government recognize these small, weak, but democratic states face a great challenge from criminal organizations. they are too small, their budgets are too little, and they do not have the capacity on their own to fight trans- national criminal organizations. honduras is swamped by drug- traffickers moving it will take the stuff, what ever it is on to the next stage. alone they will suffer. more homicides, more extortion. we have both the intelligence gathering capacity and i'm not

talking prism but we have the capacity to share the movement of these substances through countries, particularly with colombian help to train and support law enforcement elements in the countries to and capture the leader and national groups. the fundamental answer is for citizens with in those countries to stand up and say "we will not accept anymore. that requires neighborhood groups. sufficient trust to be able to report it. trust is missing. how you restore that is a

citizen of the country to the extent we can port. to legalization. this can get his own personal opinion on the matter. i am a diplomat. i am here to represent the mexican government. i would say it is not a matter of being politically viable. i do not think we should get caught up in the debate between legalization or non- legalization. we need to it dressed this. the debate could we the one where society is involved

in the end it has to be very far from motions. got us to the war. they see another emotional approach that is not for sure going to work. we do know in -- we do not know that for sure. based on scientific evidence and what has happened rather than just advocating for legalization or non- legalization. me tell you something else very quickly. if we were to hypothetically regulate legalize drugs, we would still need strong institutions to regulate.

this is about institutional weakness. half orwhat we are the what ever we want them to do. this is his question. >> they avoid this in terms of security. >> weird on the -- we are doing the criminal organization. have to bes articulated. the military airport is just to solving some problems. way. in its own these two measures have to be better coordinated.

>> it is an excellent presentation. >> this concludes our meeting. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> an update on current gross -- congress. they are debating the immigration bill. kerry reid has set the stage for a vote to enhance the new border security and amendment at 5:30 p.m. eastern. a bit -- a vote on final passage is expected sometime this week. you can watch the sometime on c- span2. the house returns for morning hours beaches. agenda this week, several bills related to offshore oil drilling including one drilling along the u.s. and mexico maritime boundaries. live coverage here on c-span. right now, if you go to our facebook page you can join the conversation by answering the question "do you support or oppose the border security amendment and why? the senate plans to vote on that short-lived.

you can weigh in with your c-span. at facebook.com/ toearlier today, jay carney question on edward snowden's relief from snowden. here is a portion now. with regard to your question about the chinese government, we are not buying that this was a technical decision by hong kong immigration official. this is a deliberate choice by the government to release a war and.despite the it has negative impact on u.s./china relations. [inaudible] >> i'm not going to hypothesize the result they have dealt this as a serious setback. if we cannot count on them to honor their legal obligations and there is a problem. it is a moment we are waiting

for them very quickly. have no presidential communications to report to you. we are communicating our counterparts at the appropriate levels. >> are there repercussions for russia? >> i do not want to speculate on outcomes. as you know, we understand edward snowden to be in russia. with russiansing authorities about that. we have a strong law enforcement relationship with the russians. that has resulted in the past with us returning criminals to russia. we are expecting the russians to the options to the united states. >> how frustrating it is it to the president that china let you go and then russia seems to

let you go? >> i would not want to speculate about anything that has not happened. anduld say our frustration disappointment with hong kong and china is reflect it in the statement i just made. >> that was a part of the white house reefing with jay carney. you can see that entire briefing anytime online. >> we have always been focused on the importance of business. 1996 is an example of more recent times when the telecom effect went into effect. in 1997 we were rolling out digital video, broadband telephone services, commercial services, improving the bundle to the market. customers responded very positively. we had high concentrations of s.oject -- product

>> everybody understand that's -- that sport is the sweet spot and media. it is almost the only thing you have to watch live. that has increased its value. everyone is seeing that now whether it is social media site that are partnering with us to do tweeting about sports or two shows parts as we have. other networks, other cable networks bully. i think everybody understands it is quite valuable. what more of what is happening in today's cable industry by this years annual cable show with leaders of the country's two largest largest communications companies. tonight onicators" he c-span. >> first ladies can personify it a choose.

this is a pattern in american women. there are two things. one is that they are real people who actually do things. it is the secondary capacity of being a personifying figure. i think many a first lady lady has become a first lady and realized this is larger than life. that was figured out. she became the speaker. she thought the attachment to the capital city. she did not know this. all this work she put into helping the public identify with this house they called the white house. give a surge of nationalism around the war. >> our focus on first ladies continues every monday night. on why we study

first ladies tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern. >> earlier today, the supreme court decided 7-1 to send fisher versus the university of texas at to the court of appeals for further reveal. -- review. they're looking at affirmative action policies and higher education. justice kennedy wrote that the program must be narrowly clear neutralh to alternatives and it will not produce the educational benefits of diversity. just as ginsburg and justice kagan did not take ways. we will now show you the oral argument which took place last year on october 10. this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> well, i get to say that this is case number 11-345, fisher against the university of texas at austin.

and you get to say -- >> mr. chief justice, general suter trained me too well. mr. chief justice, and members of the court, and may it please the court, the central issue here is whether the university of texas at austin can carry its burden approving that its use of race as an admissions-plus factor in the consequent denial of equal treatment, which is the central mandate of the equal protection clause, to abigail fisher met the two tests of strict scrutiny which are applicable. first -- >> mr. rein, before we get to that, because the court is supposed to raise it on its own the question of standing. the injury -- if the injury is rejection by the university of texas, and the answer is no matter what, this person would not have been accepted, then how is the injury caused by the affirmative action program?

>> well, justice ginsburg, the first injury that was before the court was the use of a system which denied equal treatment. it was a constitutional injury, and part of the damage claim was premised directly on the constitutional issue. >> how do you get past texas v. lesage with that injury, which says that mere use of race is not cognizable injury sufficient for standing? >> lesage was litigated on its merits, and the question was whether lesage could carry his case when -- on summary judgment when it was apparent that his complaint, which was that he was denied access to the graduate program at the university of texas, was not sustainable. as i said -- and there are several factors in this case that are quite different. first, there is a constitutional injury as such, and the court has recognized it. second, the fact premise, she could not have been allowed in

under any circumstance, was never tested below, wasn't raised below. it comes up in a footnote in >> can i go to another side? she's graduated. >> correct. >> she disclaimed the desire after her application to go to the school at all. she was permitted to apply for the summer program and get in automatically, and she didn't, correct? >> no, that's not correct, your honor. she -- she was not automatically admitted. she was considered for the summer program and rejected. you are talking about the cap program, where she could have attended a different university in the texas system, and had she been able to achieve -- >> but she's graduated. >> she has graduated. >> injunctive relief, she's not going to get. so what measure of damages will she get or will she be entitled to? >> well, that issue, of course, is bifurcated, and we've reserved the ability to >> but you have to claim an injury, so what's the injury >> well -- >> that you're claiming that would sustain a claim of damages?

>> the denial of her right to equal treatment is a constitutional injury in and of itself, and we had claimed certain damages on that. we -- we started the case before it was clear whether she would or wouldn't be admitted. >> you still haven't answered how lesage gets away from that >> well, if there's >> but if there's a -- give me another. >> well, i think -- >> damages question. >> on the -- if we then, on remand, were to assert damages contingent upon the fact that she should have been admitted to ut and was not admitted, we would then have to prove that but for the use of race she would be admitted. that's the thrust of lesage. whether we can prove it or can't prove it is something you can't tell on this record. it's merely asserted. and i would point out that texas said below, there was no way to determine that issue without >> what damages? >> we've had cases involving alleged discrimination in state state contracting, and we haven't required the person who was discriminated against because of race to prove that he would have gotten the contract otherwise, have we?

>> no, sir. >> it's -- it's been enough that there was a denial of equal protection. >> that is our correct, and that is our first premise. and i would say that the same issue was raised in bakke. and in bakke, the contention was he couldn't have gotten into the medical school; therefore, he has no case. the court said, in footnote 14 to justice powell's opinion, that's a matter of merits; it is not a matter of standing. i think in parents involved, the same type of contention was made with respect to the louisville class plaintiffs whose son had been admitted to the school of his choice, and the court said damages are enough to sustain standing. there is a live damages claim here, and i don't think there is

a question of standing. >> her claim is not necessarily that she would have been -- would have been admitted, but that she was denied a fair chance in the admission lottery. just as when a person is denied participation in the contracting lottery, he has suffered an injury. >> yes, justice scalia, i agree with that. >> if you are going to the merits, i want to know whether you want us to -- or are asking us to overrule grutter. grutter said it would be good law for at least 25 years, and i know that time flies, but i think only nine of those years have passed. and so, are you? and, if so, why overrule a case into which so much thought and effort went and so many people across the country have depended on? >> justice breyer, we have said very carefully we were not in using race to establish a diverse class. what -- the problem that we've encountered throughout the case is there are varying understandings, not of the legitimacy of the interest, but

how you get there; is it necessary to use race to achieve that interest; what does a critical mass >> so your question is whether your point is, does your case satisfy grutter? is that what you're arguing? >> we litigated it on that basis, yes. >> well, how do you want to argue it right now in the next ten minutes? i'm interested because i have a very short time to get my question out, and i need to know how you are going to argue it. >> well, justice breyer, our argument is we can satisfy grutter if it's properly read. what we've seen -- >> may i ask you on that specifically, let's take away the 10 percent solution. suppose the only plan were the one that is before the court now, no 10 percent. this is the exclusive way that the university is attempting to increase minority enrollment.

then, if we had no 10 percent solution, under grutter would this plan be acceptable? >> well, i think that there would be flaws under grutter even if you assumed away something that can't be assumed away because it is a matter of texas law, that is, there is a top 10 percent program, and that >> well, then the question is can you have both? but it seems to me that this program is certainly no more aggressive than the one in grutter -- it's more -- in fact, more modest. >> well, i don't agree with that, and let me explain why. in order to satisfy grutter, you first have to say that you are not just using race gratuitously, but it is in the interest of producing a critical mass of otherwise underrepresented students. and so to be within grutter framework, the first question is, absent the use of race, would we be generating a critical mass? to answer that question, you start -- you've got to examine in context the so-called soft factors that are in grutter. you know, are -- is there an isolation on campus? do members of minority feel that they cannot speak out?

studies that this university did said that minority students overwhelmingly, even with the numbers they have now, are feeling isolated. so what do -- why isn't that even under your test? we can go back to whether substantial evidence is adequate, is necessary, or not. why does their test fail? >> well, the survey was -- a random survey. it's not reported in any systematic way. they evidently interviewed students. and it was all about classroom isolation. it wasn't about >> was it done before or after they announced the decision to reinstitute racial quotas? >> it was done after president faulkner had made the declaration they were going to do it. it was done before. >> which came almost immediately after our decision on grutter.

>> on the -- i believe, on the same day. >> and by the way, do you think that grutter -- this goes to justice breyer's question -- do you think that grutter held that there is no more affirmative action in higher education after 2028? >> no, i don't. >> was that the holding of grutter? >> i agree it might, but i want to get to the question, see what i'm trying to pinpoint, because we have such a limited time. and to me, the one thing i want to pinpoint, since you're arguing on that this satisfies grutter if properly understood, as you say that. in looking up, we have a two- court rule. and two courts have found, it seems to me. that here there is a certain -- there is no quota. it is individualized. it is time limited. it was adopted after the consideration of race-neutral means. each applicant receives individual consideration, and race did not become the predominant factor. so i take those as a given.

and then i want to know what precisely it is that grutter required in your opinion that makes this different from grutter, in that it was not satisfied here? the ones i listed two courts say are the same. so maybe there's some others. >> i am not sure we agree with those courts. >> we have a rule that two courts say it, we are reluctant to overturn it. that is why i mention it. >> considering the case of alternatives, it worked as well >> there are facts and there are back. if i might try to answer your question, there was no effort to try to establish even a working target for critical mass. they simply ignored it. they never ask the question, absent the use of race can we generate critical mass? so -- i mean, that's a flaw we think is in grutter.

we think it's necessary for this court to restate that principle. now, whether that -- >> that -- that's a normal fact that we accede to two-court holdings on: whether there is or is not a critical mass? >> no. i -- >> it's a weird kind of a fact. >> and i'm -- i'm not saying -- >> it's an estimation, isn't it? a judgment? >> justice scalia, that is correct. and in addition, the courts didn't find whether a critical mass -- >> so could you tell me what a critical mass was? i'm looking at the number of blacks in the university of texas system. pre-grutter, when the state was indisputably still segregating, it was 4 percent. today, under the post-grutter system, it's 6 percent. the 2 percent increase is enough for you, even though the state population is at 12 percent? somehow, they've reached a critical mass with just the 2 percent increase?

>> well, we don't believe that demographics are the key to underrepresentation of critical mass. >> no -- putting aside -- i don't -- i'm not going to quarrel with you that if demographics alone were being used, i would be somewhat concerned. but you can't seriously suggest that demographics aren't a factor to be looked at in combination with how isolated or not isolated your student body is actually reporting itself to feel? >> well, i think if you start to split out subgroups of minorities, you mistake i think what i think is the proper thrust of grutter, or at least ought to be. >> it might be -- it might be insulting to some to be thrown into a pot. >> why -- why don't you seriously suggest that? why don't you seriously suggest that demographic -- that the demographic makeup of the state has nothing to do with whether somebody feels isolated, that if you're in a state that is only 1 percent black that doesn't mean that you're not isolated so long

as there's 1 percent in the class? >> certainly -- racial balance >> i wish you would take that position, because it seems to me right. >> justice scalia, racial balancing is not a permissible interest, and we are constantly this court has constantly held not a permissible interest. and that is something we certainly agree with. trying to respond to justice sotomayor and in the framework of grutter, what you're looking at is, do you -- does this person, member of a so-called underrepresented minority -- it's a concept we don't necessarily accept, but it's texas's concept -- are they isolated? are they unable to speak out? and i think we've always said if you have a very large number, as texas did in 2004 when they ostensibly made the decision to reinstitute race, they had a 21 percent admission percentage of what they called the

underrepresented minorities. they also had about an 18 percent admission ratio of asian-americans. so on campus, you're talking about -- about 40 percent of the class being minorities. >> but the test is -- the test is, in your opinion -- i have to write this in the opinion, you say -- the proper test of critical mass is is the minority isolated, unable to speak out. that's the test. and it wasn't in grutter or was in grutter? and in your opinion, it was in grutter. >> yes. it said expressly in grutter. >> isolated. all right. and the reason it was satisfied there and not here is? >> in grutter, the court assumed that the very small number of admissions, minority admissions, looked at as the whole -- and it was looked at as a whole, only as a whole in grutter -- would have yielded about 3 or 4 percent minority admission in a class of 350, which means about 12 to 15 students -- >> so what are you telling us is the standard of critical mass? at what point does a district court or a university know that

it doesn't have to do any more to equalize the desegregation that has happened in that particular state over decades, that it's now going to be stuck at a fixed number and it has to change its rules. what's that fixed number? >> we -- it's not our burden to establish the number. it was the burden of the university of texas to determine whether -- >> well, they told -- they told the district court. they took a study of students. they analyzed the composition of their classes, and they determined in their educational judgment that greater diversity, just as we said in grutter, is a goal of their educational program, and one that includes diversifying classes. so what more proof do you require? >> well, if you are allowed to state all the grounds that need to be proved, you will always prove them, in all fairness, justice sotomayor. the question is, they have -- >> well, but given it was in the evidence, what more do you think

they needed? i think i hear all you saying in your brief is the number's fixed now, they got enough, no more is necessary. >> what we're saying in the brief was they were generating in fact a very substantial number of minority presence on campus. >> that's enough now. >> and -- >> that's what you're saying. >> no. and that immediately thrust upon them the responsibility, if they wanted to -- you know, essentially move away from equal treatment, they had to establish we have a purpose, we are trying to generate a critical mass of minorities that otherwise could not be achieved. >> tell me -- tell me what about their use of race did not fit the narrow tailoring, not the necessity prong as you've defined it, but the narrow tailoring that grutter required? how is race used by them in a way that violated the terms of grutter? >> and for this purpose >> assuming that the need is there.

i know you're challenging the need. >> put -- put aside whether this was necessary and whether it was an appropriate last resort in a quest for diversity and critical mass, because grutter's not without limits. but i'll put that aside and let me come directly to your question. first of all, if you think about narrow tailoring, you can't tailor to the unknown. if you have no range of evaluation, if you have no understanding of what critical mass means, you can't tailor to it. >> so you have to set a quota for critical mass? >> no. there's a huge difference, and it's an important one that is not well put out by the university of texas. having a range, a view as to what would be an appropriate level of comfort, critical mass, as defined in grutter, allows you to evaluate where you are -- >> so we won't call it a quota; we'll call it a goal, something grutter said you shouldn't have. >> well, justice sotomayor, i think it's very important to distinguish between the operative use of that range, in other words, that's where we

are, and we're going to use race until we get there every year in consideration of each application, which was a problem. >> boy, it sounds awfully like a quota to me that grutter said you should not be doing, that you shouldn't be setting goals, that you shouldn't be setting quotas; you should be setting an individualized assessment of the applicants. tell me how this system doesn't do that. >> this system doesn't -- i mean, it's not narrowly tailored because it doesn't fit. there are certain forms of grutter that it follows. it -- >> mr. rein, do you understand what the university of texas thinks is the definition of a critical mass? because i don't. >> well, it simply reiterated the language of grutter. they have no definition. they can't fit >> mr. rein, it seems to me that in your talking about critical mass, you are relying entirely on the 10 percent is enough. they don't -- they got minorities through the 10 percent, so they don't need any more. and i tried to get you rigidly to focus on -- forget the 10 percent plan.

this is the entire plan. >> well, let me tell you that if you look outside the top 10, at the so-called ai/pai admits only forget the top 10 for a minute, they were generating approximately 15 percent minority admissions outside the top 10, which is in -- above what the target was in grutter. so this is not grutter on its facts. it's vastly different. this is a -- >> because of the 10 percent. >> no. i am talking about only the non- top 10% of admissions. 15% of those were so-called underrepresented minorities. this is without the top-10. the top-10 is also a major generator of admissions. >> this was before the adoption of the plan. >> that was correct. >> now i am confused. i thought the figure was a ride that with the 10% plan. >> no. with that 10% plan, it is much higher. in 2004, it was much higher with

asians, it was over 30%. i am isolating to non- top 10 in admissions. the average close to that over time. the minority presence is a combination of two, in fact, but the system, which was adopted, as texas says, the first thing they tried, to accommodate to their loss of the ability to use race that came up directly. that was their first response. to the to a more balanced admissions program between academic and personal achievement index. >> could you comment on this, then i hope we could get back to

the question from justice scalia. you argue that a race conscious ignition plan is not necessary because it did so few people. so few minorities. i had trouble with that. what is the problem --? let's assume it resulted in the admission of many minorities. then you come back and say this shows we or wrongly excluded. >> assuming consistency, are you saying you should not impose this hurt or this injury generally for so little benefit. is that the point. yes, that is part of it. the second is the question of reasonably available alternatives. if we take texas at their word, and they say that they are satisfied with the way they apply race, we tried to measure what difference it is making, and could you achieve the same thing with a reasonable alternative.

that was a question as in grutter. >> the race-neutral alternative is the 10% plan? >> it includes an extension of the 10% plan. it was a major generator of minority admissions. >> is it really race-neutral. the only reason they can stick to the 10% plan was to increase minority enrollment. the only way it works is if he were to have some -- heavily separated tools. worse than that, i mean if you want to go to the university of texas under the 10% plan, you go to the low performing schools. you do not take challenging

courses because that is how you will get in to the 10%. maybe the university is concerned that that is an inadequate way to deal with it. >> justice ginsburg, a lot of that is speculative. there is nothing in the record to support that. they have never surveyed the pac-10. >> 10% plan is not been posed by the university. it is not their option. it is not them saying this is not good for education. it is imposed by state law. anybody that is in the top 10% of any school in the state gets into the university of texas. >> in the fifth circuit said you cannot disregard the consequence because it is a law. that is not the only alternative. one simple alternative is looking at the yield.

what percentage of the amended minorities are they encouraging? >> this underlines my thing here, and i did look up the figure. before the 10% plan, and the african-american side it averaged 5% a year pretty steadily. after 10%, it went down a little bit, not a lot, but down to 3.5%, maybe 4% maybe, that they introduced grutter and it is back to 5%. is that a lot? is that a little? there are several admissions officers, several thousand universities, what are we going to say that was not shown in grutter that will not take hundreds or thousands of these people and have federal judges dictating the policy of the mission for these universities? i am looking for certainty. i saw what happened.

we saw the numbers. >> i will answer your question. >> you could answer it later, if you want, or not answer it at all. [laughter] >> i am perfectly happy to answer your question. i think the increase you are looking at was pre-grutter, generated before 2004. they do not depend on ways to do it. that is why we say there is an alternative, which would serve increasing yield, or reading the pai, a critical element, putting more emphasis on the social and economic factors. >> now, will tell the university is how to run and way qualifications. >> it is not the job of the

court to tell them how to do it. it is their job to examine the alternatives available to them. >> but you defend held the use of race overwhelmed those other factors. >> the question is not whether it overwhelms. they admit there are admissions that would not have taken place before. somebody else would have had that place but for the use of race. to answer the question fully, you have to analyze race-neutral alternatives, and if you look at parents involved, that was the critical question. >> perhaps you could summarize by telling us from your point of view, this plan still scrutiny because the objective is inappropriate or ill-defined, or because the implementation is defective. which, or both of those are you

arguing? >> we have argued both. >> in what respect does the plan fail the strict scrutiny under both of those categories? >> under the first category, was it a necessary means of pursuing a compelling interest, we do not believe they have shown any necessity for doing what they're doing. race should have been a last resort. it was a first resort. they failed in every respect. if you go to narrow tailoring, what we say is if they did not consider alternatives, and their treatment of asian-americans and hispanics makes an incomprehensible distinction. they say we do not worry about asians.

there are a lot of asians. is a demographic measure. if you are trying to find individual comfort levels, breaking it down between african-americans and hispanics >> you are the ones in your brief who has assumed that their value in different races differently, but asian numbers have gone up, under however they have structured this pai, and as i understand their position, race is balanced against other issues like social economics, the strength of class's people took. it is not a stand-alone. even a white student, i presume, who goes to entirely black or latino school and becomes class president would get points because he has or she has proven that they foster or canned dealing in a diverse environment.

that is how i understood their plan. it is not because of race. it is combining that with other factors. >> there is a plus because of race. there are many other factors. the white student president of the class in an ethnically different school is a measure of leadership. leadership is an independent factor. he is not getting that point because of his race. he is getting that point because of his leadership. that is race-neutral criteria that could work for anybody. race is an independent and-on -- add-on. they say they could contextualized. it is not narrowly tailored and it gives mistreatment to asian americans because they are minorities as well. if it depends on the question factor, there is no way to fit with they are doing to the

solution of the problem, which may use as a major foundation of their proposal, which is the non-diverse class compared. there's no correspondence there. i see my time is up. >> we will afford you rebuttal time. mr. garre. >> thank you. for two reasons, it is held under this court. it is indistinguishable from individualized considerations of africans in their totality of tell been grutter. >> i've put that in the narrow tailoring category. it is not the necessity kong and prong and the most of his arguments have been centered on that. >> that was the second point.

the holistic process is a necessary counterpart to the top 10% loss, and were systematically to offset the systematic drawbacks of that law in the cheating and interest that is indisputable in assembling a broadly diverse student body. >> i need to figure out what these numbers mean. should someone who is one quarter hispanic check the hispanic barks or some other box? >> your honor, there is a multi- racial blocs. >> i suppose one person who is 1-quarter hispanic's determination would be that he is one-quarter hispanic and would check that box. >> they would make that

determination themselves. if anyone violated honor codes, >> would it violate if they were one-eighth hispanic? >> i do not think it would appear that i don't think that makes a difference in grutter. >> you do not check in any way? >> we do not, and no other college does. >> how do you know you have a 15% minority? >> the same with the determination is made in any other situation. >> what is that way? >> do they have to sell identified? -- self-identified? >> they do not. >> how do you know they're not just a critical mass class-by- class? how do they figure out if a particular class does not have enough? >> the university has never

asserted a compelling interest in any single question. it simply looks the question of diversity as one dimension. >> i do not know what you're talking about. it is either a factor that is barely used, or it is not do they look to individual classroom diversity or not, and if so how do they decide? >> this court, in grutter, said when given -- given fact, could not overrule. >> how did the to the question back to their require everybody to check a box? do they have somebody figured out this person looks 1-32nd hispanic and that looks enough?

>> they did a study that into account the same considerations in in a moment. >> what kind of a study. >> it is in the supplemental joint appendix. >> it does not explain how they go out classroom-by-classroom. >> there are student lists in each classroom. >> student lists that have raised identified? >> no, your honor. every university knows what student is taking the classes. if you want to gauge better city, go back to -- >> what they checked on the form. >> your honor -- >> that is a yes or no question. you go back to what they said on the form?

>> that is information available to the university if they check it on the application. i want to be clear on this study. it is only one of many information points. >> on class from diversity, how does the non-10% for their diversity? maya understanding is the university has over -- my understanding is the university has over 5000 class's that classified as small, and the total number of african- americans and hispanics it that it was just a little over 200. how can that possibly do more than a tiny amount to increase

class and diversity? >> first, that two hundred number is erroneous. there have been many more minority candidates. >> per class? >> not on a per-quest basis. with the university found was shocking isolation. >> how many non--top -- non-, 10% at issue are limited in each class? >> we did not look at that issue, but in trying to find holistic -- we did the study before the planet and she was adopted. at that time, there was nobody to admit -- no way to it that you're taking race into account. it to the african-american, 90% >> i do not believe i understand your question. you know the total number of african-americans in the engineering class. >> yes, your honor.

>> and the total number admitted under the top 10% class? >> yes. >> subtract eight from b, and you will get c. >> let me explain why the university did not look at that. the time it was conducted, it was before the holistic issue was adopted. in 2003-2004, the determination would not have been as important in just finding out african- americans or hispanics are under-represented minorities present at the university. >> what is the number? what is the critical mass of african-americans and hispanics to the university did you are working to? >> your honor, we do not have one. >> how will we supposed to tell if the plan is nearly tailored to that road? >> looking at the criteria in

grutter, which rejected that you could come up with a fixed percentage. >> this is very from group-to- group, from state-to-state tax is contextual. it could very -- state-to-state? >> is contexture will. it could very. -- is contexture will. it could very. >> is the critical mass dependent on the breakdown of the population of texas? >> no. not at all. it is looking to the educational benefits of diversity on campus. i think we agree on what that means. >> mr. garre, could you explain the critical question, why did the 10% solution not suffice? why was that not enough? >> let me make a couple points, your honor.

if you just looked at the numbers -- we do not but the numbers -- but after seven years, relations have remained stagnant or worse. since 2002, african-american enrollment has dropped to 3%. under the top 10% plan, taking the top 10% of a racially identified high school like a dead person there looks ok and paper, but it does not guarantee diversity that produces educational benefits. >> why does it not? >> because, your honor, as is true for any group, the harvard plan approved in bakke

specifically said you want different viewpoints from individuals within the same racial group just as you would from outside of that. >> what kind of the points that political viewpoints? >> any kind of experience that they grow up with. >> this has nothing to do with racial diversity. you're talking about something else. >> your honor, it impacts the educational benefits of diversity in this sense. the minority candidate that is shown that he or she has

succeeded in an integrated environment, has shown leadership and community service is precisely the kind of candidate that will come on campus, help to break down racial barriers, or cross racial lines. >> all that is likely to included in the 10% will. incidently, when was the blood that? >> 1998, your honor -- when was the rule adopted it? >> 1998, your honor. if you look at the break down, i do not think it is disputed in this case to this point that although the percentage plan helps with minority admissions, by and large the minorities that are in the did tend to come from segregated, racially identified schools. >> i thought the purpose of affirmative action was to help students from underprivileged backgrounds, and you make a different argument that i do not think i ever seen before. the top 10% plan applies to hispanics, and african- americans, but you say it is faulty because it does not admit enough hispanics and african- americans that come from privileged backgrounds, and you

have the example of the child that is the successful -- of successful parent in dallas. let's say the parents have an income that puts them in the top 1% of earners in the country, and they both have graduate degrees, they deserve a leg up against an asian or white applicant whose parents are absolutely average in terms of education and income? >> no, your honor. the example comes almost word- for-word from the harvard plan that this court approved in grutter. >> how does that question's answered the bell? >> our point is that we want minorities from different backgrounds. we go out of our way to recruit from disadvantaged backgrounds. >> you are saying is what counts is race above all? that is a necessary response to justice alito's question. >> what we want is different experiences. >> underprivileged of a certain race, and privilege of a certain race. that is race.

>> no, your honor, that is not race. it is just the opposite. in the grutter decision -- >> the reason you are reaching for the privilege is that so members of the race who are privileged can be represented. >> it is members of the same racial group bringing different experiences. if you took any racial group and an an admission group -- had an in mission group the only admitted people from a particular -- admission group that only admitted people from it particular background, you would want people from a different perspective. >> i understand my jab under our precedents to determine whether your -- job under our precedents is to determine whether your use of race is narrowed to a critical mass, but you not tell me what the critical mass is.

>> what the president says is a critical mass is an environment in which -- >> when will we know they do have reached a critical best bet critical mass? what is the end point? >> this question implicates grutter itself, and i understood not challenging that diversity. what we looked into is feedback directly from students racial isolation they experience. >> you conduct a survey and asked students if they feel racially isolated and that is the basis? >> no no, that is one of the things we love that.

>> what are the others? >> we look of the enrollment data that showed african- american the moment at the university of the texas-based 23% in 2002. >> -- at the university of texas dropped to 3% in 2002. >> at what level with satisfy critical mass? how my supposed to decide whether you have an environment where particular minorities do not feel isolated? >> part of this is a judgment that educators are going to make. >> when you tell me, that is good enough. >> not at all, your honor. the invalid data, the feedback from the students, taking -- enrollment data, the feedback from students -- >> would 3% be enough in new mexico where the african-

american population is around 2%? >> i do not think it would. it is not tied to demographics. it is understood that we are not pursuing demographics. many he's -- key facts have been undisputed. >> mr. garre, i think the issue my colleagues are asking is at what point and when do we stop deferring to the university's judgment that race is still necessary. that is the bottom line of this case. you are saying, and i think rightly, that you can not set a quota, because that is what our cases said you could not do. if we are not going to set a quota, what do you think is the standard that we applied to make the judgment?

>> the standard you would apply is the one set for begin grutter, -- said forward in grutter, looking to if there was an environment where they do not feel like spokespersons for their race, cross-understanding is promoted, and the benefits of diversity are realized the reason the university of texas realized.

>> before your time runs out. the other point i like you to answer is the argument based on parents involved that the game is just too small. you have the 10%, you don't need more. so how do you answer the argument? >> consideration of race has increased racial diversity at hispanics. secondly i point to the fact that african-american, hispanic admissions did increase. african-american admissions doubled from the period of 2002 and 2004. this had a real important impact at the university of texas. >> in terms of diversity, how do

you justify all asian-americans? you have a critical mass. filipino americans. do you have a critical mass to all the subgroups that fall within in group of asian-americans? >> we have a critical mass of underrepresented of minorities. >> suppose you and your experience identify numerical category, numerical standard, numerical designation for critical mass. it's x percent. , during the course of the admissions process, can the admission officers check to see how close they're coming to this? >> no. we don't.

on page 389 -- >> you cannot do that? >> we will be monitoring the class. >> isn't that what happened? >> it did your honor in grutter. >> it was one of the things you pointed out. what i'm saying we don't have that problem. >> i'm asking whether or not you can do that. >> i don't think so because the grutter majority didn't understand it to be monitoring for purposes of reaching a specific demographic. >> they don't monitor, race is the only one of factors that appears on the cover of every application right? >> all of listed factors are taken into account on the application. >> question was whether race was only holistic factors. >> that's true on every application. can i make one point on jurisdiction? thement. problem with jurisdiction is this, first of

all, they cannot show that she was injured by any consideration of race. that's pages 415 and 416. >> are you arguing that she doesn't have standing in article -- >> yes your honor. >> you address that in your brief in one footnote. we have an obligation to consider it in every case. what you gave us one footnote which you said it's hard to see. >> there's another part of that that comes from the brief and opposition which goes to the release she's requested. release this case began with, that request is full and out. so the only thing that is live in this case is request for monetary damages. that request is on page 79 of joint appendix and focuses exclusively on the request for return of admission fees.

the reason why that's not enough, she would have paid admission fee no matter what policy -- >> what about our jacksonville case that say it's an injury? >> that injury is not sufficient in backward looking case like this when you only have monetary damages. jacksonville they involve forward looking claims or people who will go out and get contracts again. >> your friend told us these issues have been segregated out of the process and are still available. >> your honor that's not an answer for jurisdiction for this reason. it's true it's bifurcating that we can prove damages. the only request for monetary damages is request for med --

admission fees. this says that explicitly. >> he had to pay for an admission fee for a process for which she was not treated fairly. why shouldn't she get our money back? >> the reason why the payment doesn't address injury, she would have paid if if texas wouldn't have considered race at all. the payment doesn't remedy the injury she's complaining about. >> ask you, if this is easy, do it if not don't i wanted to use accurate numbers. i discovered, i wanted to find out how many universities actually use grutter type process. the admission officers according to our library only place that have that information.

it's public and edidn't want them to do. you're both here, both sides. if you can agree on simply roughly what that number is, i like to know it. otherwise, i can use grutter numbers. >> i don't have specific numbers. the vast universities in america have been using these plans for 30 years and more. >> since we're asking questions about this curiosity, i'm curious to know how many -- this is very ambitious racial program here at the university of texas. how many female are -- people are there in the affirmative action department at the university of texas? you have any idea. there must be a lot of people that monitor all of these

classes and assessment of race. large number of people will be out of job wouldn't they? we suddenly went to just 10%? >> your honor one of the things university of texas does monitor is the racial climate on campus. it does that to improve the experience of all students on campus. i don't have the number of people. it is an important part of improving educational experience for all students at the university of texas no matter their race. >> thank you counsel. >> mr. chief justice may i please the course. resolving this case, it is important to focus on what is not at issue. petitioner is not challenging grutter's reaffirmation of the principle of justice opinion

that student body diversity is a interest that can justify the consideration of race. colleges and universities across the country have relied on that principle in shaping their admissions policies and it is a vital interest in the united states that they continue to be able to do so. the core of our interest is ensuring that the nation's university produce graduates who will be effective citizens and effective leaders in increasingly diverse society. >> does united states agree with mr. garre that african-americans deserve a preference? >> i understand that differently justice alito. here is how we us what's going on with respect to the admission process. i will address that and it needs a bit of context to do so. the top 10% plan certainly does produce some ethnic diversity. the problem is, the university

can't control that diversity in the same way you can with respect to 25% of the class that's admitted through the process. my understanding of what the university here is looking to do what university generally looking to do is not to grant a preference for privilege. but to make individualized decisions about applicants who will directly further the education aids mission. they will look for individual who will play against racial stereotype just by what they bring, the african-american sensor, the hispanic who has mastered classical greek. they can look for people have demonstrated track record -- if you have two applicants absolutely the same, they both come from affluent backgrounds, well educated parents, one fall within two of the groups given a preference and the other doesn't, it's a marginal case. under the texas plan one gets

one and one doesn't get in. do you agree with that or not? >> no. >> you agree that's an incorrect statement, you agree that's an -- >> i think it's both. there is no automatic preference in texas. this is page 398a of the joint appendix. >> hypothetical the two applicants are are entirely the same. it's the ability to give a racial reference means anything at all, it certainly has to mean in the hypothetical given by justice alito, the minority student gets in and other one doesn't. >> i disagree justice scalia.

what texas made clear, that not everyone in under represented group gets a preference. >> not everyone. it's matter of two -- in all other respects. what does the racial preference mean if it doesn't mean it in that situation. one anbly can't wins and other loses. >> it's going to dependen on a consideration of the applicant. >> i don't understand this argument. i thought the whole point is that some times race has to be a typewriter. then we should say you can't use race. >> i don't think it's a typewritten. it functions more suddenly than that. >> i'm read from the court of appeals opinion at page 33, the district court found that race is indisputably a meaningful

factor that make a difference in the evaluation of a student application. if it does make a difference, then we have a clear case, they're using case that doesn't make a difference. the subject has to be race is a determining factor. unless it's a determining factor in some cases, there they're using race hen it doesn't serve the purpose at all. >> it can make a difference. in doesn't make a difference with respect to every minority applicant. >> you have to agree it makes a difference in come cases. >> it does. it doesn't necessarily makes the difference. >> the thing will be too it's going to make a difference in the same two under grutter. >> that is exactly right justice ginsburg. the point it's not mechanical factor. with respect with implementation

of its compelling interest, i do think it's clear, although the petitioner says she's challenging implementation, this plan meetings every requirement of grutter. there's no quota. everyone competes against everyone else. it's a wholistic individualized situation. they do not monitor racial -- >> as i take your answer is that the supposition of justice alito's question is truly impossible under the system. they are not to identical candidates because there are not identical mechanic call -- mechanical factors. under the p.i.a. the factors are so set

that two applicants could be identical in the sense they hypothesize. >> that's correct. they make adjustments. >> what we're talking about -- as i understand it, race by itself is taking into account right? that's the only thing on the cover of the application. the district court found and you're not challenging that race makes a difference in some cases. right? >> yes but the key mr. chief justice is the way it makes a difference. it makes a difference by casting the accomplishments of the individual applicant in a particular light or potential of an individual applicant in a particular light. what the universities are looking for with respect to individualized consideration is what is this individual going to contribute to our campus. race can have a bearing on that because it had a bearing on evaluating what they can

accomplish. what they can bring to the table or student seminar. >> it is the correct answer justice alito. if there are every two applicants, the g.p.a. and test and grades, s.a.1, leadership, community service, family economic status, family responsibility, single parent home, languages other than english spoken at home and s.a.t. scores relative to race. if you have all of those things were absolutely identical then the person would be admitted on the bounds of race? >> not necessarily. >> i'm trying to make a simple point here. >> let me ask you another question. you devote a lot of attention to

the military. can you explain your rotc program to me? >> sure. our military depends on a pipeline of well qualified and well prepared candidates from diverse backgrounds who are comfortable exercising leadership and diverse setting. >> i understand that. i don't want to cut you off because time is about to expire. you got a marginal candidate who wants to go to the university of texas in austin is interested in rotc. how does that impact the military? the candidate will go to texas a&m or texas tech. is your position they will be inferior military officer if he went to one of those school? >> the point of educational diversity, the point what the university of texas trying to

achieve is create an environment in which everyone develops appropriate citizenship. everyone develops the capacity to lead in a racially diverse society and so it will benefit every rotc applicant from the university of texas. it's a very significant source of our military leadership. >> general, what is your view on how we tell whether when the university has obtained critical mass? >> i don't think. i agree with my friend that critical mass is not a number. i think it would be very ill-advised -- >> i'm hearing a lot about what's not. i like to know what it is. our responsibility is to decide whether use of race is tailored to achieving under achievement critical mass. >> may i answer?

i think -- i don't think that this is a situation in which the court simply affords complete deference to the university's judgment that hasn't yet achieved the level the diversity. i think the court has to make its own independent judgment. the way court will go into making that independent judgment is to look at identify information that the university consider that could be information about the composition of the class. it could be information about classroom diversity. it could be information about retention and graduation rates. it can be information about that's specific to the university context and history. university has had a history of race and trouble. then what the court got to do is satisfy itself that the university has substantiated its

conclusion based on the information considered that it needs to consider race to further advance the educational goals that grutter has identified as a compelling interest. i do think as the number of minority enrollees retire, the burden for the university to do that will get harder to meet. i don't think it will be prudent for the court to suggest there is a problem. >> we should probably stop calling it critical mass then. because mass assumes numbers, certain size or certain weight. call it a cloud or something. >> i agree that critical mass is taking on a life of its own in a way that's not helpful because it doesn't focus the inquiry where it should be.

>> if i may add one. it think it's important to our country. the university has the flexibility to shape their environment and educational experience to make a reality of the principle that justice kennedy identified with parents involved that our strength comes from people of different races, different creeds, different cultures, uniting in commitment to freedom and to more perfect union. that's what the university of texas is trying to do with its admission policy and it should be upheld. >> thank you general. mr.ryan 10 minutes. >> thank you mr. chief justice. that's more than i expected. we're seeking a level playing field. there are three things i want to

touch on. first, there's been a lot of back and forth on standing as we have pointed out that really related to merits. i want to make clear we do not accept the premise of that footnote that she would have not have entered under any circumstance. she was considered for the summer program. >> your complainted is limited to release and return of the $100. >> no it says that the point when we were writing it -- >> alvarez, we said any and other old damages is too speculative, is what you actually see what i said injunkive relief. >> we never had the opportunity -- >> we said you can't manufacture standing after the fact, did you

ask only for injunkive relief $100 specifically? >> the only specific number in the complaint because the point and time when it was filed was the application fee which -- >> you would have paid that no matter what? under system of admission, you would have paid the same $100? >> you would have paid the fee in return for fair processing of the application which she did not receive. it's not tested at that point. the second thing is because of the way the case was by -- bifurcated. we did not develop the additional damage. we reserve the right to amend. >> for damages? >> no. in the b.i.o., there are other kinds of financial injuries because we were trying to put

her into the university. >> she was going to get a better job because she went to a different university >> there's difference in cost between what he paid at lsu. i'm saying these are all reserved question and they don't go to standing the court make that clear in bochy. let me go to another issue. i never completed by answer to justice breyer. what we said what you should do about grutter as follows. we recognize in the words solicitor general just issued, there is an interest in diversity. that was a root question. could you recognize it at all. what we are concerned about, seeing here, universities like u.t. and many others read it to be green light, use race. no end point no discernable target. no critical mass in circumstances reduced to something that can be reviewed and as long as you don't cross

two lines determining points and fix quotas, meaning we will fill this quota exclusively with who we deem to be underrepresented, we're okay. what it was intended to say this is an area of great caution. using race itself raises all kinds of red flags. before you use race, make a determination whether really you're critical mass that, is in the dialogue and interchange, the education interest, -- >> you're not suggesting that if every minority student that got into a university, got into only the physical education program? in this particular university, that physical education program includes all the star athletes. every star athlete in the school happens to be black or hispanic or asian or something else, they have now reached the critical mass of 10, 15 or 20 percent

that the university in that situation couldn't use race? in the wholistic way that grutter permits? >> what you're saying is differentiated department of education. >> no, every one of their students who happens to be minority is going to end up in that program, you don't think the university could consider that it needs a different diversity in its other department? >> if that were the case, remember the factor that's causing it you're assuming is close. you have a critical mass of students. they choose to major that different things. that's the basic problem with classroom diversity concept. you would say that's an aberration. you might ask the question, what's causing it. >> are they saying the same thing when they say -- when

we're looking at the -- >> they don't ask you -- when it comes time in the u.t. system to allocate access to different majors, they do that in a way that's basically premise on academic index. they have a two tier admission system. they only here focus their preference goes to admission as such. doesn't go to sorting people out by majors. as i might say to justice breyer, what we see what grutter has been perceived as a green light, go ahead and use race, race really a highly question and sorting out. that unchecked use of race,

which we think has been spawn by grutter, needs to be corralled. >> any more unchecked than the harvard plan that started in 1978 decided by justice powell any difference how race is used in our military academy? >> there are two different questions. the hear ward plan is -- harvard plan is different world. comparing individuals one on one to establish ideal of class. this is now what's going on at u.t. this is not an individualized i will look at you and i will score you individually. the point of admission, i'm not admitting people. i'm admitting categories and boxes. that relates to just alito's question. in the way they do their system, you can figure out two people would have had the same p.a.i.

score but it's for race and it's a add on. it's not i can frequent. -- it's not infrequent. there are many candidates have the same a.i. what u.t. says we don't boost all minorities. they said in their brief, we want to boost the ones we like. we want affluent minorities who we think will improve, in our view, dialogue. that is contrary to the fact they give points in the same system for socioeconomic disadvantage. it's purely race. it comes to the ultimate question then, where is the end point. if you have nothing to gain the success of the program. you can't say at the beginning we don't have critical mass. we don't know what it is and we refuse to say what it is,

there's no judicial supervision. we've said in our brief that would be satisfactory. then you have side by side, there could be enormous confusion. >> you want me to do is read back what we wrote in gutter, look at the underlying determination, look exactly how it's being done in texas and i will then find enough of a difference if i can write some words that can be administered by 2000 federal judges as they try to deal with programs like this. that's the point? >> i'm saying if you clarify the need and necessity point, if you then look at some other deficiencies and clarify the consideration of available

alternatives and you attribute that to the absence of those factors, you can fashion a result in this case. which may or may not over rule grutter. you want to restate what it is that allows this use of this classification and that's what we're talking about. >> you just want to gut it. you don't want to over rule it. you want to tell universities once you reach a certain number, then you can't use race anymore? >> i don't want to gut it. only way one can reach that conclusion is assume grutter is unlimited mandate without end point to just use race to our own satisfaction and to be deferred to when you use race. that is unacceptal. that is the invasion of abigail

fisher right equal protection to the law. >> counsel the case is submitted. >> that oral argument took place last year on october 10. earlier today the supreme court decided to send it back to court of appeals for further review. if you missed any of the oral argument, we'll reair it wednesday july 3 here on c-span. after today's decision, we spoke with the reporter to learn more about where the case goes from here. >> gloria browne-marshall is associate professor at john j. college. thanks for joining us. we will focus in on one. what did the court decide on the

fisher v. texas case. >> abigail fisher challenged the university of texas to admit her. she said it was based on 14th amendment discriminatory action. they're admission policy which uses race at one factor was discriminatory and the court today decided that the first part of the admissions process, which is to take 10% of the high school classes around the state were fine. but the federal one that allows race to be one component was one in which the lower court had not scrutinized. so the court sent the case back down to the circuit for further review. >> how did it progress all the way up to the supreme court? >> well abigail fisher was one of those high school students who did not meet that 10%

requirement. she then applied under incentive process which take other concern into account. whether or not a student is in a single parent household, if english language is the language spoken in the household and all of these different soc.^ owe economic factors. she was not admitted. she said it was the racial factor that prevented her admission and then she sued.. >> does this decision have broad implications or it just kicking the can down the road? >> if we're kicking the can down the road, we're kicking down road where it will fall and remain there. because at this point, what justice kennedy said in reading the decision that he wrote, we're going back to a time in which the reviewing court, when they decide whether or not race can be taken into account, have to look at whether or not some other race neutral alternative

that was will produce the same educational benefit of diversity. we're taking race out completely. say we're going to go to the people and say that's what we will use. where is the remedy of 300 years of racial discrimination suffered by people of color? when we're saying we're not going to use race in what we are talking about the basis of affirmative action. >> justice ginsburg was the only one to dissent. what was her argument? >> her argument basically was that that 10% of the high school is the race conscious program only you're not allowed to use race. she even says, but the race discrimination that texas practiced for hundreds of years, you wouldn't need the 10% high school program. why deny that race is a factor just by not using the word race when you know that's the reason for having these programs in the

first place. >> what can we see happen next? >> what will happen next is that the admissions program around the country will hold their breath waiting for the fifth circuit to determine if there is any other way to get the same level of diversity without using race as even one single factor in all of the admissions process. >> decisions and other major cases are expect this week. we'll cover those rules on the c-span network. gloria browne-marshall thanks for your help today. >> thank you. plan >> the supreme court expected to hand down several decisions this week including one relates to the voter rights act and same-sex marriage. saturday we'll have live remarks from justice roberts. before his comments we'll bring you panel discussions with theodore

olsen and linda greenhouse. they'll discuss the supreme courts 2012 term and what cases to look out for in the fall. it starts life saturday 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> in 1996, is an example of more recent times when the telecom act went. we were rolling out services and residential telephone services and bringing bundle to the market. we started bundling products to that. customer started responding positively and we were able to get into new businesses that others didn't dream about because we got in there so early and rewarded for that. >> everybody understands that sports and live sports now is a

sweet spot of media. it is almost the only thing that you have to watch live. that has increased its value and i think everybody seeing that now. whether they be social media that are partnering with us, tweeting about sports or to show sports what we have facebooking and other cable networks. >> more what's happening happening in today's cable industry with leaders of two of the largest communication companies. tonight 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> first lady have a capacity to personify if they so choose. this is a pattern in american women in politics famous or not. there are sort of two things. one they're women, real people who actually do things.

but then there's this also secondary factor of being a caring figure. she becomes the speaker head for her husband's administration and she makes white house into a symbol and she foster the attachment to the capital city. all of this happening in 1808. in 1814 the british will burn the capital city and all of this work she put into helping the public to identify with this house that they called the white house under her term is going to pay off. because it's going to give the surge of nationalism around the world. >> our focus on first ladies continues every monday night and our next program features a story and author's catherine algore and anita black.

>> just short time ago the senate approved border security amendment. that vote is still open on the chamber floor due to several senators not being present. the amendment will double the number of border patrol agents to 40,000 and complete 700-mile of fencing among the u.s. and mexico border. it sets up a $3 billion border security plan including helicopters, drones and other high-tech security measures along the u.s. and mexico border. right now if you go to our facebook page, you can join the conversation by answering the question, do you support or oppose the border security amendment and why? weigh in with your opinion now at f acebook.com/c-span. next, a discussion on the student financial aid process and what can be done through technology to help students in the application process. the american enterprise institute held this day long

conference earlier today. this panel runs an hour and 20 minutes. >> we're going to shift gories just a bit now from the first time. designed to give us a sense where we been. one of the issues that came up in dave paper. questions about access and early notification of access to financial aid and that might mean. and also on simplification an around that gotten a lot of attention. i think there's still a sense we're not quite there as far as simplification goes. and that has consequences for access. i'm pleased to have three authors with us here today. first we're going to hear from

rodney andrews on the "the promise of promise programs." rodney assistant professor of economics in the school of economic political policy sciences at the university of texas at dallas. these director of texas school project. he's written a terrific paper to gives you a good lay of the land of what promise program looks like around the country. promise program is a guarantee financial aid to students from a local school district or region. after rodney we'll hear from regina deil-amen. she's associate professor at the university of arizona. with her co-author ceciliaing cecilia -- see -- cecilia.

>> we have justin draeger. he serves at liaison as association and its members, u.s. department of education and i guess think tanks as well. justin will give us comments and we will hear from ed pacchetti. before this he was special assistant to the senior advisor and the secretary initiative on college access in the department. let's kick it off with rodney.

>> good morning. the title of this presentation in the paper is the "the promise of promise programs." i listen been introduced so we can skip the name and affiliation. in november of 2005 in kalamazoo, michigan, one morning if you were a student there, you got this tremendous announcement that basically tuition and fees for any public college or university that michigan will be paid for. this was a gift of promise offered to them by a group of anonymous donors. this program known as the kalamazoo promise. the idea being we're gong to promise you to subsidize the cost of attending a particular set of colleges and universities in the state of michigan.

this generated national attention. this article in the "new york times," president obama delivered commencement speech at kalamazoo central high school. in the wake of the kalamazoo promise, a number of promise programs, similar programs have emerged all over the country. i want to take a moment to describe why it is that i think that these programs have generated such a great deal of excitement. the earlier panel described, going on at the federal level how education has shifted from being more higher education shifted from being more of a state fund endeavor to equal partnership with the federal agency. here with the promise program, you seen that the fundings the idea of postsecondary education

has moved to the local level. the idea being we're going to use these funds and direct them to well defined communities in order to encourage postsecondary attendance. what is the promise program? one part is an early funding commitment. you're going to know that if you're in one of the schools that's located in the county or say a school district or city that you're eligible for the funding. it's well known and publicized. the announcer publicized. the also offers university access. the notion we're going to offer funding to a particular set. students in a particular area is not new. here it's the idea it's near universal access. if you are worried about funding reaching students of lower

socioeconomic status, then having relatively minimal academic requirements that present barrier of academic performance or positive related. it's also local. there are a lot of definitions of local. for example, there's a pittsburgh promise, which is for the pittsburgh public school district. there's the kalamazoo promise which is for the kalamazoo school district. there are other promise program that's define the area of influence as the county or if a particular is the of schools. another aspect or types of postsecondary institutions are subsidized. it doesn't offer universal -- you can't take the funding for the most part, to any university or college anywhere. although there are some promise programs that do offer that

option. a lot of them tend to focus on rather local institutions. kalamazoo promise, focuses on public colleges and universities in the state of michigan, pittsburgh promise focuses on universities in pennsylvania. there are others where the funding might only apply to a particular college or university. these are local programs. a lot of them cast themselves as local investment devices and i think the idea is that by subsidizing local institutions, the community is more likely to benefit. there's some frictions because as you become more educated you become more mobile. if the idea is to bolster the community through increase in education, then you have sort of effect as individuals become more educated more desirable in

the labor marks they become more mobile. if you subsidize local institutions, businesses are more likely to locate there because there's a viable set of skilled candidates for positions. the other notion is the source of the funding. the kalamazoo promise generates the attention, set up anonymous donors. basically promise we're going to offer you enough money to fund anyone who graduates from the kalamazoo public school district from now basically until the end of time. or that's what they say. on the other hand, other places are not so fortunate. i think everyone wants sort of the grassroots effort. one of the things that occurs,

community gotten excited but where do you get the money. another example will be the pittsburgh promise where the university of pittsburgh medical center offered $10 million to start and then a challenge grant that said if you raise a certain amount of funding then we'll match. another promise program basically uses gambling revenues in order to fund its promise program. michigan has begun innovative effort where they use donations from corporations and foundations, other charitable donations as well as tack funding. the idea you want risky sources of revenue by introducing other sources that you attaching all sort of promise. another aspect is the eligibility criteria and funding

determination. a lot of these programs merely followed kalamazoo promise where they say how much money you get that is subsidized is a function of how long you reside in the community condition on you graduating from high school in the community. for example kalamazoo four years you get 65% of the funding if you go kindergarten through high school 100% tuition is subsidized. a lot of programs followed that. other programs also, you have to actually be a part of the community in order to get the funding. the idea that we want to focus the efforts on local individuals. so, how could the promise programs impact postsecondary attainment? well, you know the money is

there. there's an effort -- local paper, the information to schools. there's a source of funding for you because you are a member of this community that will be available upon your graduation and you also know the types of institutions that you can use this funding towards. what could early notification do sort of solves information problem that was eluded to earlier. another benefit of the promise program is transparency. you know how to get the money. you been here at least four years, you been continuously enrolled and you graduate you get money up. know -- you

don't have to worry about there being additional barriers because you come from a family structured that is not sophisticated as someone else. you know how to get the money. of course, it reduces the direct cost of college attendance. there is money for you to go to college that's going to pay for tuition. i think one of the lessons, it moves the focus to the local community, we recognize that while cost is important most certainly a barrier, our earlier conversation certainly strongly suggests it's not the only barrier. there are informational barriers. there are familiar barriers,

socioeconomic barriers. what i expect is that these promise programs, if they work, if they do other things, gets the community involved sort of bridges the gap. that's the idea. again these programs are relatively new. as i characterized them. there are certainly other examples. there was a rich guy in my small rural town in georgia who barely graduated from georgia tech. he became a millionaire, decided anybody who graduated from our local high school that got into georgia tech he'd pay. so i went to georgia tech. right around the time of the hope scholarship. the program expanded to other colleges and universities in georgia. the university of georgia --

what happened to that program? it's financial situation changed and the program went away. in a nutshell, that's one of my primary concerns with the promise program. sustainability. very rich people who are anonymous in kalamazoo decided they will respect the program. my problem is the set of individuals who can do so are not distributed about the country. the programs that have managed to increase funding are okay. if you haven't, i suspect you're in trouble if you thinking about the pittsburgh promise, a lot of places, don't necessarily have

the infrastructure to successfully generate the type of funding necessary to stake the promise. scalability, if the program is going, you have two choices. you have to benefit so you can accommodate more people or you increase the barriers so more people aren't eligible. some ways you dilute the prom. how do you deal with that. funding is important but it isn't the only barrier. he made a promise and he figured out, wait a minute, i need to gauge the community to put them in position to take advantage of the opportunity. that's one of the things that have emerged from the promise program. you're engaging the community rather than coming

from high from the federal government from the state. these are your peers who are now hopefully interested in acquiring postsecondary education. it also demonstration what's possible. when there's a significant social funding and a local effort that allows the coordination around a single purpose. thanks. >> regina is up next. >> interestingly enough when i was 11 years old i was a young little girl from staten island, new york who went to kalamazoo,

michigan for the softball world series. here we are again. our first opening slide remind you that we're from the other end of this great nation coming from california and arizona. you've heard the background. we acknowledge that simplifying is important. it is necessary and far from sufficient. a lot of our research is backgrounded with about 600 interviews were community college students, you've focus groups from student community colleges from around the nation. we'll draw on that information later. for the most part, we also are dealing with what's happening in a technology sector and essentially those in this sector are trying to circumvent

educational institutions. that's important to realize. we're taking up sort of in the institutional context of where simplifying this one form leaves off. we're asking what role does technology play in terms of connecting students and families with the financial aid process in general. colleges and universities are trying to utilize some of these technologies to solve some these information gap that's are real. when you deal with nontraditional college goers who are in different kinds of commuting and part time context, it gets more complicated and the information gaps gets greater. rodney mentioned transparency is important. you'll see later that that's definitely important and there are real gaps. it's almost appalling. we asked

the question what role could technology play particularly to help students not only access aid but then navigate from year to year in terms of changes in aid and changes in their own life circumstances. is technology a solution? we just first want to foreground the idea that there are assumptions about using technology to intervene in this process. these technologies just to quickly go over them, assumption that it will reduce cost, boost access to services, that it's the cost effective tool. it requires minimal cost to maintain once it gets going. that is an assumption. that the informational actually be accurate in ongoing way and also easily accessible. the last assumption that will be it's easy to use and those

using, the students, families and colleges are savvy and willing to use it. that's important recent research shown there are problems with students trying to access websites. the usability is questionable. later on in the next panel, you'll hear leslie turner speak about some of the recommendations she has for streamlining and standardizing some ways of students getting information about what it will cost for them to go to any particular institution. this is call net price calculator and it's a mandate from the recent 2008 higher education act. she suggested department ed can provide a centralized way to have student access a net price

calculator so they can put in their information and not have to go from website to website for each institution that they're interested in researching. well, there's actually an app for that. we did some research on technologies that are now in the making. this is just to emphasize the idea that there ares of the and innovations out there that are trying to deal with this complex process. they're not working in the education sector. they're working from the outside to go directly to student or directly to those who will mentor or advise students. in terms of the financial aid technology, you'll see in front of your table these tables. in our paper we do profile what types of technological tools are now in the making or do exist to basically help students access and navigate financial aid information specifically. if you look at that table, the

first set includes websites and those are just general websites that deal specifically with financial aid. the purple includes gain that's are actually trying to improve student's knowledge of not only college and college going but also financial aid in particular. then the next set of tables outlines really the social media application which try to take advantage of the interactional component of social media to get students connected to advisors, mentors other agents of colleges and high school that's can help students with the process. essentially expand their network beyond their family or their local community where access to information and other sources are limited. in the blue you'll see those social media applications are essentially

trying to provide cost to information. specifically financial aid and scholarship. you'll see my college dollars are specifically about scholarship. it's designed to help students access that. it's not about long term relationship building. college advocates is the one i mentioned to you earlier, that it's trying to accomplish who regulatory bodies trying to accomplish, which is to be the kayak,.com the orbits of net price calculators. these things are now essentially free right now. they're free because they trying to reach disadvantaged student population. they have some built-in business plan to fund themselves but essentially a lot of them had donor funded at this point.

they'll work their way into enrollment management if it's applicable. the orange color is service based social media app. these are trying to do more that long term relationship, coaching, mentor building through the social media space. it's more of that individualized attention again, doing it virtually as opposed to face to face. in terms of advantages, we give a sense in our paper of the fact that the advantages of this approach is that it's hard to reach students directly. their free and they try to exploit or build upon students existing social network and their existing social media use. we all know is quite expensive. a lot of past research on this topic has actually shown that lower income students do need

more of a guidance from a trusted and knowledgeable advisor. it's not just about getting information. it's really about navigating through the process. they're constanting making decisions. research tends to show they need that one to one guidance through that entire process. not sort of a one time meeting or a self-gaining information. what are the challenges? well you need access to the internet. that's reliable that is still a problem in many lower income communities and among lower income families. student have to actually use facebook and family have to use facebook. a lot of them are facebook based and we don't know if that's the primary means. lot of things can be transported on may be more popular social

media domains. another challenge is that the user really have to know about the product. they have to actually understand the value of it and they have to know how to use it. i think understanding the value of it is actually one of the most problematic parts. i want to share with you some of the research the finding are our own study which implements a facebook based social media platform in community colleges. the colleges in our study get this application for free but in general, other colleges and universities buy the application for a fee and it's in nearly 100 institutions. for our study, we're looking at nine community college, who agreed to the intervention. essentially facebook platform as you can see there. that's my co-author cecilia's profile there.

it's a place where people can post, comment and like, join community and friend people. it's this idea you can create a virtual campus community to replace what many students don't have access to on a traditional campus community. i will quickly take you through some of our findings. student can use it any way they want to use it. it was designed to be a social space but we quickly found even though it was not designed for financial aid purpose, students try to use it for financial aid navigating. it was sort of this idea that they must not be getting this from another place because they chose to use this social media space to gain this kind of information. these are some quotes from some of our interviews with students and some of the posts that students had on the app.

this is a post. this is a kind of post that students would put. my financial aid hasn't paid yet and classes started and i really don't know what to do. they were asking other students for this information and some cases staff will intervene. we can talk about that more later. what were some of the successful features? the space became a place for procedural exchanges for students who were confused and anxious about financial aid. to continue with this successful features, these are the kinds of things people were talking about. distribution guidelines, income, academic stipulations and number of credits you have.

many students anxious about losing their aid and what will be involved in their own particular information. their sharing their information with others and getting feedback from others who experienced similar challenges. for instance, when does access financial aid usually gets refunded. you can drop a class but it can affect your financial aid. can someone explain this to me, i'm seeing i owe a balance. i don't know what to do. the other successful feature we found it enhances their ability to respond quickly and system matt -- systematically on a large scale. students will post things and some will post something with regard to a balance or how to access their financial aid information. this is the kind of response they can receive from staff or other students. it reduces wait time and it

helps to with misperceptions. some of the other components of successful implementation, we found that it's important that students were exposed to the technology and interview some students didn't know it existed. relying on the institutions to pass along information could be problematic. students awareness of value. some students thought i need to have a reason for it to be a parts of my daily routine. understanding that was key. then consistent routine engagement. students need to realize when they go on, they will get a response and it's going to be consistent over time. sort of running out of time here. i want to take you through -- basically to sort of summarize, the idea here is that the

technology is a solution but it exist within limits. students were very frustrated -- it was mentioned earlier, the lack of support to navigate this process. the social media app provided a window into how little support students had and how much confusion there was about it. these are just some quotes. all of these are in our paper. i want to share with you this key example. students who had particularly nontraditional life circumstances where their parents were not -- they were not depending on their parents but yet they were young. the more complex their lives were and the more nontraditional, the more they experienced this procedural problem with navigating the process for the most part. this is an example of a student experience that frustration. it was often a reason why students either dent enroll or

dent continue. our main message here is that technology can play a role but it's limited in its ability to solve some of these larger structural issues. are these students are in nontraditional colleges? commuting part time students etcetera. are they being penalized by a system that's basically been structured around the traditional college goer. i'll speed through this because i'm out of time basically. we ask our financial aid rules and regulation at this point seeing the challenges that students are facing and the way they're trying to navigate around it. do they bent particular family structure and the norms of family life in college going.

social media we feel can create small scale efficiencies. yet it's limited in ability to address some of the larger institutional structures that may be disadvantaging community college students disproportionately. so thank you. >> i recommend reading their paper. it's full of great anecdotes and quotations from student conversation. justin, let's hear from you. >> thanks for the invitation to respond and i want to commend both of you for very thoughtful papers that i thought took a realistic look at some of the issues in education. particularly when it comes to information and simplification. i will start with the promise paper. there was one phrase here that i think stood out to me. this idea of giving students information up front and rodney

you wrote informational catalyst which to me really resonated because the idea that you can get information to people early can change their entire behavior in terms of preparing for higher education, knowing it's a reality and then thinking about their entire high school experience differently. i had some questions about some of the local issue surrounding these promise programs. are they doing what they set out to do. are they attracting folks to the community, are they keeps the students there after they finish school or the students returning and investing in the community after college. may be it's too soon to tell. immediately i begin think being how this can be replicated at federal level. there are some challenges with this. i won't go through all the challenges except to say i think there's a case to be made here

for the idea that we should be striving to make some sort of promise. if a student's low income -- based on that information, can we deliver the students much earlier in the pipeline. here's what you will qualify for, could qualify for in pell grant funds. could that build on some things happening at the local level. you did a good job showing some communities are first in, some are after pell grant funds. the idea is we make funds. this happens now with social security and may be this could backfire. in the end, it's telling me at a certain age see how much i can expect to receive. on top of that, we seen in the last couple years budget centric, financial aid policy on

the federal level. we've seen some other changes to how much they can get in subsidies. we saw roll back of pell grants. if we have a lifetime eligibility limit for every recipient, then we could not only tell them how much they'll get on an annual basis. we could say this is how much available to you over your life. give them a lump sum. then put back in the flexibility. a pell promise, a flex promise. let them know that this is really student centric and not institutional centric. it reinforces that idea. moving off that and to the social media simplification. one of the assumptions that was mentioned is efficiency question. using social media is more

efficient. i think that may be true for some of our members we talked to in preparation for this forum, are members financial aid administrators are trying to figure out if i'm out on social media, at the same time i have to keep my consumer information updated while still handling the volume coming in the door. there are legal concern whether they have the bandwidth to engage. one of the thing you found that students have reasons to go there. the aid director i loved in the paper was out there interacting with the students on the seecial media platform posting answers. when we did a survey about four years ago, because of budget crunch that were happening on campus, what was the first thing to go at financial aid office. we gave them all different

categories, from counseling to administering the program, doing verification work, doing counseling work. the very first thing that was cut in a budget crunch was counseling. i think one of the things paper pointed out was this is a solution but not a panacea. face to face counseling is one of the primary way to help navigate through this arcane process. the only final piece i'll add is, if seems there are some fear of the accuracy. on social media you have students interacting with

students. there is sort of this fear that if we open it up, that students will be answering students questions but that's only applicable to that student. that again based on the structure of financial aid. the aid administers are given congressional authority to work with students who exercise professional judgment that's going to best reflect their circumstances. those were some of the issues from our community that's not to say that i think folks are excited about ways they can engage with students and increase efficiencies. hopefully this is going to be one of the solutions of many that we continue to develop to go where the students are. not waiting for them to come to us but to go where they are. social media is one of those places, that's where we should be. thanks. >> thank you andrew for asking

me to be here today. i'll talk about the promise paper first. rodney i thought you gave a really good over view of the promise program highlighting the criteria you use to define them and how the programs are not alike and how they can vary and how much financial systems they provide and then students are able to use that aid. most of the promise programs do restrict where students can go to school and use the aid. you point out that part of the reason that people fund promise program they want to build a supply of labor within our town. you also point there's no guarantee once the skills are acquired by the students that they'll stay within that town or city. you also addressed the important difference of kalamazoo promise program, which is a program that provides aid up front as opposed

to a lot of the other promise program that's are lacked dollar program. meaning all sources of aid have been applied before students get funding from the promise program. i thought that was a really important difference to point out. i was glad that you did. what is missing i thought from the paper, this is no fault of your own rodney, we just don't know how long these programs work. the earliest one started in 2005. it is now 2013. there wasn't really any data from the program even on retention of students in the program. it would be really important to get that data from these programs as soon as we have it. it would be nice to see if there is a difference in how students react based on the size of the award that the promise gives out. the kalamazoo promise program gives out a generous award but

some of the other programs you talk about don't have the resources to give out such a generous reward. you say that some of the other programs apply other sources of funding first. i wasn't sure if that included student loan or included pell grant and scholarship funding. i will be interested to know if student who participate in these programs also take out student loans or not. i also would have liked to have seen more discussion on the impact of raising academic requirements of these programs. i always worry about especially about the low income students because i feel that they are the most likely to have a poor k through 12 premeditation -- preparation in this country. i also wondered if there are any programs instead of raising

requirements looked at focusing their aid from promise program on students who need the aid the most. i didn't see anything about it in your paper. i wanted know promise program looked at that as an opportunity or an option. in the end, rodney, i thought promise program really tried to make education accessible to student. i think that's admiral and i it's a good idea. i liked how you talked about how it was important to get the community involved and that kind of moved the conversation about student aid to the local level. in the end, i just any because these programs are so expensive, i'm not sure how revocable or sustainable they are. over all very good over view of the promise program. move next to facebook paper.

al a very good job on this paper. you point out in the paper that we don't yet have research that shows how students navigate the financial aid process using social media or technologies. i agree, the federal student aid, we do use twitter and we use facebook. we have twitter office hours where students can tweet questions in and believe it or not, federal government employees tweet back answers in 140 characters or less. which is a huge challenge for us. we do it and it's really pretty fun because students will say is it really somebody from the federal government? do you really live in washington d.c. it's kind of neat to do that. you can tell it's much easier for them to tweet something rather than call the call center. that's been a really good

information source for us and we gathered information from the tweets too so we know where problems exist. you also talked about the efforts of campuses to use the school app to reach out to students. i thought some of the examples you gave in the paper were very good. in some cases it prevented students from standing in long lines because they were able to use the school app and to get information and answers that way. i thought that was a great way to use technology. i was interested when you talked about the frequent use of the word "when" by students. it seemed to me that students really didn't understand some of the time line of the financial aid process after they got to campus. to me i thought that was very interesting. two other people who work on campuses, that can be may be to

make sure students understand the order of how things go within the financial aid pipeline. i don't really think you got anything wrong in the paper. you don't over state the greater use of technology or how it can help the financial aid process. edon't have enough data yet on how it could really help. i thought you did a good job there. you talked about how active users of the school app how they were more likely to go on the school and to succeed in school. for me that always raises the question, did they succeed more because they were motivated in the first place or through the use of technology actually helped them more before successful. that's kind of a standing question i would have. i guess over all, i was really pleased that you wrote this

paper. this is an area that we don't have a lot of information about. i would encourage you to keep exploring this area because we need to know more about how stundents are using this technology. the most recent data i saw by the use of smartphone teenagers educate that 47% of teens use a smartphone. that's especially relevant within the low income community. lot of the research indicates we have to reach student where is they are. i think through using this new technology we do a good job of reaching students where they are. i applaud this effort and encourage you to keep it up. , thank you. >> i want to kick it off with a couple questions and allow you guys to respond. just sort of raise the issue.

what stood out to me in your comment, in both of your comments here, both of the sort of solutions we call them large solution, are emerging from the private sector in some cases. i wanted to just ask put it on the table and say, are there things public sector can learn from these or is this sort of something the private sector is bringing its particular strength and potential weaknesses to and to get both of your thoughts on that? >> well, i think for me what i'll say is that, it's important for the public sector to understand what's happening in the private sector.

i think after writing this paper, rather than seeing social media as a solution to anything, we really saw it more of a tool. not just to help students but for these institutions to realize it's a tool to see what students are struggling with. it exposed the reality of students and really what it expose for us, we analyze everything that was posted on the school app. what we learned is that it's a procedural nightmare for these students. just to utilize that as a tool in that way and take advantage of the innovations that are happening in the private sector, to just observe and then try to be responsive. we didn't even set out to study financial aid. that wasn't part of our original research project but it became so prominent in what students were saying and what was being

posted on the app that we move in that direction. the discussion of financial aid officers, we looked into what was happening and we found that we've got a college with 30,000 students and each semester 30,000 students are in this college enrolled and they are six or eight officers processing their financial aid. it's just ridiculous. pointing attention to the fact that it's under resourced is one issue but then the staff were responsive, they did realize that they may have a line out down the hallway and out the building for students waiting for some advice and counseling on financial aid. 50 of those students may have the same exact question. those that try to utilize it, they were able to answer common

questions and actually save themselves more time for the one on one student that's needed that one on one attention. even to use the space to get them on the phone and say if you call this number, we're going to answer. some of the financial aid officer has a pro -- profile. i think just kind of exploiting the innovations in the private sector to bring about improvements is one way to and not reinvent the wheel and collect your own data that's already out there. >> i think to me it demonstrate that's it's possible for to take a corporation to be self-interested and still publicly beneficial. part of the reason you do it is for good will. look at us, we're investing in the community and we're part of the community. also in recognition that may be

the community can generate some things that are of use to the corporation while bettering the community. if you think about the kalamazoo promise, and i have, they didn't start out just a means of postsecondary education. you want to encourage people to move in to take advantage and encourage those who are already there to take advantage of the opportunity. the only thing that i think that for the majority of the program is that they stake the promise. all of the other things that i think potentially get us excited, their not necessarily funding that. what i think is, do they have

any sort of generating this interest. you see prominent entities you can relate to within the community stating this is important. when research show when something is salient then it's more actionable. that's the benefit of local private entities investing, i think that's a good thing. >> just to follow on that quickly, one of the thing you didn't mention a lot in your remarks, what's your sense how that impact k12 schools? >> if you look at kalamazoo, and i have, before kalamazoo promise there was like a note of decline in the k through 12 population.

after the kalamazoo promise population number of students increased. individuals were move into the town. they passed a bond to build new schools in kalamazoo. in recognition that we need it put our students in position to take advantage of this opportunity that came from outside of the system. you get your local churches and community involved. but again, that's not -- i don't know if that's part of the program and i don't know. that's replicable. you have these state programs. and you worried about how

they're allocated. it's not clear that they generate any sort of local multipliers because the qualifications are at a level of -- >> i want to follow up as well. everybody mentioned to some isn't the sort -- extent the sort of idea of taking the promise notion nationwide. sarah my co-editor wrote a paper stimulating what this might look like. one thing that stuck out me, you followed sort of -- it would be great to have certainty of a guarantee and sort of a lump sum. then you call it up by saying financial aid officers allowed to use their professional judgment and not all students

had the same issue. i see sort of a tension there. the second leadses to unpredictability. i love to hear your thoughts on that. >> the thing you will be able to do is the student that's fit in the boxes. you have your traditional aged students that will be dependent. it's those gray areas where you want students to have authority and say technically on a paper you're depend -- dependent student but circumstance you ought to be independent of your family or parents. that's going to increase the predictability of this. i think that tension has to exist and continue to excess. that's part of what makes this financial aid process so murky. but that's sort of what we want.

we want a financial aid system that's dynamic enough to meet the individual needs of every student. there's a tension between simplicity and accuracy. to the point where 30 years ago we were really assessing a family's ability to pay for college. today we're ranking student ability to pay for college. that's what the federal needs analysis formula does today. i don't know if we're ever going to get right. what i think we ought to be doing is doing what the original wall was set up to do which is every four to six years we reexamine and adjust. >> just to give voice.

more than half students beginning colleges are in community colleges. more than half the first year students. what we see is that the students that are these nontraditional and they don't fit the mold, they're concentrated in these institutions. that's what happens. everyone becomes an exception. we have a majority of exception. students are going in there. these students, the idea that you're dependent on your participant until you're 23 or 24 years old, this is not their reality. many of these students are living with their parents because they're supporting their sibling or supporting the household with their parents. then they have to go in and explain over and over again and get more -- that's why there's so much of a backlog because of the existing parameters are build on a traditional model. that traditional model only fitsless than a quart of all students who are beginning college. that's part of the reason why there's a procedural nightmare.

it's not because of the incompetency of community colleges it's their over run and nontraditional college going population doesn't fit those categories. their always experiencing exception and they're experiencing -- they're very grateful and supportive of financial aid, it's a constant challenge. it's also the experience not just as supporters but punitive. they have to wait for their refund they need to pay the rent. the minute they experience a crisis, which they do inevitably, then they're g.p.a. drop osther to " -- that's the way they experience these contacts based on hundreds of interviews we've done. i want to sort of put that in context. >> i will be interested to hear

your thought about accuracy versus simplification and how in the department effort to simplify. how you're building safeguards to ensure we're still doing what suggest, which is target the aid where it should go and making sure it reflect's peoples circumstances accurately. >> i do a lot of thinking about ways to continue to simplify the financial aid process. i think probably every research paper that i have read in the past 10 years called for further simplification of financial aid process. i think that that says something. i think we can't underscore the cost of complexity of the student aid system especially for low income students. we know it prevents students from applying for aid and going to college because the financial aid system is complex. especially if you don't have somebody -- if you don't know somebody who can help guide you

through the process. and you don't have that kind of one on one attention with feel a lot of low income students need. i think we need to properly look at the data in weigh that with the cost of simplicity. if we simplify financial aid further, it makes the system simpler for 96% of users, it's worth wild. we are carefully looking at all the data so we can try and make a database decision about how to further simplify. but we're always aware of that and looking at that process. >> i always got a response ready. this carries over into other areas as well.

we've seen scrutiny from congress beyond accuracy, fraud and abuse in the student aid program. there have been several articles in the last several month. this is an instance where we find ourselves chasing down pennys sometimes at the expense making it easy for students and schools to get the students their money. it's not just accuracy of rank and need, it's also about we have to set up and make sure we have safeguards that students are who they say they are. so we don't undermine what has become a success story in this country that we are willing to put up. in the last six years we seen huge increase in the amount of pell dollars. >> it's exactly striking the

balance of keeping the safeguards in place. that's why i'm here all day today so i can hear good ideas how to do that. >> why don't we open up for questions. dennis with the mic. max the same rules apply for me. i saw a lot of hands. david did you want to ask a question? >> sorry. in response to andrew's question about are there things that the public sector could do, question is, what can we learn from other

sectors for example, new york city government, the military services etcetera, about how they have encouraged i.t. and other strategies to improve customer service as opposed to just looking at ourselves? >> i'll take it on the context of the promise. if we were to upscale this to a federal level, one of the things that's lacking in making this work is a school being able to deliver student the total cost of their education. some of that because is depending on the students behavior. when you look at the big purchases in your life usually it comes down to college education, mortgage and may be your car. two out of the those three you get a cost when you walk out. this is how much it cost. you don't get that at college. you seen some experimentation.

look at it at the private marks. it was in the press the last few weeks, one school is looking at here is the four year cost of your education and we're going to commit ourselves to that. there's a lot of layers of complexity in there. some schools are getting funds from the state government that don't come in. there's a lot of complexity here. if we could -- the other side of it -- provide students a true cost of their education up front, i that i that is another piece of that promise, that puzzle that helps spur that information catalyst. >> i think on the other hand, to my mind, it calls for additional information from the postsecondary institutions. now you're having things like well, cost differ according to

you're on sophomore or injure. majors might pay more. in order to deliver students cost, you will have to ask them questions that student don't know until they get to college. what are you going to be when you're a junior because that will affect how much it will cost you when you go to school. those practices are proliferating and frankly being the director of state education center and interacting with a state, even the higher education officials there don't quite know all the different policies that the institutions are undertaking. it's going to call for a collection of information so that you can tell a student, i don't know how exactly -- again it comes down we can give you a fairly good estimate. i don't think we can give you anything along the lines how much in terms of buying a house. in order to get the true price, at this point in time, you need

some input from the student with regard to the decisions they're going to make. >> thank you greg from university of central florida. rodney i love the idea of the promise. you were talking about scalability and sustainability. if you didn't have angel investors or charitable tax deductions what happens to your program? >> heaven is difficult without angels. but not impossible. i think what generate the excitement is that the funds presumably come from an outside source. no one really thought about sort

of -- sarah thought about it, not enough people thought about embedding the notion of that type of promise without the sort of angel investors that you're talking about. there are programs that lack that huge initial start-up. those are frankly the programs that offer benefits that one can easily dismiss. say things like well, if the man ramps up too much, you're going to get cut off. i think that's the issue. it's how do you find these angel investors or corporations or foundations. more importantly, those things are not stable. there are two sources of instability, the funding and the population you're going to serve. if you look at a place like georgia with the hope scholarship, funding by gambling

and gambling sentive to economic conditions and georgia population skyrocketed right after the period when hope scholarship was introduced what did they start doing. they say before we let the schools figure who qualify, we're going to move it up to a state level. we're also going to cut fees for book and things like that. then finally we're going to create a program so that tuition is only guaranteed for those who get a really high g.p.a. and we're going to offer something less for students for hope students. this is a state with more resources in the community. i think sort of saying that initial state that initial pot of money and also if you facing a dynamic population, it's tough. i think that's my primary concern is that you make this

promise if you're in a place like kalamazoo, population isn't changing dramatically and you have excess of resources and the willingness of the donor to continue to donate. that's fine. but you change any of those conditions and it's not clear what their going to get. >> i'm going to ask sarah a question which is appalling for me. >> make sure everybody knows who you are. >> i'm richard better. picking on the university of central florida question, what if the federal government restricted tax deductions for grants to universities with say million dollar per student endowments or more, the elite schools but gave extra

incentives for charitable donations for promise type programs. i can't define that precisely but you get the idea. is this a good idea or a bad idea? i'm just throwing it out. >> good idea or bad idea for whom? i think that's an important -- the promise program starts at the community level. they've done things to try to, as much as they can, attach students to the community. you got to stay there. you might have to do community service there, you might have to go to the school there. imagine telling someone you're

going to place she's sort of restrictions and sort of a robinhood problem. i'm going to take these funds elsewhere and send them here. yes, do i think it's a good idea to offer some stability early on in educational process, yes. do i think that that's the best means or feasible means of getting that done? talk to me after dinner. >> my question is about simplicity and transparency. this is one area in which we do

have -- on the one hand, we have some research evidence. we also have some emerging research evidence that confirms what financial aid officers all say. which is that student who are just on that margin of pell eligibility or above it are caught in a terrible situation because they get very little grant aid. yet they are still quite poor. we're not in that area where folks are even solidly middle class. for those of you talking about that trade-off, what does deserve aid and how do we know or why are we so interested in whether they're truly deserving? >> we're interested because the way that we do need right now we

start with a dollar amount. then we have elimited dollar amount that we're allocating out to students. it really comes down to figuring out when you have a limited resource where people fall. if we had a funding level that was such that we could allow little bit more spill over, i think somebody eleaded to this, even if that's quite low, then we're not as concerned. when you start with limited dollars up front, you want to make sure that the student who are getting it are the neediest. that's just a reality of the budget issue we work with. if we had a larger budget, there will be less concern. >> it seems the program double inside of the budge. does that change at all? >> the doubling of the program -- this is information come from

the department of education -- comes because of the eligibility changes that were made in the law. it's primarily resulting of more students qualifying for it. that's a good thing. we're expanding but when you expand that base you're starting with that dollar amount and as we seen in the last couple years, this problem alleviated and you end up with shortfalls and leads to problems and we end up cutting other programs to fund the pell grant. it ends up actually working against the very thing we were trying to do, which is expand pell grant dollars to more needy students. i think there is in a theory, we shouldn't care this much. reality is we have a budget picture. when you're inside the beltway, you seeing that closer than you ever wanted to see it. you see it coming to the brink more and more often at least in the last couple years. some of what is alleviating now.

the budget shortfalls are becoming pell surpluses in the next couple years. >> to compliment that, i heard a lot about need. isn't there something also suggest that these are the students from whom those dollars might do the most good. as an economist that's seems like you want the most funds to flow. the dollars that go to needy students actually produce a lot of good. >> i think the problem that we have is that pell grant funding is not entitlement funding. i personally really like the idea of a pell promise. if you promise students financial aid earlier, it can change their behavior and make them more likely to pursue

postsecondary education. i would hate for the federal government to make a promise to students and then something happens with the funding and we can't maintain that promise. think that is the tension that i experience when i think about the pell grant promise. we should take a look at what the data says and try to determine as best we can how many students might be impacted if for instance pell grant funding did decrease significantly in the future years. it's an idea we should consider sarah. >> sounds like we have an idea for demonstration project potentially. i'm the only thing standing between you all and lunch. why don't we say thank you to our panelist. thank you guys.

>> first ladies have a capacity to personify. if they so choose. this is a pattern in american women in politics famous or not. there are sort of two things. one there are women, real people who actually do things. but then there's this also secondary capacity of being a personifying figure, charismatic figure. many first ladies have becoming first lady and realizing this is larger than life. that is something dolly figured out. she become a figure head of her husbands administration and she fostered the attachment to the capital city. she doesn't know this. but in 1814, the british are going to burn the capital city and all of this work she put in to helping the public identify with this house that they called the white house under her term, is going to pay off. it's going to give the surge of nationalism around the world.

>> our focus on first ladies continueser monday night and next program features a story and authors catherine algore and anita black. tonight on c-span. >> in a few moments today's white house briefing with spokesman jay carney. some of today's senate debate on immigration bill and at 9:00 p.m. eastern a forum on first ladies through and history. ....