself by moving closer to family and friends or by selecting a destination based on cultural preferences that as discussed in near burke. church, for example. if you mention church as a criterion, you are not only more likely to be republican but likely to settle near republicans.

>> whether this is a minority or majority, whenever the culture is. not deliberately gerrymander to make sure that the voices of people are so separated and and divided that we have had this situation. >> i think that the kind of sorting that occurs incrementally, as bill discusses in his book, makes a lopsided district much more likely. i think the important obligation of the courts would be to move toward mandating the drawing a politically competitive districts. that may involve moving the redistricting process into non-

partisan commission is the white i what does it. -- the way iowa does it. i would advocate that -- for that. >> there is a very rich and contentious literature to the extent which redistricting is divisiveness. exacerbating political it seems there are strong agreements that. half there is a lot of incumbent protection and cases of minority packing. this is happened in texas. the problem is broader. it is a rich subject we could have the hall of enter iran. -- event around. >> at this point, we will take our last question. we ask that you join us for a light refreshment back over there and then we will continue with the program

. >> applying it to this idea of whites as a disgruntled minority. we liberals are not disgruntled. there are some stake in potato professionals who are. who are disgruntled. >> i do not know about who is a disgruntled and who was not, i just know that they are different. those differences are extending beyond the political boundary. their different about lawn chemicals and about which kind of car they drive, what kind of tv. all of the things that bush and obama used to identify people.

demographics becomes less of an issue. lifestyle becomes a bigger issue. >> this has been a terrific panel. thank you. [applause] [indistinct conversation] >> said harvard law school professor and locklear to thurgood marshall gives a speech about poverty in america today. a keynote address at this e event hosted by the center for social cohesion. it is just over 20 minutes.

>> he is a professor at harvard law school where he teaches courses on contracts, criminal law, and race relations. he served as a law clerk for the united states court of appeals and for thurgood marshall at the supreme court. his most recent books are "nigger" "sex, marriage" and "sell out." mr. kennedy is also a charter trusty of princeton university. he holds degrees from princeton, oxford, and yale law school. please welcome mr. randall kennedy. [applause] >> i am deeply grateful at the

center for inviting me to participate in this symposium. implicit in the title is the idea that social cohesion is good. i suppose that it is under certain conditions. there are things characterized by dictatorial social cohesion. that is not the sort the center which is to foster through research and debate. the cohesion that we seek to foster is democratic that frames society. there are now and have long been a number of fault lines in america that ms. the prospect of attractive social cohesion. i think of religious bias, particularly nowadays prejudiced against muslims. gender bias, mistreatment of women. sexual bias, discriminations

against gays and lesbians. what is the deepest fault line? it is the boundary that separates those with sufficient resources to undergird the enjoyment of a secure, and dignified, hopeful existence from those, the impoverished, who were consigned to insecurity, humiliation, isolation, and other conditions. the resources to which i refer are manifold. they could parents, nutrition, health care, housing, education, and employment. in the background of each of these resources, nursing them in conspicuously but essentially, just like water, is money. that is why the boundary between adequate financing and severe financing -- financial want marks the most mystified

division and american life. those without a decent minimum are much more vulnerable than those with a decent minimum to the terrors of nature, a lot, and communal failure. as the journalist puts it, being poor means a being unprotected. as i use the term, the poor, they are those at or beneath the poverty line. the poverty threshold for an individual under 65 was $11,000. for adults with one child was $17,000 for to adults with three children was $25,600. and so on and so forth. the formula for determining the poverty threshold has detractors.

the formula has not been revised and a half a century. it does not take into account regional differences. it is not take into account cash forms of income for certain expenses. some contend that the poverty line is too low and under inclusive. others maintain that it is too high and over inclusive. i agree with the former but my purpose is not to explore or settle a complicated dispute. my purpose is to a high late atoxic condition that receives too little attention and empathy. the condition of severe deprivation for that purpose the federal poverty line works satisfactorily. my direct concern is not with

inequality. it is with privation. i am not so much alarmed by the state of the socio-economic ceiling but its absence which favors the wealthy. i am alarmed about the state of the socio-economic floor. its sagging, -- sagging inadequacy. how many people are poor? the number is or should be arresting. according to the bureau of the census, in 2009, 14.3% of all persons lived in poverty. that represents 43.5 million people. 10 million more than the entire population of canada. 35% of the population are children. what does that mean to be poor?

party can have many meanings. they are by no means monolithic. most empoverished intermittently. then there are the hardcore poor, the truly disadvantaged, who remain mired beneath the poverty line for long stretches of time. regardless of whether they were short-term and long-term inmates of poverty, the poor face perilous circumstances. among the consolation of things poverty may mean are the following -- been dependent upon it financial institutions such as pay a loan allies that charge high fees to service those unable to afford bank accounts. living in housing with mold, mice, roaches, and nearby toxic dumps exacerbates your child's

asthma. being unable to pay an ambulance or emergency room bill and having once credit downgraded on account of the delinquency. living in neighborhoods that are menaced by criminals, police, who fail to recall that their job is to protect and serve, not harass and intimidate. growing up in homes in which uneducated adults failed to prepare children for school in their most impressionable years. welcoming jail or even prison as a risk bite from the destitution of the street. in the joint one at least receives meals even if these items are delivered behind bars with the accompaniment of handcuffs and the debilitating effects of a criminal record. being unable to flee a flooding

city for lack of transportation impoverishment means living apart from the so-called mainstream american society the sectors of the society to which politicians pay some heed. it means being hit in in plain sight behind an odd curtain of invisibility. it means residing in what has been termed the other america. it means being unable to enter bankruptcy this reminds me of a case decided by the supreme court in 1973. the united states vs. crass. he was an indigent to challenge the constitutionality of a law the condition of his eligibility to apply for bankruptcy on the payment of a 50 delicacy. reversing the holding of a lower

court, a supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the requirement. justice harry blackmun evidence speaker -- criticism about the predicament of the port. "if the $50 fees are paid in installments, the average weekly payment is $1.28. this is the some less than the payments and he makes on his couch of negligible value in storage at less than the price of a movie and little more than the cost of a pack or two cigarettes. if as he alleges a discharge will afford him that new start he desires, and if he really needs and desires that discharge, this revenue should be within his reach."

my old boss had a different, better view. "i cannot agree with the majority that it is so easy for the desperately poor to save each week over the course of six months. the 1970 census found 800,000 families with annual incomes of less than $1,000 a week. i see no reason to require that families sacrifice over 5% of their annual income as a prerequisite to getting a discharge in bankruptcy. it may be easy for some people to think that weekly savings of

less than $2 are no burden. but no one who is had close contact with poor people can fail to understand how close to the margin of survival of many of them are. a pack or two of cigarettes and maybe not a routine purchase but a luggage -- luxury indulged in a rarely. the por almost never go to see a movie which the majority seems to believe is a weekly activity. they have more important things with what little money they have like attempting to provide some conference for a ill child. it is proper for judges to disagree about what the constitution requires. it is disgraceful for interpretation of the constitution to be premised upon unfounded assumptions about how people live.

poverty occupies a a lowly standing among the priorities of the nation's most influential leaders. for a brief moment after hurricane katrina, the higher circles played some attention to the plight of the impoverished. on september 15, 2005, in new orleans, george w. bush recognized, "deep persistent poverty in the gulf region and that we have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action." that attentiveness was evanescent. in a cover story in 2005, jonathan remarks, "it takes a catastrophe like katrina to strip away the old hypocrisy's

and neglect. it takes the united states with a big black guy visible around the world to help the rest of us begin to see again. does this mean a new war on poverty? know. this disaster may offer a chance to start a skirmish or to make washington to think harder about what part of the richest country honor looks like the third world. " one year later he complained that bush had dropped the ball entirely. that congress had failed to perform much better and that the american public seemed disinclined to grapple with poverty seriously. to the extent the porridge to make it onto center stage, they typically do so as targets of

vilification. this were shot and florida enacted an act which required citizens of the sunshine state to pass a drug test in order to be eligible for state welfare payments. absence of personal responsibility has long been seen as the principal cause of impoverishment. proponents of this view include herman spencer in the early part of the 20th-century and george gilder and charles murray and the latter part of the 20 of century. this perspective attributes poverty mainly to the defects of the poor. they're supposed laziness, stupidity, in providence, promiscuity, lack of foresight, lack of discipline, enchant for

exploiting the generosity of others. this moralistic hectoring of the poor, which absolves governing arrangements, is profoundly erroneous. poverty should be seen as a communal problem. to personal failings play a role? of course they do, just like personal failings of the documents. bad decisions to drop out of school, to have unprotected sex, to indulge in addictive drugs, these tight and the blinds of the port. there are multitudes of poor people who conduct themselves with a good discipline who nonetheless find themselves stuck in the cage of impoverishment, unable to earn their way out. one of the many virtues of this class -- is a patrol of how hard

poor people worked only to remain poor through no fault of their own. our leading politicians, including our current president, and tells us incessantly that america is a magical place where anything is possible for those who work hard and play by the rules. left unsaid, but stated implicitly, is the notion of financial distress must be an indication that one fail to work hard enough or play by the rules sufficiently. this belief occupies a salient place on the emotional landscape of america. many poor people embrace it as they lacerate themselves. it is an idea that is deeply misleading. well we think of as personal

failings are typically more than just typical. they usually derived from sources outside of what can be considered a person's self control. for instance, a depressed economy. what is one to say about that 35% of the poor who are children? is their situation their fault? it is not. unless it is one's fault to be born to certain mothers. or fathers. about i've said nothing an important chapter of the poverty story. the chapter that involves race relations. i will conclude with three points about that subject. racial minorities, blacks and latinos, are disproportionate present in the ranks of the impoverished.

in 2009, the poverty rate for white americans was 9%. for asian americans 12% for latino, for black americans 28%. although blacks and latinos are disproportionately represented in the ranks of the poor, they remain minorities among the impoverished. most poor people are white. yet the portrayal of a poverty in popular culture nourishes the misperception that most poor people are people of color. several analyses of photographs in newsmagazine, film footage, and depictions in textbooks revealed that african-americans are pictured in stories about poverty far in excess of their actual representation among the impoverished.

this is a point well made in the book "why americans hate welfare." when the face of poverty is black and brown, they're stigmatized with poverty. poverty is stigmatized with blackness and brown is. the third point. race relations is a major chapter in the party story because racial conflict has contributed to splintering the coalition that helped bring about the major antipoverty reforms of the 20 its entry. many whites who once supported the new deal coalition defected from it in part because of fears that its leaders have given way to much to colored people it consequence has been a political environment that has

become increasingly indifferent to the port. this is a baleful trajectory to which both of the merit -- major parties has contributed. a decent social cohesion requires protecting the most vulnerable among us. from the cruel, miserable and remediable circumstances that grip millions of americans who find themselves mired in the poverty line. united states is often lauded for its positive the exceptional is an. distinctive commitments to tradition such as civilian rule, checks and balances, constitutionalism.com private enterprise, individualism. in its treatment of the poor, the united states can be criticized for - 6 factionalism.

as others have observed, no where is the united states more exceptional than in its policy toward the impoverished. the child poverty rate is higher than that of any other wealthy country. that should not be surprising. anti-poverty policies do less than -- to compensate low-wage workers than any other advanced nations. president george w. bush was correct when he asserted that we have a duty to respond to the predicament of the poor, especially that 35% who are children. sadly, it is a duty that america is failing to honor.

thank you very much for your attention. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> panels looking at the idea of community within the american society. arizona state university president michael gives a brief wrapup of the event. hosted by the center for central and cohesion, this is one hour 20 minutes. >> his current research and focus on how immigration is transforming the u.s., into which immigrants and their children and to great he holds a bachelor's degree from santa clara university and a ph.d. in sociology from harvard. please welcome him. [applause] >> thank you.

thank you for being here for the second panel which is entitled, what are we loyal to? for all the risks among americans, most of us identify with certain places and beliefs and communities. these groupings may not have amicable relations among one another but within these groups, the bonds are often strong. americans find community and political action, religious faith, at this city, neighborhood, but there is the paradox. the notion that we are bound together, that we see each other as one of us, that intel's we see some other group of people as not one of us, as one of them. in many respects, the things that unite us are also the things that divide us. what are the primary entity's calling upon the loyalty of americans and how did these sub

loyalties affect the way that we view our relationship to the nation as a whole? here to help us answer that in other questions is a distinguished group of panelists. i would like to introduce them to you. to my immediate right is jennifer lee, an associate professor of sociology at the university of california at irvine. she is the author of the diversity paradox. she is also the author of civility in the city. she received her bachelor's and ph.d. from columbia university. she has received numerous honors for her scholarship including the american sociological association award for her recent book. she will be a visiting scholar at the foundation in new york city. at the end is margie. she is president and ceo of immigration works usa, a

federation of small business owners working to advance better immigration law. she is a nationally known journalist and author. her articles appeared in just about every major newspaper. she is a regular guest on national television and radio. she is the author of someone else's house, the and finish struggle for integration. she is the -- the new immigrants and what it means to be american. i use a chapter from that in my class is. she is a senior fellow at the manhattan institute and a writer for "newsweek." she was the deputy editor of the new york times. now have the director of a forum on religion and public life. prior to joining the forum he served as the director for the religion program at the pew charitable trust in fair digit philadelphia. he has been a professor for more

than 12 years teaching courses on international nations, religion, and politics. he holds a bachelor's from the university of memphis and a ph.d. in political silence from the university of chicago. join in welcoming my panelists. [applause] we will proceed much like the first panel. we will spend an hour talking among ourselves and then we will invite all of you to weigh in with questions and comments. i would like to kick it off by asking our panelists to respond briefly to the question that headlines our panel. let me restate the question once again. what are the primary entity's calling upon the loyalties of americans and how to the sub loyalties affect the way that we review -- a view our relationship to the nation as a whole?

let's ask jennifer to start us off. >> i think it is terrific we have this opportunity to discuss what is uniting us, what is dividing us. we said earlier is quite thought-provoking. the same things that seem to be dividing us seem to be uniting us. what i wanted to talk about today were three things i thought were important. immigration, the language, race. these things are inextricably tied. for many of you who may or may not know, immigrants account for 23% of the u.s. population. 85% come from latin america. if you think about how that stream as different from europeans, united states is more racial and ethnically diverse than at any point in our history.

it is also more diverse in terms of the class origin. one of the fears that a lot of americans have is, given the diversity, are we becoming a more fragmented society along the lines of language? are we becoming a society with multiple languages or has been noted, are with society of spanish and english? there are a lot of americans who are angry they have to push one to speak english when you make a telephone call. if you look at the figures for the children of immigrants, it is remarkable that there is a pattern of english legalism. the uniform speaking as well. it is sad that the -- many of them are not maintaining their parents' language.

we are becoming an english society at the cost of bilingualism. the other thing i wanted to talk about was identity. i think a lot of people fear we are seeing each other along racial lines, ethnic lines, one of the things we find in our studies of the adult children of immigrants is that people identify as mexican. people identify as chinese, korean, the minis. that does not mean they do not also feel and claim an american identity. we have to be careful about how we think about that when we think about people who are of irish descent, and german descent, italian descent. they are claiming an ethnic identity but it does not mean they do not also claimed an american identity. to be cognizant of that. the other thing i wanted to talk

about was race. we see each other as a racial group. people fear the united states is becoming a minority country fragmented along the lines of race. one of the things that presupposes is that the category of white men will remain fixed and will remain static. as some of the panelists have noted in the earlier panel, groups that were not white at the turn of the 20th-century are now considered white. irish, italian, jews, they were not considered white by anglo- saxons. today no one would argue someone who is of irish descent or someone of polish descent is not white. the boundaries of these racial categories are continuing to change and shift. it is not yet clear how that

will change. what we see as a dividing lines are not as divisive if we look at the children of immigrants. >> what about you? whether the primary things calling our loyalties? >> if you're a baltimore orioles fan ino about multiple allegiances as you look for teams in the national league, given our run in the past few years. the first thing i think to keep in mind on the issue of religion, is how unique united states is. compared to countries that are also part of the advanced industrial world. we have a country in which a 60% of the population tells us religion is very important in their lives. 25% say it is somewhat important.

you're talking about 85% of americans to take religion seriously. yet the country in which nine out of 10 people identify with one religious tradition or another. i would challenge you to look at the statistics on any other country including our neighbors to the north to see if you find anything like that. that is the first point. we are the most religious country within the advanced industrial world. secondly, we are also a diverse country from the standpoint of religion. we are becoming increasingly diverse. immigration is doing so more now with this latest wave of migration. the question is, given that recipe, a high degree of

diversity, why do we not see a conflict we see elsewhere? if you doubt that proposition, go to our web site where we publish a report on religious tensions and restrictions around the world. the united states is not normal in the sense of religious tensions. why was that the case? this would take a longer conversation. we can return to this but i think it has to do with diversity. those things are related. we of remain highly religious while europe has become very secular. at the same time have not had a conflict. the binders faced a problem, how to accommodate the kind of diversity within protestantism that they confronted. for reasons of principle and pragmatism, they settled on the

first amendment of the u.s. constitution. that says there will be no established church at the national level. this was on-european. that was a typical model. it is still present in some highly european countries. the second part of that was a commitment to the free exercise of religion, to the free expression of religion in the public sphere. it seems that they went against what became the counter model to establishment. that is the french revolution where we see it exported elsewhere like turkey or mexico. the mexican revolution was anti- clerical. we avoided both of those models. my sense is that the american theic's have internalized

norms embodied in the free exercise. strong aversion to institutional unity of church and state, on the other hand, very much supportive of religious expression in public life. somehow that combination has meant for religious americans that they became more connected to the country into its legal norms because it allowed us that public space where all religious traditions, including their own, could play themselves out freely and without government putting its finger on the scale. if i could have been one minute for the example to give you some empirical data. we called ourselves the data r us. take a look at our surveys. we do these every year.

they're interesting around presidential election years. you will see that seven out of 10 americans tell us they want a president with strong religious beliefs. even after several cycles of religions hatcher dented -- religious saturated elections, some people say it is not enough. they want even more. then we asked them questions about endorsing candidates from the pulpit. whether they are priests or rabbis, strong aversion to that. the balance of opinion shifts in the other direction. when you break it down, the respondents by those who are most religious and secular, they are right in . it is virtually identical consensus on that score. it is an interesting way to think about this, how religious

diversity and the need to accommodate it in our system of government has resulted in a religious people were deeply committed to the country as a whole and to democratic norms because the way that diversity has been handled. >> how do you see things? >> i'm going to try to pick up some of the things jenifer said. i've been thinking about the years of the past century, the 1940's and 1950's. there's no question that the new diversity has made a harder to have the kind of cohesion we had in those days. i have been looking back cohesion and asking why it seems so easy. african-americans were outside the body politic in those days. there were no immigrants. gregory mention the numbers earlier today. in 1970, 5% of the population was foreign-born. now we're in the top% range.

-- 12% range. very few immigrants came in those days. we got to a low point in our history of foreign populations. that made social cohesion easier. the numbers are pretty startling. we are high point in our history as we were in the ellis island wave of people coming in. in the 1950's, a couple thousand. now we're up to 1.5 million a minute -- immigrants every year. it is true as the fear mongers and say, we're hearing a lot of foreign languages we did not hear in the 1940's and 1950's. particularly spanish. whole industries and marketing are now devoted to marketing in languages and ethnic products,

marketing to cars and tens of millions of dollars that go to marketing to the sectors. spanish tv and radio, there were always german newspapers. there is a kind of presence to eight, and here is where we get to a divide that we have not been talking about. we are not so troubled by. people who live in new york and los angeles take this for granted. if you live in a town in the midwest that did not have any immigrants until 20 years ago and now is 1/3 immigrants, we live somewhere in georgia where there were no immigrants and suddenly because there is a carpet plant or whatever it is now a third immigrants, people's heads are exploding. we think it is backward but it

is happening. even though that is an old- fashioned problem, many of my years before we were worrying about white minority, we are still worried about some kind of threat by the change. by the cultural difference. on the other hand, a different set of numbers have to be laid out on the table. if you look at how well today's immigrants are integrating, they are integrating well. everyone has the concept that my grandmother learning this overnight. and now it is pressed to for spanish. this is not true. if anything, they are integrating faster than they were in the past. there is a great set of numbers in his new study of the literature, if you look at today

compared to back in the ellis island days, how quickly people learned english, back in the day, about half had learned some level of proficient in less. today, two-thirds have learned some level of english. people are learning a faster today than in the past. by any other measure, language, education, the level of your job, poverty line, immigrants do much better than their parents. in many cases they're catching up to the native born. one great set of numbers, if you look at first generation latinos, only 40% of high-school degrees. by the time the second generation has kids, 85% of them have degrees.

immigrants are catching up to the native born. there is the fear out there and then the reality of the numbers that people do not know enough. one of our jobs ought to be getting that information out to the frightened majority. the other piece of it that is complicated, picking up on what has been the description of the panel, often the things that seem to divide us are the things that unite us. this has been true all through the history of u.s. immigration. the ethnic group, the organization, the church, the paris, the voluntary organizations, they become your vehicle into the mainstream. that has been true since the old immigrants in