race and everything else. on pagewhy this court 538 recognized "a distinction between action that distinguishes on the basis of race. " section 26 falls into that latter category.

>> europe and asked several questions. >> affirmative-action means a lot more than just the use of race or sex-based preferences in university of michigan. section 26 only focuses on this one aspect of university of missions. another point to understand is that section 26 is not all about university of missions. this is a much broader law that applies not just your race and ethnicity but also sex and other this is a broad-based law that was primarily motivated by the people of michigan's decision to move past the day when we always focus on race and exactly as greater invited the states to do you can -- you can see how that discussion gets mired when you look at some of these statistics that we have been talking about.

is someone who has multiple racial boxes checked more or less diverse than someone who only has one box checked? is someone who comes from outside the country -- say from mexico -- >> you've done something much more. you are basically saying, because fisher and grutter -- we've always applied strict scrutiny -- >> correct. >> all right. so it's essentially a last resort, within some reason. but what you are saying, if all those other measures fail, you're by constitution saying you can't go to the remedy that might work. >> no, that's not what we are saying. >> well, but you're -- but this amendment is stopping the political process. it's saying the board of regents can do everything else in the field of education except this one. >> well, again, it actually runs the other way, because equal protection is what singles out race-focused measures for strict scrutiny.

but what we're saying is under grutter, race preferences are barely permissible. it cannot be unconstitutional for the people to choose not to use them anymore, to accept this court's invitation in grutter, to move past the discussion about race and into a race- neutral future. >> what would you do with a constitutional amendment that said pro-affirmative action laws, and only those, require a three-quarters vote of the state legislature? >> well, under what we're going to call the narrow "save hunter and seattle," something like that would be unconstitutional because it removes an antidiscrimination provision and moves it to a higher level of government. now, one of the problems with keeping that doctrine is it could also work the opposite way. you know, pretend that the political climate in michigan was turned on its head and that universities had agreed that they were no longer going to use race or sex in admissions and that it was the state

electorate, either in the legislature or in the constitution, which imposed a grutter plan on everyone. well, under hunter and seattle, that would have to go because that law removes an antidiscrimination provision and moves it to the higher level. and so that would be one reason why you might want to take the washington v. davis approach and consider whether there's discriminatory animus based on race. but, you know, in either of those cases, i think you can either, you know, pare down the doctrine or get rid of it entirely and distinguish our case from it. but the one point that i want to leave you with today is that the the core of respondent's arguments that somehow a racial classification can be any law that has a racial focus, cannot be the right test. no matter what, that portion of seattle and hunter has to go, because equal protection is about protecting individuals, not about protecting laws; and even nondiscriminatory race- neutral laws that have a racial focus would fall under their racial focus test. you know, the hypothetical we give in our briefs on that,

besides a state equal protection clause, would be the federal fair housing act because it references race, it has a racial focus, in the words of seattle and hunter, and it has the ability of preventing anyone from lobbying for preferences based on their race or sex at lower levels of the government, either state or local. so under their theory, the federal fair housing act would have to be applied under strict scrutiny. and their only response to that in the brief is that -- well, the supremacy clause takes care of that problem. and we all know supremacy doesn't kick in until you first determine that the federal law itself is constitutional, and it wouldn't be under their theory. so -- so what we're asking you to do is eliminate that portion of hunter and seattle that suggests that a law's racial focus is the sine qua non of a political restructuring doctrine test and to either -- >> mr. bursch, isn't -- >> yes. >> isn't the position that was

taken in seattle derived from a different view of the equal protection clause? i mean, strict scrutiny was originally put forward as a protection for minorities -- a protection for minorities against hostile disadvantageous legislation. and so the view then was we use strict scrutiny when the majority is disadvantaging the minority. so you do, under the carolene products view, you do focus on race and you ask, is the minority being disadvantaged? if that were the view, then i suppose we would not be looking at this, well, the criterion is

race and wherever the disadvantage falls, whether a majority or minority, it's just the same. that wasn't the original idea of when strict scrutiny is appropriate. so if we were faithful to that notion, that it is -- measures a disadvantage the -- the minority that get strict scrutiny. >> well, two thoughts on that, justice ginsburg. first, under grutter, this court made crystal clear that a grutter plan is not about which minority group is being advantaged or disadvantaged. it's supposed to benefit the campus as a whole. and to the extent the claim is that preferences benefit certain classes of minorities and not others, you know, for example, it benefits african americans and latinos, but not asians, even though they're both discrete and insular underrepresented groups, that -- then it fails under grutter. it can only be something that benefits everybody.

but more fundamentally, going back to your question about the origin of the doctrine, i think it's really important to understand why we have hunter, because hunter, remember, was decided before washington v. davis. and when you look at the face of the law in akron, ohio in hunter, there's nothing in there that would trigger strict scrutiny. and so this court was searching for another way to -- to strike down a law that removed an antidiscrimination provision and made it more difficult to reenact at the higher level of the political process. it needed something to fix that. and our point is you can either construe it to do exactly that, that only antidiscrimination laws being struck down and moved to a higher level can satisfy a political restructuring doctrine, or you can look at it differently. you can say now that we've got washington v. davis and we all know what the intent was in akron, that that is a simpler way to address this -- this problem and we really don't need the political restructuring doctrine at all anymore. but the reason why we had the doctrine in hunter is because strict scrutiny did not apply. >> you said that the district

court found it was clear that there was no --there was no discriminatory intent, but that wasn't reviewed on appeal. >> no, it was not. but it wasn't a finding. it was actually more than that. it was at the summary judgment stage. the district court correctly concluded there wasn't even a question of disputed material fact as to whether intent was the primary motivation of the electorate. unless there are any further questions, i will reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, counsel. mr. rosenbaum. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, let me begin, justice kennedy, with the questions you raise and then come to the question that chief justice roberts raised. to begin, justice kennedy, there's no way to distinguish the seattle case from this case nor the hunter case. both those cases have to be overruled. here is why the seattle case is is identical to this case.

both issues -- both cases involve constitutionally permissible plans which had as their objective obtaining diversity on campuses. seattle was a k-12 case. this case is a higher education case. but in both instances, the objective was to obtain diversity. no constitutional mandate to relieve past discrimination. rather, in fact, as the court said, seattle, tacoma, and wasco were attempting to deal with de facto segregation. >> is that an accurate description of seattle? i thought that in seattle, before the school board adopted the bussing plan, the city was threatened with lawsuits by the department of justice, by the federal government, and by private plaintiffs, claiming that the -- the previous pupil assignment plan was -- involved de jure segregation. isn't that -- isn't that correct? >> that's correct with respect

to at least one of the districts, justice alito. but in terms of the program itself, there's no dispute that it was done pursuant to a plan for de facto segregation. moreover, the question you asked, justice kennedy -- >> i don't understand the answer to that question. as to seattle itself, is it not the case that they were threatened with litigation? >> yes, but there'd been no finding, justice alito, of de jure segregation. >> and isn't it correct that the district court found that there was de jure segregation? >> that is not correct. >> it didn't? >> there was -- there was no finding whatsoever that there had been de jure segregation and that there was a constitutional imperative to correct that desegregation. it was an absolutely identical situation. and regarding the accountability, your honor is correct that in seattle what we were dealing with was an elected school board and here, as the michigan brief says, as the wayne state brief says, as the court specifically found at pages 326a and 327a of the record, this is a political process in which the regents were elected, have at all times maintained plenary authority over the admissions process itself, and that -- >> well, there are two things.

number one is it delegated to the faculty. and number two, they're election -- they're elected only rarely and in staggered terms. >> that -- that -- that is no question that that's correct, your honor. but the --the ordinary process itself is a politically accountable process. that's what the district court found when it looked at how the system worked. and in fact -- >> what if the -- what if the -- the board delegated to the various universities the authority to develop their own admissions programs? >> it couldn't alter -- i'm sorry, chief roberts. >> and they did, and then after several years they decided, you know, we don't like the way it's working; they're adopting too many racial preference programs; we're going to revoke the delegation. >> absolutely fine. >> why is that any --any different? >> because the difference is that in the seattle case, in this case, and in the hunter case, what's going on is a change from the ordinary political process, which your honor perfectly described. they can change it today. they can go to a -- an affirmative action plan today, repeal it tomorrow, come back.

>> so if there were a provision in the michigan constitution that says the board of regents is authorized to enact these programs, in other words delegated from the people in the constitution to the board, and then the people change the delegation by saying, no, it's no longer -- we're no longer going to leave that up to the board, we're going to make the decision ourselves in the constitution, how is that any different? >> it is different, your honor, because of the racial nature of the decision. under their theory, under their theory, the people of the state of a state could amend their constitution, put in the legislature two rooms, one for racial matters, one for all other sorts of matters, and say to any entrant who wants to enter that first room -- you may do so, but first you have to pay an exorbitant cover charge and then you have to mount multiple stairs, flights of stairs, just to begin the process of enacting constitutionally permissible legislation. or think about it in a

desegregation case. a student comes in -- two students come into the admissions committee. one says -- and the admissions committee says -- we have one question for you, one question for you since you're here to talk about a legitimate -- a legitimate factor in pursuit of diversity. here's the question -- do you want to talk about your race, your race in the context of other factors? and if the answer is yes, that student is shown the door, told go raise between 5 and $15 million, repeal prop 2 and then you can come back to make -- make the case. whereas the student who says, no, i've just got another legitimate factor, maybe geography. maybe alumni confections -- connections, whatever that is, that person is permitted to make the case. it is a racial distinction. now, chief justice roberts, you're certainly onto something in terms of are there race- neutral methods to get this done? of course there are. the state constitution itself could be altered so that a different committee or a different set of individuals could -- could make the decision that they don't like the way the

regents are doing it. or they could do it the old- fashioned way, the way that the politically accountable system works, which is to say, we are going to work at these universities, that's how affirmative action involving race happened in the first place. that's at pages 270 to 271a and 282a to 293a. they worked for years to make that happen. >> well, i thought the whole purpose of strict scrutiny was to say that if you want to talk about race, you have a much higher hurdle to climb than if you want to talk about something else. now, you can argue that strict scrutiny should only apply to minorities and not to students who are not minorities, but i thought the court decided that a long time ago. >> exactly. >> so i don't know why that's a hard question that you asked about the student who says, i want to talk about race. what if it's a white student who comes in and says -- i want to talk about race; i'm white and therefore you should admit me, you should give me preference. the state can't say, no, we don't want to hear that? >> the state can say, we don't want to hear that whether it comes from a white person or a black person or whomever, if in fact, they are not doing it on a

race-specific basis. you're exactly right, of course, about strict scrutiny. and the programs in this case, indeed, the only programs in this case that are effective, are those that have passed strict scrutiny -- >> well, i don't understand your answer then. if the student -- one student comes in and says i want to talk about how well i play the cello, all right, we'll listen to that. i want to come in and talk about why i as a white person should get a preference; you have to listen to that because you're listening to the -- to the talk about the cello, too? >> you do, your honor, when the program has passed the strict scrutiny test that we're talking about. and that's the only sort of program that is at issue in this case. of course you're correct. if it is a gratz type program, if it's unconstitutional, if it's a quota system, you don't have to listen to anybody talk about race. but we are only dealing with constitutionally permissible programs. why it is impossible, impossible to distinguish seattle? and this argument about hunter,

page -- page 389 of the hunter decision is the reason hunter was decided. it's not a washington v. davis case. >> well, i'm not sure i understood the answer you gave to the chief justice's hypothetical. maybe i misunderstood the hypothetical. suppose the board of regents have a rule, it's written, it's a rule, that the faculty makes a determination on whether there should be affirmative action. >> yes. >> five -- and the faculty votes for affirmative action. three years later, the board of trustees said we're abolishing the rule; we're doing that ourselves. violation? >> assuming that the regents say that's fine, no problem whatsoever, no problem whatsoever. that's the ordinary political process. >> so the -- so the regents can take it away from the faculty? >> the regents have plenary -- >> but can the legislature take it away from the regents? >> not under the michigan constitution, because the michigan constitution -- >> no, no. hypothetical case. >> ok. under -- who's got the authority here? the -- the legislature can take it away. that's not a problem in a -- in a situation where that's part of

the ordinary process. >> but then the voters can't take it away. at what point is it that your objection takes force? i just don't understand -- i just don't understand -- >> where there is -- >> the declension here -- >> my apologies, your honor. >> or the crescendo, whatever you call it. \[laughter] >> both are music to my ears. the point, justice kennedy, is that the --the people of the state have multiple options available to them if they don't like the way the universities are operating. but the one option they don't have is to treat racial matters different from all other matters. the example that you gave -- >> that applies in the chief justice's hypothetical or my revision of it as between the board of regents and the faculty or between the faculty and the legislature. >> exactly. and the problem --the problem that the restructuring process gets at, because of the particular concern that this court has shown with respect to the political process, that the political process itself not become outcome determinative; that the political process

itself be a place where we can air these discussions, but not create it in a separate and unequal way to make the -- to actually make the decision itself through the process. so -- >> why is -- why is the faculty administration, a faculty decision, any less outcome determinative than what the voters would say? i -- i think there would be people that might disagree with your empirical assumption. >> then i'm not explaining it clearly. the first -- the -- when the faculty makes the decision, justice kennedy, that's part of the ordinary political process. nobody's allowed to win all the time. no one has to win all the time. no one has to win all the time. whatever it is, it is. that's the ordinary political process. that's how we use the political process. the problem with -- with mounting a racial classification within the constitution itself is that then -- that takes the ordinary political process to the extraordinary political process. that's -- >> so i mean, you could say that the whole point of something like the equal protection clause is to take race off the table.

is it unreasonable for the state to say, look, race is a lightning rod. we've been told we can have affirmative action programs that do not take race into account. socioeconomic diversity, elimination of alumnae preferences, all of these things. it is very expensive. whenever we have a racial classification, we're immediately sued. so why don't we say we want you to do everything you can without having racial preferences. now, if the litigation determines that we're required to have racial preferences, this statute has an exception and -- and allows that. but starting out, we want to take race off the table and try to achieve diversity without racial preferences. >> the problem, your honor, as this court stated as recently as last term in the fisher case, is that under the equal protection clause race is not all the way off the table. and the problem with proposal 2 is that the substance and the message that it communicates is that because of the separate and

unequal political track that is created with respect to the extraordinary steps that have to be taken, the message is that, even where race is being utilized as one of many factors in a constitutionally permissible way, the message that is being communicated is that all uses of race are illegitimate, all uses of race are -- are off the table, that "race" itself is a dirty word. >> why -- why doesn't the fourth amendment violate the rule you're saying -- or the 14th amendment violate the rule that you're proposing? i mean, i'm a minority and i want laws that favor my minority. not just in university; everywhere. my goodness, i can't have that through the normal legislative process. i have to get a constitutional amendment to do it, right? >> that is correct, your honor. >> well, so i guess -- i guess that on this subject of equal treatment of the races, we can

eliminate racism just at the -- at the legislative level, can't we? >> your honor, the underlying basis of the entire strict scrutiny doctrine in the 14th amendment is to preclude the government, preclude the legislative and executive branch, from making those determinations as absolute determinations. the 14th amendment sets the standards and the criteria by which we measure that. of course you're correct. that's what the 14th amendment does. it sets what the rules are in terms of how race is utilized. but what the grutter case said >> and you can't change those rules by normal legislation, correct? >> that is correct. >> so if you're a minority that wants favored treatment, you're just out of luck. >> you have to use the ordinary political process. and that's all we're saying. >> no, but the constitutional amendment is not the ordinary political process. >> but the -- but the fact that it's a state constitutional amendment underscores my argument, which is that -- that in order for the -- for a -- the minority or any individual, and

white, minority, whatever -- whatever the individual is, to say i want the same rule book, i want the same playing field, the problem with proposal 2 is that it creates two playing fields. >> if proposal 2 had been in the michigan constitution before any affirmative action program was adopted, would the result be the same? >> it would, your honor, because because it would be building in this explicitly facial racial classification into the state constitution. the problem are the separate and unequal systems that are being used to deal with race. and separate and unequal, under the 14th amendment, shouldn't come within ten feet of race. >> it's not a racial classification. you should not refer to it that way. >> it is a racial -- >> it's the prohibition of racial classifications. >> no, your honor. >> every prohibition of racial classification is itself a racial classification? >> no, your honor. the problem with proposal 2 is that it is -- just as in hunter, just as in hunter -- it is an explicitly facial racial classification.

it singles out race for different treatment. my goodness, this was borne -- this campaign started three days after grutter itself. the author said the purpose of it was to get rid of racial preferences. >> well, if that's how you're using racial classification, i thought it meant, you know, it's directed at blacks or asians -- >> no. >> or -- no. in that sense, the 14th amendment itself is a racial classification, right? >> well, it sets the standard -- >> in that sense, the 14th amendment itself is a racial classification. no? >> i don't agree with that, your honor, because i'm measuring it as a racial classification by the 14th amendment. and that comes back to justice ginsburg's argument. his argument, his revisionist history of hunter, his -- was -- was about motive. but, your honor, that had nothing to do with the problem in this case. when the court looked -- when the district court looked -- may i finish my answer, chief justice roberts? >> yes. >> when the court looked at this particular issue, the concern was the way that it racially divided the political process itself. what he is saying is that, well, there may be all sorts of motives. that's a rational basis test,

and that has nothing to do with the racial classification. the definition i'm using, justice scalia, is this court's definition of a racial classification, for which all sorts trigger strict scrutiny. thank you very much. >> thank you, counsel. ms. driver? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, we ask this court to uphold the sixth circuit decision to reaffirm the doctrine that's expressed in hunter-seattle, and to bring the 14th amendment back to its original purpose and meaning, which is to protect minority rights against a white majority, which did not occur in this case. >> my goodness, i thought we've we've held that the 14th amendment protects all races.

i mean, that was the argument in the early years, that it protected only -- only the blacks. but i thought we rejected that. you -- you say now that we have to proceed as though its purpose is not to protect whites, only to protect minorities? >> i think it is -- it's a measure that's an antidiscrimination measure. >> right. >> and it's a measure in which the question of discrimination is determined not just by --by power, by who has privilege in this society, and those minorities that are oppressed, be they religious or racial, need protection from a more privileged majority. >> and unless that exists, the 14th amendment is not violated; is that right? so if you have a banding together of various minority groups who discriminate against against whites, that's ok? >> i think that --

>> do you have any case of ours that propounds that view of the 14th amendment, that it protects only minorities? any case? >> no case of yours. >> some people think that there is a difference between the plus and the minus. some judges differ on that point. some agree sort of with you, and some agree sort of not. all right? let's think of those who agree sort of, and then i have a question. and you know this area better than i. so think of grutter. grutter permits affirmative action. think of the earlier cases. they permitted affirmative action where it was overcome, the effects of past discrimination, but probably not otherwise. now, that's what i want to know. are there areas other than education where affirmative action would not be forbidden to achieve a goal other than

overcoming the effects? have you got the question? and does an answer come to mind? >> i think that affirmative action programs could -- could be permissible under employment. for instance -- >> ok. so there are a set. >> that's right. >> fine. if there are a set, what i -- what i'd like you to explain, if if you can take a minute, is think of how a city is set up. there are a vast number of administrators. there are a vast number of programs. it could be an administrator somewhere says he'd like to give a preference, maybe for good reason. but then the city council votes no, because there are other ways of doing it, by, you know, first come, first served or some other criteria that doesn't use race. are all of those unlawful? every one? do you have to leave it up to the -- no matter what the subject, no matter what the -- or are you going to draw a line somewhere? is there a line that you could draw that would take your case on the right side from your

point of view, but would say we're not giving power to every administrator in the city to decide on his own whether to use racial preferences without a possibility of a higher-up veto >> i think -- >> which i don't think you want to say, but maybe you do. >> no. i think these are very fact- based determinations. and so, somebody could make a decision that they wanted to use what you're calling racial preferences. and that could mean a range of things, and that could be subject to a veto higher up. yeah, i agree with you. >> so what's the line? is there any line that you can say, look here. we were trying to be very helpful, and all of a sudden they put this thing on the ballot, you can't even get it through. ok? that's your basic point. but -- but if you think of -- you have to write something, and that something has tremendous effect all over the place. so what kind of line is there, in your opinion? >> i think hunter-seattle provides the line. i think it says that if you have a law that has a racial focus, and that law, part of proving

that it has a racial focus, is that it takes a benefit that inures to minorities and it removes that benefit and it restructures the political process and places a special burden on minorities to re- ascertain that right, yeah, i think that's a proper rule. because it's -- it's -- >> can i -- can i come back to the question that the chief justice and justice kennedy were asking before? essentially, it's their question. let's say that the -- the decision about admissions criteria across the board is basically delegated to the faculty. all right? and the faculty adopts some sort of affirmative action plan. and now that is overruled in favor of a colorblind approach at various levels going up the ladder. so maybe it's overruled by the the dean of -- by a dean, or maybe it's overruled by the

president of the university. maybe it's overruled by the regents. maybe, if state laws allowed, it's -- it's overruled by an executive department of the state. maybe it's overruled by the legislature through ordinary legislation. maybe it's overruled through a constitutional amendment. at what point does the political restructuring doctrine kick in? >> i think in this case, the difference between what other groups can do in order to get preferential treatment for their sons and daughters and what racial minorities are subject to, the level of distinction places such a high burden on minorities. >> well, that really -- that really isn't responsive to my question. let's say exactly what was done here is done at all of these levels. at what point does the doctrine kick in? when it goes from the faculty to the dean? from the dean to the president, et cetera, et cetera? where does this apply? >> i think it depends on where it is that minorities face a

heavier and special burden. >> it can't be that, because the normal political process imposes burdens on different groups. i thought the line was a very simple one, which is if the normal academic decision-making is in the dean, the faculty, at whatever level, as long as the normal right to control is being exercised, then that person could change the decision. so if they delegate most admissions decisions, as i understand from the record, to the faculty, but they still regularly, besides race, veto some of those decisions, and race is now one of them, then the board of regents can do that normally. so could the president, if that's the way it's normally done. it's when the process is -- political process has changed specifically and only for race,

as a constitutional amendment here was intended to do, that the political doctrine is violated. have i restated? >> you have, you restated it very well, and i agree with you in principle. >> but i still don't understand your answer to justice alito's question. suppose the dean has authority in the bylaws of the university to reverse what the faculty does, but you have a dean who just does not like affirmative action. he is dead against it. and he makes the decision to reverse the faculty. do you have a remedy? >> i don't think it -- i don't think hunter-seattle applies. >> all right. then you have justice alito's question. then it's the president of the university, and then it's the legislature. >> i think you need two things i think you need the decisionmaking -- the decisionmaking body. if the university of michigan regents decided tomorrow to eliminate affirmative action programs and there was no prop 2, they have the legal right to

do that. they are the decision-making body. and minorities still could go and lobby the regents, still could go and talk about the questions of racial equality difference -- >> but would that be true --i'm sorry. would that be true if they had never gotten involved in admissions criteria before? they have the authority, but they left that to the university officials. >> i think if they have the plenary authority to do that, yeah, i think that, again, if they wanted to eliminate affirmative action programs and they had that plenary authority and it was guaranteed by the michigan state constitution and it had existed for 150 years, and they chose to enter this area, i think -- >> i don't see how that is consistent with justice sotomayor's answer to my question. don't the people of michigan have -- don't the people of michigan have plenary authority?

>> in this case, the particular it's -- they are applying that plenary authority in --or in a way that is racially focused, and creates a political process that is disadvantageous to minorities. >> i'm not saying instead of political process. don't let me put words in your mouth. think what you think here. you say where the authority is divided in a certain way, and that is true under the constitution of the state. so the state government lacks the power. and then you have to take the power from the people and change the constitution, and when you do that in respect to a benefit, then, in respect to benefits, washington -- you know, seattle and hunter kick in.

see, where we are not dealing with past discrimination. >> this -- what we're talking about in terms of affirmative action are constitutionally permissible programs that were shown to this court to be the only way to achieve racial diversity and integration at the university of michigan. and whether you -- whether you explain that by looking at the reality of the inequality in education for black and white michigan or whatever it is that you come up with that requires that, the university has shown that this is the only way to achieve diversity in which racial diversity is a part of the -- is a part of the quotient. and so to take away that right from the university and from the regents -- and i just want to go back to one of the questions that was answered. if you look at the law schools,

the medical schools, the professional schools now in the state of michigan, there's been a precipitous drop in underrepresented minority enrollment in those schools. we are going back to the resegregation of those schools because of the elimination of affirmative action. >> to what extent -- to what extent does your argument depend i thought both hunter and seattle speak in these terms -- that the policies that are more difficult to enact are beneficial for the minority group. >> the --- say that -- i'm sorry. can you repeat -- >> to what extent does your argument depend upon the assumption that the programs that you say are now more difficult to enact are beneficial to the minority group? >> i think it's an important component part, because i think it's in the benefit to the minority group that it's especially important -- >> well, why do you -- >> that the political process be on a level field. >> right. what if the question of whether it's a benefit to the minority group is more open to debate, whether it's through the

mismatch theory that taylor and sander i guess have adopted, or other theories? do we have to assume in your favor that these definitely are beneficial to particular minority groups? >> certainly the minority voters of michigan believe them to be, because 90 percent of black voters in michigan voted against prop 2. and i think that that's a clear indication of the popularity of these programs and the perceived benefit of these programs. >> there may be a difference between popularity and benefit. in other words, you want us to assume that the programs are beneficial to a minority group? >> yes. and they are beneficial to minority groups. they may -- they may serve to provide benefits for the population beyond minority groups, but they are a benefit if they -- >> your opponent says otherwise.

he says that minority students have taken tougher courses, they have been better qualified to be admitted, and all sorts of other benefits. so it's certainly a debatable question. >> it's a debatable question in another forum in a different case, and in fact i think that case was the grutter case. this case isn't about -- isn't just about whether or not affirmative action benefits minorities. it's also the restructuring of the political process and the special burden that's placed on minorities. it's not -- if you want to go back to debating the -- whether affirmative action -- >> you're changing your answer, then. your answer to the chief was it does depend and now you are saying it doesn't depend on whether it benefits minorities at all; it's just whether it places a -- a greater burden on minorities to change it. which is it? >> no, i -- >> one or the other? >> i think it's a two-part test.

i think the first, the first thing that you look at is, is there a racial focus to the law, and is the benefit that's been taken away something that inures to minorities. and i think the second part of the test, and that's why i think seattle/hunter is such a narrow doctrine, is whether there also has been a restructuring of the political process and a special burden placed on minorities. it requires both. >> thank you, counsel. mr. bursch, you have 4 minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. i'm going to start with a sentence from crawford, decided the same day as seattle, where this court defined what a racial classification is -- a racial classification either says or implies that persons are to be treated differently on account of race." it doesn't say

anything about laws with or without a racial focus. and we think that is the test that ultimately should come out of the decision in this case. now, my friends on the other side disagree with that, because if that's the test section 26 is constitutional. and so they draw this false dichotomy between laws that involve race and laws that don't involve race; we will put them in two separate chambers of the legislature and charge a fee if you want to talk about -- about race. and we know that can't be right, because of, chief justice roberts, your observation that the whole point of equal protection is to take race off the table when everyone is being treated the same. that's why they can't -- >> you quoted -- you quoted from crawford. >> yes. >> and there is an opposing quote in seattle itself on page, what is it, 486? >> yes. >> "when the state's allocation of power places unusual burdens

on the ability of racial groups to enact legislation designed to overcome the special condition of prejudice, the governmental action seriously curtails the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied on to protect minorities." and it quotes carolene products. so -- and then the following sentence is -- "in the most direct sense, this implicates the judiciary's special role, not of treating the individuals as individuals, but the judiciary's special role in safeguarding the interests of those groups that are relegated to a position of political powerlessness." so the rationale of seattle is that notion that we can't put hurdles in the way of a

disadvantaged minority. >> justice ginsburg, there is two problems with that. first that's where the respondent's theory most closely knocks up against grutter, because you are right -- under seattle and hunter you've got to have a policy designed for the purpose of primarily benefitting the minority. but if that's the policy, it violates grutter, which is supposed to benefit everyone. but the bigger problem is if you treat a -- >> diversity does, but when you take away a tool for diversity that's what seattle is saying is wrong. >> right, but the bigger problem >> you can't take the tool away simply because it may include race as a factor, simply because you are changing the playing field. >> but justice sotomayor, the biggest problem with respondents' test, with applying the literal language of seattle, is that as i said, the federal fair housing act, the equal credit act, a state equal protection law that mentions -- all of these things fall in the category of laws dealing with race.

some are discriminatory. >> seattle and this case both involve constitutional -- seattle and this case both involve constitutional amendments. so why can't the law -- the law be drawn -- the line be drawn there? if you change the allocation of power in one of these less substantial ways, that's one thing; but when you require a constitutional amendment that's really a big deal. >> because that would still invalidate the michigan equal protection clause which has a racial focus that says you cannot discriminate based on race or sex, and yet no one would argue it should be subject to strict scrutiny. >> that's the benefit to a minority group. but what i'm thinking is go read the cases. you yourself seem to say these cases seem to apply alike to the benefits or to the discrimination against it. i mean, there is lots of language in seattle. >> right. >> you come -- now, suppose you take that and say, all right, it was meant in context; but the context includes constitutional amendments because with the constitutional amendment you are restructuring. now you would lose on that theory; but there would be a limitation on the extent to which the people have the right to move powers around.

>> justice breyer, the limitation has to be not only that, but also that you are repealing an antidiscrimination law, not an equal treatment law. or again, otherwise the state equal protection clause has to fall. so to the extent that i am right, that is a way that you can narrow hunter and seattle, and section 26 has to survive. if i am wrong about that, then respectfully seattle and hunter should be overruled. either way, it does not violate equal protection to require equal treatment. thank you. >> thank you, counsel, counsel. the case is submitted. >> representative young was the

long serving member of congress for florida. he was 82 years old. >> over the years when you look at the books that had an impact on the president, what did you ind? > >> a mysterious to see whether books have had an impact. in one of the most famous stories of this was michael harrington wrote about called "the other america" in the 1960s. kennedy is supposed to have read this book and it led to the war on poverty. it is not quite that simple commented not happen quite that way. by dwightbook review macdonald in "the new yorker." that inspired kennedy to tell walter heller who was his chairman and the council of economic advisers to go look into policies that could be used kennedyiate poverty

august a tragically died in that was laterut pursued by a president. [applause] actor and gay-rights activist george to k speaking at a gay-rights event in d.c.. he talked about some the issues important to the lgbt community. this is an hour. much.nk you very it is wonderful to be here at the national press club, but the feeling i have is it is like a very elegant star trek convention. [applause] [laughter] and that reflects on your good taste and high standards.

it is wonderful to be back in washington at last and is wonderful to have washington back and working at last as well. bravo for that. [applause] washington. when we arrived in the early earlyg mass light -- evening last night, i saw all the things that i love about washington. i was greeted by the national monument in that dusky light there it was glowing white and luminous. i visited all those monuments many many times and been inspired by the words written on it. there is one new addition to that collection of memorials here in washington that i have not visited, that is the newest one, the memorial tribute to dr. martin luther king jr..

so the first thing we did this and we was grabbed a cab went to the martin luther king jr. memorial. we walked up to it and there was dr. king looming above that white stone. , he wasis arms crossed standing strong and determined. i looked at that face and i saw the gentleness and the compassion there. he is the only one of the american heroes memorialized that i have met and shaken hands with and converse with. that is a very important and powerful meaningful monument for me. it -- as his at face, i of the famous words of his. his dream, i have a dream speech. i have a dream.

it is a dream that is deeply rooted in the american dream. i have a dream that on the red hills of georgia the sons of slaves and the sons of slaveowners will be able to sit together at the table of brotherhood. i have a dream. i have a dream that my two little children will live in a nation -- my four little children, he said, will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character varies those were inspiring words. i remember marching with them and raising our voices in song with him. from the i have a dream speech were spoken from the lincoln memorial. so we went over to the lincoln memorial and climb those steps and there was president lincoln looking majestic in his seat and

i thought of the words that all high school kids memorize, the gettysburg speech. the government of the people by the people shall not perish from the earth. and i step further away and looking northwest i saw the kennedy center for the performing arts where i have been many many times. of of the things i enjoy going to see a play at the kennedy center is during the intermission, i like to stroll and read river terrace the quotes from president kennedy on the marble wall there. i memorized one that particularly struck me. he said, that after the dust of the centuries have passed over our cities, we will be remembered not for the victories were defeats in the fields of battle or of politics, but we

will be remembered for our contribution to the human spirit , soaring ideals, soaring aspirations, american ideals. and from the steps of the lincoln memorial i looked down and i saw the vietnam war and the world war ii memorials. these were people who fought, who sacrificed and some died for those ideals of this country. then i looked be on that and there is the washington monument , currently clad in the temporary artfully designed scaffolding [laughter] . but i thought it looked rather ethereal and at ,he same time having substance soaring up there to the sky. and i looked beyond that, far beyond that and i saw the national nuthouse [laughter]

. [applause] goeslace where someone close to the government and throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work and then they turn around and say they are creating jobs. disruptckos that funerals for military personnel who died abroad and then they say they're doing that to strengthen our military. it is absolutely crazy, absolutely irrational, and this on the other end of our national mall. and shiningonality ideals of our nation. cities,t two separate it is the same city and it is our national capital.

it is very representative of what america is all about. the irrational and the ideals. those two opposites have to find my life totally, because i grew up as a child imprisoned and barbed wire american prison camps. pearl harbor was bombed and overnight american citizens of japanese ancestry were looked at with suspicion and fear and outrage should. despite that, young japanese- americans like all americans rushed to their recruitment centers to volunteer to serve in the military. this act of patriotism was answered with a slap in the face. the regionwide military service and labeled enemy non-aliens. to call peopleus

who are voluntarily there to fight for this country the enemy , but to compound that by .alling us non-aliens what are they, non-aliens e they are citizens defined in the negative. we became enemy non-aliens and we were summarily rounded up at in thet and imprisoned 10 barbed wire american prison camps in some of the most desolate places in the country. i remember those barbed wire fences. i remember the tall sentry towers with the machine guns pointed at us. i remember the searchlights of followed me when i made the night runs to the latrine. , as al you the truth five-year-old boy, i thought it was kind of nice that the search light lit the way for me to be.

[laughter] i was too young to really understand what was really happening. children are amazingly adaptable. would be grotesquely abnormal became my normality behind those barbed wire fences. to linee routine for me up three times a day to eat lousy food in a noisy mess hall. it became normal for me to go with my father to base at a mass bathe at a mass shower. i could see the barber fence in the sentry towers right outside my schoolhouse window as i recited the words, with liberty and justice for all. i was too young to appreciate the irony of those words.

but for my parents, it was the and painful, degrading turbulent. of their lives. a year into imprisonment, the government realized there was a , andme manpower shortage so as suddenly as a round is us they rounded us up, they inducted the japanese for military service. and as astounding as it sounds, dozens of japanese went from behind that barbed wire imprisonment, leaving their families in imprisonment and volunteered to fight for this country. they were put into a segregated, all japanese-american unit, the and sent toent

europe. they were sent out on the most dangerous missions and they sustained the highest combat casualty rate of any unit of its size. they fought with amazing courage. they became heroes. ended, the four 42nd return to the united states is the most decorated unit of the entire war and the american flag that covered the coffins of those that perished on those battlefields were delivered back ,o their wives or their parents still behind those barbed wire fences. .tinging irony that is a part of american history. ien i became a teenager, started reading civics books and history books and i read about

all the glorious chapters in american history. anythingldn't find about what i knew to be my childhood. so i engaged my father in conversations after dinner. sometimes they became very heated. conversations, i got a better understanding of our democracy. said, ours is a people's democracy and it can be as great as the people can be, but it is also as fallible as people are. our democracy is vitally good people being actively engaged in the process. 's feet haveocracy to be put to the fire. shortly after those conversations my father took me to the adlai stevenson for

president headquarters and we volunteered in that campaign and that was my introduction to electoral politics and that was my introduction to advocacy for social justice. i became inspired by the words of dr. martin luther king and i was actively involved in the civil rights movement. when the vietnam war started, i joined the anti-vietnam war movement. i became a member of the eipj - the entertainment industry for peace and justice and worked alongsid donald sutherland and jane fonda and in 1972, i became a mcgovern delegate to the democratic national convention in miami beach. in the 1970s when the movement began to get redress and an apology for that incarceration of japanese americans, i joined in with that as well.

i testified at the congressional commission gathering information on the internment. i was involved in all the civil rights and social justice advocacy campaigns except for one issue that was organic to me. that was an immutable part of me from the time i was a young boy, i knew i was different in ways more than my asian face. the other boys would say," monica is hot." [laughter] sally is cute. i thought monica and sally were nice -- [laughter] but bobby was exciting.

[laughter] when ever he came near me or talked to me, my heart started to pound. the other guys did not feel that way. i was the only one, i thought. i was very alone. and i had a need to be part of the gang, to be part of everybody. and so i acted like monaco was hot and sally was cute. i dated girls. i went on double dates. i went to the senior prom. i played a part. as i got older, i met others who are like me. and i discoveredgay bars. i was comfortable there. people were friendly and they were who they were as i could be who i was. i could relax. but i found something else that we shared in common.

it was a fear. a fear of being exposed. we were living double lives. they told me about some gay bars that got raided by the police and the patrons there were all herded out and loaded onto paddy wagons and taken to the police station, fingerprinted, photographed and put on a list called deviants. that was a fearsome thing. whenever i walked into a new gay bar, i always looked for the exits. we lived in constant, ever present fear of eating exposed ever present fear of eating exposed. in 1969, two earthshaking

events happened in my life. the first one was " star trek" got canceled. [laughter] i had been working on a tv series for three seasons and the ratings were low and the network had the numbers to justify cancellation. and i was unemployed. as low as the ratings were, " star trek" was a respected show and a good credit. i needed to parlay that and build some momentum to continue my career. all the way across the country, on the east coast, in new york city, something else happened -- there was a gay bar there called the stonewall inn. it's patrons were gays and lesbians and some drag queens.

on that july summer afternoon, the police decided to raid the stonewall inn but this time, something different happened. the people inside the bar had had enough. they were not going to take more of that bullying and harassment. they fought back. those drag queens stood strong on their high heel shoes and started throwing things. empty beer bottles, salt shakers, chairs, everything they could throw and they fought fiercely and forced the police to retreat. they called for reinforcements but in the meantime, it inside the stonewall inn, phone calls were made to friends around greenwich village and by the time the police reinforcements arrived, people had been pouring out of the greenwich village buildings and they attacked the

reinforcements with stones and trash cans and whatever else they could throw. a major riot ensued and that riot continued for six nights straight. and that was the beginning of the gay liberation movement. it was the buzz and all the gay bars across the nation. all were thrilled and excited. and motivated and galvanized but i was silent. i had a career to protect. and then i had many relationships with many men, some brief, some more and i met a guy named brad. [laughter]

[applause] he was a runner and i was a runner but he was a great runner. he was lean then -- [laughter] he was tight muscled and he was handsome. and he was the best runner i had ever seen. i heard that he had run a few marathons and i had never run a marathon. so i asked him to train me for my first marathon. [laughter] and i finished that first marathon is to brad. and we became great running buddies. soon, we became more than running buddies. he moved in with me. and he too, shared the fear that i had, the constant, ever

present fear of being exposed. he was a young journalist. he was not a member of the national press club yet. but he had to protect his career as well. and then in the 1980s, a strange, mysterious disease started affecting a lot of our friends. they suddenly became very ill and started drastically losing weight and became skeletal and had to be rushed to the hospital frequently. and we were outraged by the kinds of care they got. it was perfunctory at best. the treatment that they got was reprehensible. a it wasids. -- it was aids. organizations began to form to demand appropriate funding for research to find some way of

dealing with this horrible disease. and it was not forthcoming. and for the first time, we donated money to a gay-related organization. but we remained silent. the horror that getting worse. our constant fear had now turned to terror. it kept getting worse and worse and worse and so, i marched in my first aids walk. i became physically present on the issue. but i marched as an ally, a cloak to disguise me. it kept getting worse and worse. gay organizations, gay and

lesbian organizations, became very vocal and very visible. and that generated the homophobic blowback and they were connected. they had -- some more gay politicians, members of that homophobic group. and they started institutionalizing their homophobia. they passed laws to confine us, don't ask, don't tell, defense of marriage act -- of those laws, to me, looked like barbed wires, legalistic barbed wires with the sharp, hard barbs of prejudice and ignorance. and still, i remained silent. but exciting, positive things started happening. the california legislature, both houses, the senate and the assembly, past the marriage

equality bill in 2005. it was a landmark event. it was unprecedented. all it required was a signature of our governor to become the law of the state. the governor will happen to be, at that time, arnold schwarzenegger. when he campaigned for that office, he said " i'm from hollywood and i have worked with gays and lesbians in some of my best friends are gays and lesbians." i thought surely he would sign the bill. when he vetoed that bill playing to his archconservative republican base, we were enraged. but we were at home watching the news. on the news, we saw young people pouring out onto santa monica boulevard venting their rage on arnold schwarzenegger and we shared that bridge but we were at home, comfortable in bed.

and we talked about it and that's when i decided i've got to speak out on this issue. we are getting so close and we have people like arnold schwarzenegger to squash it. i've got to speak out and for me to speak, my voice had to be authentic. and so i spoke to the press for the first time as a gay man. and we became actively and vocally and visibly engaged. i joined with thehrc, the human rights campaign, and went on a speaking tour at universities, governmental agencies, at corporate meetings. i came to washington and lobbied our legislators. i went to sacramento and lobbied our legislators. things began to happen.

in california, our state supreme court in 2008 ruled that marriage equality is indeed constitutional according to the california state constitution. and so brad and i immediately seized the opportunity and got our wedding license in west hollywood. we were the first couple to get that license. we were married in the democracy forum of a japanese american national museum. we loved the idea of adding married in the form of democracy. we had 200 of our relatives and friends there with us. amongst them was a distinguished american. he was a veteran of the second world war, a member of the 442nd regimental combat team, a bearer of the medal of honor,

the highest recognition, military recognition the nation can grant. and he was the senior senator from the state of hawaii, a very good friend of ours, the late senator daniel inoutye. he was there as our guest at our wedding and we were absolutely thrilled. other good things started to happen. the matthew shepard-james byrd junior hate crimes prevention act was passed. don't ask, don't tell fell and now, gays and lesbians can serve proudly and openly as who they are. they are true patriots having gone through pe thatriod of silence. this summer, the supreme court of the united states ruled that marriage equality is, indeed,

constitutional in the states that approved it. 13 states lost this city -- 13 states plus the city, our national capital, has marriage equality but our work is not done yet. when i pledge allegiance to the flag, i pledge allegiance to one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. we have divided our nation 1/3 with the quality and 2/3 with people who hunger for equality but do not have it. our work is not done but i am optimistic because recently in california, the california field poll showed that 78% of young people under 39 support and support strongly, equality for lbgt people. 78% -- it's a matter of time.

i'm very optimistic and i love young people. especially young straight couples because they are going to be making the gay babies of tomorrow. [laughter] [applause] it is for them that we have to be agents of change today. my life has been shaped and formed by people that i consider change agents. those young man who went from behind those prison camp fences to fight for this country and some to die for this country, they changed america for us, japanese-americans, and they were might change agents. my parents were also might change agents.

when we were let out of the camp, our first home was on skid row in downtown los angeles. we did not have anything. and from that, by working long, hard hours, they gave their three children fine educations in outstanding, great american universities. the university of california at berkeley, the university of california at los angeles. the university of southern california and the university of wisconsin. they were our change agents and yes, those drag queens at the stonewall inn also are much age agents. just are my change agents. this nation has been defined by change agents. when this nation was founded,

women had no rights, they could not vote, they could not own land, they could not even have rights over their own children. because determined women and fair-minded man challenged and debated and marched for equal rights for women, today we have three women sitting on the supreme court of this country. we have had three women serve as u.s. secretaries of state. and we've had a woman astronaut lead a team of astronauts and go soaring out into space. they were all change agents. the first change agents were our founding fathers who articulated the shining ideals of this country. 'they were change agents but they also kept other human beings as slaves. because those slaves hungered for freedom and justice and they

struggled for it, and because their children and their grandchildren and the generations that followed continued their struggle, through the jim crow years and the years of the civil rights movement, inspired by dr. king's eloquence, today we have an african-american in that big white house on pennsylvania avenue. and they are all change agents. we are a nation of change agents. and that's why i am optimistic about our future. but, i still have a continuing ever present fear. i fear that big white building with the dome on it at the far end of pennsylvania avenue. we still have january 15 and february 7.

be afraid, america. be afraid. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. we have a lot of questions on a lot of topics. we will try to cover a little ground in a bunch of areas. this questionnaire asks -- you talked about the work yet to be done in terms of gay marriage being legal in all states. what do you see as the next civil rights fight on the horizon after gay marriage? >> we still have a long ways to go. as long as there are young

people bullied and made to feel very inferior, as long as young people get kicked out of their homes when they come out as gay or lesbian, and as long as some young people feel that their future is so hopeless and they kill themselves, we have a lot to do. we have to have, first of all, education and then some legislation to make sure that those horrible things don't happen to young people. >> this questionnaire says -- for first generations americans whose parents are not as progressive and liberal as many parents born in the u.s., what advice do you have are bringing up touchy subjects like being gay? >> that's very difficult. it depends on the culture from which that first generation

parent comes from. i am most familiar with the asian culture and particularly the japanese culture. the japanese culture is not so shaped and ruled by religion as it is here with the bible. it is primarily a boost nation. -- a buddhist nation. the culture is to work collectively and it's a very uh- they have a big middle-class and so there is a lot of utilitarian as him. -- a lot of e galley at terry and as him -- a lot of egalitarianism. it is not so much religious values as being a part of a comfortable society.

for young people to come out in a society like that, there is not that fear of being struck down by the devil or anything like that. the concern is it will embarrass the family. once society is educated, it's not going to be an embarrassment. that's why i think it is so important for more -- silent gays and lesbians, particularly in the asian culture, to come out and be open and be as they are, insurance salesman, schoolteacher, policeman, whatever you are and it makes it more socially acceptable. there was a quote that i was going to suggest putting on the

congress -- the walls of congress, because i use a lot of quotes on the memorial and what i think of is the quote from the great former congressman who said," these days it is more socially acceptable to be gay than to be a congressman." [laughter] i think that should be carved into the walls there. [laughter] >> you talked about your enjoyment of running and carry the 1984 olympic torch. you called on the national olympic committee to move the 2014 winter games out of sochi because of the russian laws banning the promotion of gay relationships and the games are less than four months away. do you think the u.s. should bike -- boycott those games for that reason? >> no, i don't believe in a boycott. the athletes that participate in the olympics have been training

for years now. they are reaching their peak and they should not be penalized. the homophobic laws in russia that was passed recently -- when they made the presentation to the international: pics committee to have the right to present the winter elliptic's atsochi, russia, they pledged to honor the olympic code which says no discrimination. they breached that pledge. russia needs to be punished but it's too late to pull it out ofsochi now. we have sent messages and petitions to the international olympics committee to be responsible and call russia out on the breaching of their pledge. apparently, they had some conversations with politicians

there and a couple of politicians have said -- the minister of interior who controls the police said laws of russia will be honored and anyone who cannot will be tried. the olympics committee reported that there is nothing we can do about it so we are comfortable about the limericks being staged in sochi. the international olympic committee is spineless. they need to have some backbone. they are charged with upholding the olympic creed and something should be done with the membership of the ioc. [applause] >> this questionnaire says she did not learn about the internment of japanese americans until she was in high school

watching [inaudible] how do you feel about this lack of information on this part of history? >> it is a regrettable part of american history. i think we learn more from those chapters of our history where we faltered them from the many glorious chapters we have. it's important that we learn from our mistakes and if we don't know about it, we will keep repeating the same mistakes again. that is why we founded the japanese american national museum where an affiliate of the smithsonian -- we are an affiliate of the smithsonian and send it around the country. senator inouye was the chairman of our board of governors. he was a strong and active supporter of the museum. we work with the teachers association in arkansas, that's

where we were first incarcerated, in southeastern arkansas. we have established teaching curricula on this subject of the internment of japanese americans. it's being taught in the schools. it has sent out a ripple effect. there were two internment camps in arkansas, oath in the swamps of the southeastern sector. we were at it cap calledrohr and there was another called jerome and in the middle of those two internment camps there is a small town called mcgee and earlier this year, they converted their abandoned railway station and to the world war ii japanese american internment museum. it is a small museum but it is very comprehensive and

beautifully done. if any of you should be driving around southeastern arkansas, you might visit that museum inmcgee, arkansas. >> what is the status of" allegiance?" is it likely to come to broadway? and when is it likely to come to dc? >> " allegiance" began about three years ago. we developed this musical and we developed it because we can have books and lectures and talks about the internment which helps us understand intellectually but the most powerful way to understand a story is to feel that story. musical theater hits you hear, emotionally. it humanizes the story. we developed" allegiance" and

we first opened at the old globe theater in san diego, distinguished regional theater. we were greeted with rave reviews and that was followed by sold-out houses and our run was extended another week and when we finally closed, we had broken all box office attendance records at the 72nd year old old globe theater. then we won the best musical of 2012 from the san diego critics circle. that all bodes well for our transfer to broadway. however, something unusual is happening this year. usually, there are few new plays and musicals coming into broadway and there are theaters that are dark. this year, we have a plethora of

musicals and thomas trying -- and dramas trying to find a home on broadway and we are particularly fussy. we want a certain size capacity theater. we are looking for a theater of about 1200-1400 seats. it's very difficult to come by. we are like vultures perched on time square buildings looking down and looking for the weak ones and waiting for them to die. [laughter] >> moving onto social media, you are known as the king of facebook. what have you learned from your popularity on social media? any surprises you have discovered there? >> let me give you a little

background on why and how my social media activities started. it's related to " allegiance." we have invested a lot in this musical with their energies and ideas and our resources. but it's about something that's little-known and america -- in america and it's a rather unhappy chapter of american history. and so, first of all, we had to raise the awareness because there is so many people still to this day, people that seem well informed, to tell me that i knew nothing about this internment story. we had to raise the awareness of americans about the internment of japanese americans. and then, once the awareness was raised, we wanted to let them know that there is a musical on

it. and there are wonderful songs, moving songs, and great production numbers that are jazzy and resume says. [laughter] broadway musical numbers and one on baseball that's a real terrific number. and it's relevant to the story because it was playing baseball that made us a community. it brought us all together. we developed this musical and we wanted to let people know that there is this musical. and then to whet their appetite and make them want to come and see it. the best way to do that v isia social media. i began on social media but my base is made up of sci-fi geeks and nerds. [laughter] you are there areas yes, i see you. [laughter] [applause]

so we had to develop that and the best way to do that, i thought, was to say funny things about sci-fi or science itself and occasionally throw in some serious snippets in. as the audience grew, i talked about lgbt equality and suddenly, the audience grew even more. there is a great overlap betweensci-fi geeks and nerds and the lgbt community. [laughter] then i started blogging about the internment of japanese americans and opened a few eyes. there was a lot of engagement there. it kept growing and growing. that's why we began the social media campaign. what i learned is that there are millions of people out there. [laughter]

i had no idea it was going to grow so big. i am absolutely astounded. it is liketopsy from" uncle tom's cabin" i just growed. i learned that there are a lot of people out there that you can reach via social media and the best honey to catch those flies with his humor. something funny will always grab them. >> we got a couple of questions about "ohhhh myyy." tell us about the genesis of that. >> somehow, my oh my has become my signature. i have been using it all my life. it's a word that when you're surprised, you say " oh my" or

when something wonderful happens. when you see a beautiful sunrise or a radiant sunrise, you say "oh my." or when we land a man on the moon, you say "oh my." it's a very handy and all encompassing word. [laughter] i have been using it all the time. but, i had one experience that started it all off as my signature. i did the howard stern show. yes, there is a howard stern fan. howard stern says a lot about racist things. in response to something outrageous he said, i said "oh my." he had it on tape. that's all he needed. whether i am there or not, [laughter] when someone says something outrageous, he has a button and presses and my voice comes on

"oh my." [laughter] [applause] >> we certainly cannot leave today without a " star trek" question. how did your fellow starcher cast members embrace your coming out? >> uh - at the end of the week, we have what we call wrap parties, the beer is rolled out and the pizza is brought in. people bring their wives or girlfriends or the women bring their husbands or their boyfriends with them to join us for the end of the week wrap party. initially, i was bringing my friends who happens to be girls but later, i started bringing my buddies. one day, there would be ron and

the next week there might be mel and then another week there might be a brad. they are sophisticated people. they said ,"oh, george, i get it." they understand that if they talked about it, it would be damaging to my career and they are cool people. they remained silent. but, occasionally, i get some clues from them. when we report to the studio in the morning, before we go to our dressing rooms, we go to make up and get into make up and then gather around the coffee urn and sip coffee. this particular morning, i was at the coffee urn with walter and we were chitchatting. all of a sudden, walter started

going like this -- you know, urging me to turn around. i turned around to look and there was this dropdead you're just extra. [laughter] dressed in that tight starfleet uniform. [laughter] and my heart stopped. and then i turned around and looked at walter and walter was smiling and he went - [laughter] i knew he knew now. >> we are, unfortunately almost out of time but before i ask you the last question, a couple of housekeeping matters -- i would like to. remind you of our upcoming speakers on november 5, we have rolled it

on -- we have goldie hawn and then walt bettinger from charles schwab. i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club coffee mug. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> and for the last question -- tell us, are there gay vulcans and if so, how do they socialize? [laughter] >> i can answer that. it's a changed world now. we have the new version of " star trek." the last two movies had younger actors playing our roles. the actor who plays spock, a vulcan, is played by zachary quinto who is gay. we have an out gay vulcan and he happens to be spock. [laughter]

zachary is a real great guy and he's also a very serious actor. as you know, he was on " heroes," and i was mr. knocker mora -- nakamura, the father of hiro who has magical powers. zachary was the villain in that. \zachar was the villain in that. he had evil powers. after the series was canceled, he went to new york, and he had been doing off-broadway plays. in a challenging role in a great american drama, "angels in america," playing the gay attorney. or, he was not an attorney yet, but a very important, dramatic, demanding role, and he got good reviews for that.

he opened on broadway with a wonderful actress, cherry jones, and one to tony awards in tennessee williams "the glass menagerie," and he got luminous reviews. the new york times said he was the best tom winfield that he had ever seen. zach is a wonderful actor. as a matter fact, we have tickets to see him tomorrow. we are headed to new york right \we are headed to new york right after this event here. so, he is a gay vulcan. that is how they celebrate, they become serious actors. [applause] [laughter] >> thank you for coming today.

also, i would like to say thank you to the national press club staff for organizing the event. you can find more information about the press club and a copy of today's program on our website, www.press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. [applause] john king said looks at the 40 anniversary of the opec oil embargo. your e-mails, phone calls, and tweets.

>> next, a discussion on how --eralists -- generalists journalists are using social media. >> good morning. it is an absolute treasure to be here. let's congratulate ajay and the entire new york press club for what they have done as you. heard, i left columbia full time to move to a new role at the museum of art, as the chief digital officer. and i will tell you what we do and that has to do with the timing because it is so early. it is also a chance for us to take stock of where we are and where we are going.

to takechance for us stock of where we are, and where we are going. there is so much buzz and hype about social. this is a good moment to think through what makes sense for each of us to do in our work, and get some ideas. i hope you will leave with lots of ideas about the social and mobile world after we are done this morning, but the entire session today has so many different opportunities for you to learn about this changing media landscape. i should say that i still subscribe to two daily print newspapers.

any two-paper households? that's great. what is happening in my mind is that we have to think about ways in which we can continue to support the kind of great journalism so many of us in the room have been doing for so many years, but make it fit into the landscape that has changed so much. on of my colleagues coined a term that some of you may have heard, a tradigital journalist. the ability to understand the history and values of traditional journalism, but also knows how to use the new schools to connect with our audience in

a new way and engage with our audiences. social has a lot to do with that. we have this tweet that i can turn off, but we want to encourage you to please tweet with #nypc2013. if you look this year, they have a good twitter handle. even the after party venue has a twitter handle. that tells you something about how much twitter is out there. we will talk about other tools and ways in which you can understand the media space. let me tell you a little bit about what i am doing and how it connects to what we are talking about. here you see my twitter and facebook pages have changed because it is now about the museum world.

part of the point i wanted to make was about branding. i want you to think about your social media presence as a chance for you to reinforce the brand you already are or the brand you want to be known for. being very specific in your bios about who you are, what kind of tweets you do, all of that has become more important. think about doing that. your social media becomes part of your brand. people have asked me, what does the chief digital officer do, and i work with a team that i am obsessed about, video apps, mobile, social, geolocation, web, and more. also as the chief digital officer, my job is to help the museum get even better at digital than they are, which is digital already, and an example from our facebook page of the emphasis we put on facebook, twitter, and also our instagram feeds. i hope you will take the chance

to take a look at these and see how the museum is like journalism in the sense we want to connect with audiences, but we want to tell stories, and stories are part of what we do, and we use social as part of that. i want to shout out to a person on twitter, and they are live streaming to the world and will be streaming from all the sessions. i want to shout out to a person on twitter, and they are live streaming to the world and will be streaming from all the sessions. he is using a tool to do this, and i hope you will make an action list of things today you want to follow up. bambuser. what is amazing is i learned about it from a group of pakistani journalists.

now they are using it at this conference a couple of years later. bambuser -- what is that? it is a live streaming tool that allows you, from your phone, who to live stream from anywhere in the world where you have a decent signal. it is an app you can get, and maybe we will tweet something out about it. how is he doing his live streaming across the world from his phone and how does he do it, and you can chat with him. let me introduce you to our panelists. we have a great group of folks to help you think through what is happening in social media and how it applies to what you are

doing. they can come up and walk through some of their pages or they can talk from there. first, we have stephanie haberman. she is the social and digital producer at nbc news. i like her description -- breaking news junkie. she has a website where she has more information, so please welcome stephanie. [applause] we also have with us greg, a ceo of sawhorse media. he will tell you about that, and he says he is a member of twitter's first name club, and you can check him out. please welcome gregory.

[applause] we also have with us today carla, who is the director of social media and engagement at dnainfo in new york and chicago, and she is the chair of the new york women's club, and she is a gal about uptown. she gets her e-mail address out because she wants to connect and engage them and you can see that. you can see how social all of these people are in real life and online. let's start with stephanie and have her talk. [applause] >> hi, everyone.

looking for my -- my name is stephanie haberman. i work on the show "dateline." i spent some time at mashable. in those three seconds i told you i have worked in tv, all digital, a magazine, and i worked at a newspaper at college, so i am running out of media to work with. -- i am running out of mediums to work in. so if you come up with something let me know. right now my absolute main obsession inside social media is user-generated content, and how we can approach it without people paying us for it. -- without people hating us for it. it is on my mind because two days ago, with the capitol hill

shooting and all of that, when i was reaching out to be book and reaching out to people and trying to see this is a great image you created, you had people calling you a vulture all the time. it is really weird and strange, because in my head if you are taking an image, a video, and sharing it, the intent is to have it shared. of course, you reach out, and you want to make sure that that assumption is correct. when you are sharing a photo, would you not want it to be seen as many people as possible? that is what social is. it is bringing the outside world into your world. so i do not know exactly what we are supposed to be talking about for these five minutes. some of the things i am obsessed with right now -- this is a

little obvious and a little stupid, but this is the single most underused page on the social web. you can find the most ridiculous twitter advanced search. wealth of information here you can possibly imagine. i could put our hashtag in this area. it is the fastest way, the most interesting way to get information in real time on the web. a lot of people do not know that this advanced search on twitter exists. it is cool. for those who do not know and want to go the easy way, i will be more extensive. this is something i think is one of the coolest things around. i should have signed in earlier. i will explain it to you. you can type in any location on

the globe and be, like, ok, show me what is going on here right now. and they will. through twitter pitchers, -- through twitter cheers, -- through twitter pictures, through instagram, twitter, youtube, anything that is geo- located, you can see it in real time. to bring that kind of social mindset to a company or producer that may or may not be tradigital journalism thing, a way of finding the content when you are not hardwired into the system -- >> you can request a demo? >> yes, you can request a demo. this is what i am talking about finding content social and crowd sourcing content. this is the stuff that i found in the capitol, all the

craziness going on. definitely somebody making sure nbc -- you cannot see it right there, but all of this stuff. people talk about all the time about is -- does crowd sourcing make sense? do you need to have boots-on- the-ground reporters? absolutely, but crowd sourcing is a way of getting there before the journalists can even get there, because -- sorry if i'm babbling -- journalists are not there the second it happens all the time, that someone is always watching. other ways i think are cool right now -- nbc did something real cool this week with the congress shutdown. they started a random hashtag.

let us know how you feel about your congress. it was not a branded hashtag. there is no nbc in it, there was no today show. it was just #dearcongress. it invited people to talk and invited people to have a conversation about something they are interested in within -- that is the word cloud they created about it. as of 6:00 p.m. on tuesday, there were 36,000 mentions on the social web. it was the top on twitter for 24 hours. it absolutely took off. that is a real good case for how tv -- so many people will say it is all going to be digital, but i do not think it yet can be because everyone is watching in different ways. tv is just a really cool spring point for that.

i pulled this up because the conversation about -- [indiscernible] if you did not know what that was, it is a social aggregation platform that brings in either a hashtag or twitter account, and jeff elder is doing a cool project. anyone ever used the hashtag, it pulls in these gorgeous images that people are pulling in about how people in san francisco are seen around town. 2:00 a.m. in the way of bringing i apologize i have babbled, but it is 9:00 a.m.

good morning. >> we will have plenty of time to ask her questions about the kinds of stuff she is doing. now i will ask greg to come up and talk about his work, starting with the shorty award. >> thank you. [indiscernible] i feel like i might have made a mistake. i got into social media early on. i created my twitter account, logged in. thought it was the worst thing in the world. logged out, and then it was nine months before i logged back in. there was no way to know who you should follow based on a topic. we created a website called the shorty awards.