investment. >> thank you. for many, the main reason why , i wouldn't say pessimistic, is lack of investment not because of the economics but because of the security issues here. of security ck and the unpredictability of the middle east may well mean that some key investments are not carried out. especially in iraq where we expect half of the growth to come from. and when we talk with the iraqi colleagues today we see that is ppetite for investment almost close to zero. this is the reason why we are concerned. for brazil, it's a different story. this is a story of ability of petro gas to be able to raise

the necessary funds and as we highlighted in our report and also try to do it now. if the prices go to $80 and below we may see that the -- brazil may be one of the regions which will have the toughest challenges because the investments are basically financed through cash flows. and if they go down they need to go and increase their debts, which should be a major issue for petro bus. of course there is a major question about production growth coming from brazil. >> turning the page on sort of the issue of subsidies, an issue that i would give you all and the in general tremendous credit for actually framing a lot of the debate and quantifying a lot of how we talk about energy subsidies on both the fossil-based and

renewable energy side of the equation. you mentioned there was progress being made on the subsidies issue. how can you -- can you characaterize a little bit the sort of nature of that progress? because i think one of the ways you had sort of talked about it was sending a signal about sort of using energy efficiently or one kind of energy versus another for a lot of the countries where these subsidies exist one of the real political challenges is getting them removed is they see them as sort of an access issue or eekt tablet issue. are we becoming smarter about how we implement sanctions and are you seeing evidence of that in your research? are hink the subsidies being questioned by many governments mainly because of the pressure on the budget. because governments are feeling big pressure on their budgets and it is becoming even for oil

producing countries becoming a major problem. in indonesia the main reason that they move ahead is because budgets vernment cannot afford any more and there was a new government freshly elected government has -- strong confidence of the and they took a step in the right direction. in the middle east many governments are taking steps especially in the power generation. today in the middle east we use 2 million barrels of oil to generate electricity. from an economic point of view, this is not economic, i should say -- i don't want to say something. if someone you use

perfume to run your car, you use chanel. it is not economic at all. but the governments are seeing it and they are moving to gags especially and others. again in the middle east -- i say middle east because half of the subsidies are in the middle east countries. for me it is unbelievable that on one happed governments want to g prove the renewable energy, the market share. on the other hand they are putting substantial subsidies for fossil fuels. this is unbelievable. because you push the renewables in order to have a better chance to compete in terms of prices to give you the subsidies but you give more subsidies to fossil fuels and you give no chance. this is definitely not the right way. as you say said we work on africa this year and one of the reasons people say we have subsidies for energy is to protect too poor.

and our numbers show that out f this money, only 8% of the subsidies go to 20% lowest income groups and more than 90% of the subsidies go to minimum and high income groups. so it doesn't tap more the poor, it's nor the medium and high income levels. therefore, we have some suggestions in the context with the g-20. have to realize this subsidy reforms and we will be working also this year with the turkish g-20 presidency to move the subsidy program further. >> one final question from me and then we will open it up. you know i can't get away without asking a climate change question. one of the interesting things for those of us who have read your report for years upon

years and look at sort of the climate messages that you have brought, i think one year it was the doorism closed. next year just avoid the lock-in. you basically said, last chance for two degrees. is that how you're really characaterizing paris and putting your long-term forecasts hat on, what needs to happen in paris to feel confident that we're on that path? if we're not, what comes next? it is very is different than the others. tomorrow in 20 or 30 years of oil and gas, coal, crmp o 2 trends are determined by today's investments. so there's a long length of time. the decision and the impact, there's a big time lag here. emissions nds, co2

are determined in today's investments. so if we are not able to get ur act together and give a new impetus to investments, unless there's a major economic downturn we have to say good-bye to the two degrees world. this is what we are seeing. , if you very frank are unable to get the price agreement -- which is the one which could give a signal to all the countries investors and others that climate change is a major issue when you make your business plans. an doesn't go through, international agreement through a ceiling, through some type of allocation of responsibilities, then we had better try to find out what are the ways to get used to in a different planet.

>> ok. we're going to take some questions now. we've only got about 10, 15 minutes left. please wait for the mic, identify yourself and put your question in the form of a uestion. >> just a europe question about the price differential you mentioned and the competitive ness issue. is there a possibility that if europe increased its own shale gas production that some of that competitiveness issue ould be addressed? >> do you have any china specific recommendation or comments on its sort of a nuclear energy plan? the government announced last week to triple the nuclear power generation capacity by

2020 and more will be under construction. thank you. >> thanks so much for your comments. in the short term this week is the opec meeting. and you are unique in that you have worked for both opec and now at the iea. how much do you think that the u.s. shale boom is going to end up complicating, if at all, that opec decision, not just this meet bug also the next year to two years. some industry people would contend that the prospect of smr's could give a very positive stimulus to the industry because they would be cheaper, shorter construction times, safety, et cetera. yet none of these have been licensed so far. i'm just curious how did you

treat that in your analysis of going forward? >> in urem we have today a significant amount of shale gas deposits. u.k., d germany france if you go into the ukraine. in e cannot expect that the next ten years it will bring a mageclr tributeion to european gas supply. having said that, if we start to work very hard and if we get rid of the dog matic barriers we have in front of us, not to make use of shale gas, it may well -- may help us at least to compozzive the decline in the european production and as such could be an important factor in

improving the competitiveness of europe. this will not be enough to close the gap between europe and the united states but it can definitely be helpful in terms of narrowing that gap and also good for the gas security of europe. now, nuclear energy in china, this is definitely one of the most important push that china has in its energy history when i look at our numbers china is making a lot of efforts on efficiency and renewables. but when i look at the nuclear numbers they are very, very impressive. which means half of the growth in the global nuclear capacity will come only from china. this reminds me that at that 0s e china between mid 19 and 1990s, in ten years of

time, growth of electricity to half billion people. 500 million people. but there was a big collective action and china brought elect trystty to those people. yet at the same level it will be very important for reducing the share of coal in the chinese mix. it will be very good for reducing the co2 emissions. and it will bring china as an important nuclear power and in terms of nuclear capacity china will overtake the united states as the number one nuclear power in the world. so as such i think the chinese emerges as a major nuclear power producer, will redefine the nuclear landscape if the other countries do not change their policies. do we rd question what

expect from the next opec meeting is a question that i will not be able to comment but i can tell you the following. shale oil from the united states, oil sands from canada, these are extremely important developments in the hydro carbon sector, revolution in nature, and this provides a lot of comfort, energy security zone for many people. as such they are very, very important. however, i would highlight we soon forget that even these two success stories, we will still need middle east oil in the future. i think we should therefore view the current investment issues, current secretary issues in the middle east from that angle. we shouldn't be blind with the big numbers we are seeing today.

there is also tomorrow. and this is very important to put things therefore i believe n a perspective. we need to see the visibility and transferability from one country to another. as we have highlighted they may well play important roles in the emerging countries where the finance is limited but the electricity is growing and they have limited natural resources. >> let's take a couple more questions. we have time for one more quick round. >> just reacting to something you just said. how do you square the whole tar

sands issue with the two degrees crept grade target? i don't see how you can square that hole. >> and then over here. inaudible] >> your mike wasn't on. i think it was a question about gas price in asia. and one more right here. >> how certain are you or confident are you that co2 is the most important -- it's the most important. but how confident are you that he other gas yuss pollutants are contributing to global warm

sng thank you. >> so as you described the tar sands, they do emit more emissions than there vention oils. this is true but if you put it n a context how much additions mes from vis-a-vis conventional oil, the difference is really very, very limited. >> i will tell you the numbers. in our report we expect the oil sands will increase about 3 million barrels per day. f we assume these three will -- ome from oil sands but

the difference of addition of co2 is equal to the not even one day of emissions of china in an entire year. 23 hours. very small additional co2 emissions growth. yes, there is an increase there. but it is very, very small. and if you want to see oil sands to play a role, for energy security or for something else, then we have to find a way to compensate these 23 hours of china's daily co2 emissions. it can be carbon, efficiency, renewables, through other technologies. gas price in asia i didn't say that it will not be a downward

pressure on the prices but what i say is that we shouldn't expect that it will be that the u.s. prices everywhere -- there will be at least a downward pressure if it comes there but we shouldn't also forget that he cost of capital of building lng facilities are going up. and therefore perhaps we will not see the true base $16, $17, we will see a downward pressure but it will be very much far from what we have in the united states today. but the gas, be happy to provide sosme flexibility in the markets, in asia, it will also bring a downward pressure on the prices. here are other gases than co2. metsain. there are others. when talking about the energy sector, co2 is one of the most

otent gas to get -- maintain he reason since the in terms of the emissions of co2 comes from the energy sector it is the very rans we look at co2 and for meth ain there are many issues that belong to us have to reduce them. fix is rather easier to through some technical and regulatory measures. >> i think we have come to the end of our time. i just wanted to thank you to be here. i know you have to go to new york. but given your description of retirement and the power generation sector we know there's no risk of you retiring any time soon. so we will hope to see you sometime in the very near future.

thank you for you and your team for excellent work that you panel. the and please join me today in thanking him. [applause]

>> in 1873 people are losing their jobs, life savings, 20% unemployment. any of that ring a bell? it's tough times in america. grant is the president of the united states. he is going to have to rev up the economy or he is not going

to get reelected. george custer is going to provide the economic increase. custer leads an expedition into the black hills. rumors of gold had persisted for years but now it is a reality. there's gold in the black hills. newspaper reports say all you've got to do is walk through the grass and pick up nuggets off the tops of your shoes. miners, prospectors, entrepreneurs, pour into the hills. overnight deadwood, 3,000 people real quick. every one of them is an illegal alien. because the black hills belong the sioux guarantee bid the treaty, a white man's promise. no white people allowed in the black hills. wild bill hick cock shot in the back of the head in the is a loan he is an illegal alien. o is calamity jane because the

land.all hem, their he sees gold. so he is going to try to buy the black hills. $7 million. that's a lot of money. but sitting bull, crazy horse, ice, lame white man, others, no. not for sale. you don't sell the ground that your ancestors walked on and now their bones lie beneath. not for sale.

>> happy early thanksgiving, everybody. it is good to be home. it's cold in chicago. it was 60 degrees in washington. it's not 60 degrees here. the begin by thanking center. we appreciate you. thank you so much. i hope you don't mind, because obviously there's a lot of stuff in the news, i actually need to begin by saying a few words about what happened over the past day. not just in ferguson, missouri, our neighbor to the south, but all across america. as many of you know, a verked came down or a grand jury made

a decision yesterday that upset a lot of people. as i said last night, the frustrations that we have seen are not just about a particular incident. they have deep roots in many communities of color who have a sense that our laws are not always being enforced uniformly or fairly. that may not be chore everywhere, and it is certainly not true for the vast majority of law enforcement officials, but that is an oppression that some folks have, and it is not just made up. it is rooted in realities. it has existed in this country for a long time.

now, as i said last night, there are productive ways of responding and expressing those of frustrations, and there are destructive ways of responding. burning buildings, torching cars, destroying property, putting people at risk, that is destructive. there is no excuse for it. those are criminal acts. and people should be prosecuted if they engage in criminal acts. but what we also saw, although it did not get as much attention in the media, was a full gathering of the overwhelmingly useful protests in chicago and new york, los angeles, other cities. we have seen young people who are organizing, and people beginning to have real conversations about how we change the situation so that there is more trust between law enforcement and some of these communities. and those are necessary conversations to have. we are here to talk about immigration, but part of what makes america this remarkable place is being american does

not mean you have to look a certain way or have a certain last name or come from a certain place. it has to do with a commitment to ideals, a belief in certain values, and if any part of the merican community does not feel welcomed or treated fairly, that is something that puts all of us at risk, and we all have to be concerned about t. so my message to those people who are constructively moving forward, trying to organize, mobilize, ask hard and important questions about how we improve the situation, i want all of those folks to know that their president is going to work with them, and i think ou will find a lot of --

separate and apart from the particular circumstances of ferguson, which i am careful not to speak to, because it is not my job as president to comment on ongoing investigations and specific cases, but the frustrations that people have generally, those are rooted in some hard truths that have to be ddressed, and so those who are prepared to work constructively, your president will work with you, and a lot of folks i believe in law enforcement, a lot of folks in city halls and governors offices across the country want to work with you, as well, so as part of that, i have instructed attorney general air colder to identify specific steps we can take together to set up a series of regional meetings focused on building

trust in our communities, and next week, we will bring together state and local officials and law enforcement and community leaders and faith leaders to start identifying very specific steps that we can take to make sure that law enforcement is fair and is being applied equally to every erson in this country. and we know certain things work. we know if we train police properly that that imprints olicing, and it makes people feel that the system is fair. we know that when we have a police force that is representative of the community it is serving, that makes a difference.

we know that -- we know that when there is clear accountability and transparency when something happens, that makes a difference, so there are specific things we can do, and a key now is for us to lift up the best practices and work city by city, state by state, county by county, all across this country, because the problem is not just a ferguson problem. it is an american problem. and we have to make sure we are actually bringing about change. the bottom line is nothing of significance, nothing of benefit results from destructive acts, and i -- i have never seen a civil rights law or a health-care bill or nother bill result because a car got burned. it happened because people were vocal. it happened because people organized.

it happens because people look at what are the best policies to solve the problem, and that is how you actually move something forward. so don't -- o don't take the short-term, easy route and just engage in destructive behavior. take the long term, hard, but lasting route of working with me and governors, officials to bring about some real change, and to those who think that what happened in ferguson was an excuse for violence, i do not have any sympathy for that. i have no sympathy at all for destroying your own communities. but for the overwhelming majority of people who just feel frustrated and pained because they get a sense that maybe some communities are not treated fairly, or some individuals are not seen as worthy as others, i understand

hat. and i want to work with you, and i want to move forward with you. your president will be right there with you, all right? so that is what we need to focus on. let's be constructive. now, i appreciate your patience, because i know you can you talk about immigration, but this is relevant, because part of what america is about is about stitching together people from different backgrounds and different faiths and ethnicities. that is what makes us special, and -- and, look, sometimes, that is hard. sometimes that is hard to do,

but it is worthwhile. it is worth doing. you know, i was just traveling in asia. you go to japan, they do not have problem's with certain folks being discriminated against because most folks are japanese. you know, i mean -- but here, part of what is wonderful about america is also what makes our democracy hard sometimes. because sometimes we get ttached are particular tribe or a particular religion, and then we start treating other folks differently, and that sometimes has been a bottleneck to how we think about immigration. if you look at the history of immigration in this country, each successive wave, there have been periods of where the folks who are already here say, e do not want those folks, although the only folks that are able to say that are the

ative americans. now, it is fitting that i have come here back home to chicago, because chicago has always been a city of immigrants, and that is still true in the eighborhood. especially on the north side of here. i mean -- we have got everything up here. you go to the public schools around here, and you have got 50, 60, 70 different language being spoken, from andersonville to chinatown to greektown, the ukrainian village, immigrants have made this city with broad shoulders. their home.

we are swedish and polish and german and italian. everyone is irish on st. patrick's day. you know, we have got -- we have got names like pat quinn, ur governor. and louis gutierrez, our congressman. congresswoman jankowski, brad schneider, rahm emanuel. all mixed up. i do not mean rahm. mean all of us.

it is true that rahm speaks a language that cannot be translated in front of hildren. although he is a mayor now, so he does not do that anymore. anyone who has driven along the kennedy and has seen the silhouettes of steeples jamming at the sky, steeples as diverse as the people that worship there and the immigrants who built them and the communities that call those neighborhoods home to this day. today, we are here at a polish immunity center, and i just -- yes, i was just meeting with a group of chicago businesses,

civic leaders, representing people who came here from chicago and mexico and ireland, and a successful owner back in alway, and he says, and i am quoting here, i had a thing for the united states. i always wanted to see if i could hack it with you guys, so 16 years ago, billy comes to chicago and opens up an irish pub, because there was a hortage of irish pubs. and then he opened another restaurant and then another and another, and everywhere months ago, billy and his wife became american citizens and voted for the very first time as americans on november 4. you can also find their son, also named billy, charming the heck out of customers at all hours of day and night. they now employ more than 250 workers, and you just heard

what billy said. this is what immigrants do. one study if you years ago found that immigrants start more than one quarter of all of the businesses in the united states. one quarter of them. another study found that immigrants and their children start more than 40% of the fortune 500 companies. think about that. and it makes sense, because being a nation of immigrants gives us a huge entrepreneurial advantage over other nations. if you are willing to strike out, go to someplace new, built from scratch, you have got that sense of being willing to take risks and of being able to build something from scratch. you have that spirit. that is part of what the american spirit is all about.

it is part of what drove us westward across the frontier, not seeing what is in front of you is the only thing that is possible but that something else is possible, and because of those businesses started by immigrants, we all benefit. it means more jobs. it means more for everybody. now, as i said last week, our immigration system has been broken for a long time. families who try to come here the right way get stuck in line for years. business owners who treat their employees right off see the competition exploit ndocumented workers to undercut businesses. all of us, i think, like the idea that someone can read the rewards -- do not like that someone can reap the rewards without the responsibilities, but there are some who

desperately want to embrace his responsibilities but have no way of coming out of the shadows, so everyone is stuck with a system that does not ork for anybody. now, one point five years ago, we had a big majority, democrats come republicans, independents in the united states senate, and they came together and passed a bipartisan bill to fix this broken system. and the bill was not perfect. it did not have everything i wanted. it did not have a rethink anybody wanted, but it did reflect common sense. it was a huge improvement. we would have doubled the number of border patrol agents, so if you are concerned about illegal migration, it would have made our borders that much tougher. it would have made our legal immigration system smarter and fairer and reduce some of the backlog that hampers families

from getting here. it would have given millions of people a chance to earn their citizenship the right way. n independent expert said that over the next two decades, the new law would grow our economy and shrink our government, and had the house of representatives about a simple yes or no vote on that kind of bill, it would have passed. that is all they needed to do. just call the bill. it would be law right now. we would be well on our way to solving the problems in the system. i would be implementing those provisions, but for 1.5 years, over 500 days, republican leaders in the house simply refused to allow them. they would not let it come to the floor. now, i still believe that the

best way to solve the problem is by working together to pass that kind of common sense law. and when i was talking to billy and other civic leaders, there were things that could only be solved by congress, and until then, there are actions that i have the legal authority to take that will help make our information systems fairer and more just, and i took them last eek. so we are devoting more resources for law enforcement, and to stop illegal crossings at the border and to speed those -- we are initiating eform so high school graduates and on chewers can stay and

contribute to our economy, and i am taking new steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants, including here in chicago. and i just want to be clear. i say this before immigrants rights groups all of the time. i document immigrants should be held accountable. there is a particular category, hose who may be dangerous. it is a small minority, but it is a significant one. deportations of criminals are up 80%, and we will keep focusing our limited enforcement resources on those who actually pose a threat to our security. gangs, not some mom or dad who re working hard just trying to make a better life for their

kids. but -- >> ok. that is fine. thank you. > no more war! >> families of criminals. >> ok. all right. k. i understand.

listen. hold on, hold on. hold on. young lady, don't just -- don't just start -- don't just start yelling. so why then you sit down, too? ou know -- here. can i just say this, all right? i listen to you. i heard you. i heard you. i heard you, all right? have been respectful. all right? nobody is removing you. i have heard you, but you have ot to listen to me, too.

and i understand you may isagree. but we have got to be able to talk about these issues, all right? now, you're absolutely right that there have been significant numbers of deportations. that is true. but what you are not paying attention to is the fact that i just took an action to change the law. now -- so -- point number two, point number two, the law works, and we look at how we enforce the immigration laws nd the change applies to everybody.

though i understand why you might have yelled at me. lthough i disagree with some of your characterizations, it does not make much sense to yell at me right now, when we re making changes. so the point is that the point is let's make sure -- let's make sure that you get the facts and that you know exactly what we are doing, and then if you have disagreements, then you can work through all of the immigrants rights organizations that we work with to try to address some of your oncerns.

but here is what will not work. what will not work as folks just shouting at each other, so i have been respectful. i have responded to your question, and i would ask you now to let me speak to all of the other people who are here, all right? ok, now -- now even -- ok. it is good to be back in chicago. because everybody has got something to say. but i am not going to be able to -- i am not going to be able to have a conversation with each of you separately, so there are other ways of -- there are other ways of ngaging. i know people will passionate

but be respectful of everybody who is here. now let me get to the point i as making, which is even if we deported all the criminals, folks who had done bad thimmings, there are millions of people here who have done good people but have still broken the immigration laws. and they are found in every state, every race, over nationality. tracking down and rounding up and deporting millions of peam is not realistic. it is not who we are, it is not what america should be. on the other hand, and this sometimes is not acknowledged, if you came here illegally you are cutting in front of the line of the folks who are trying to come here leelly which also -- legally which also is not fair.

that is not fair. that doesn't make people bad people but it does mean that you cut in front of the line because there are a lot of folks who are waiting to try to get here leerlly. so the deal that we're putting forward is this. if you've been here for more than five years. if you have children who are sit sense or legal residents. if you register and pass a criminal background check and pay your fair share of taxes then you can apply to stay temporarily. you can come out of the shadeos, you can get right with the law. this isn't amnesty or legalization or pathway to citizenship because that's not something i can do, that's something only congress can do. it also doesn't apply to anyone who has come to this country recreptly or might come illegally in the future. because borders done mean something. so it's accountability. it's a common-sense approach

that allows me to exercise legal authorities that i have in order to make sure that we're preventing families from being broken eye part. and i am the first one to acknowledge that part of the reason that this has become important to me is you are right, there have been times where families got broken apart. while i've been president. and it's heart breaking. it is not right. so until congress does a complete fix what we're saying is if you have deep ties here and you start paying your fair share of taxes, then we won't deport you and separate you from your kids. [applause] and even if you don't fully qualify, we will still try to reprioritize how we're enforcing the laws which we

have to do in a way that is less likely to break families apart. because the system is broken. and one of the reasons why this is important is because imzpwrants are good for the economy. we keep on hearing that they're bad. but a report by my council of economic advidesers put out last week shows how the action we're taking will grow our economy for everybody. but by 2024 the actions that i'm taking will add at least $90 billion to our gross domestic product. and -- [applause] >> and this economic growth will reduce our deficit by $25 billion. and these actions will grow our labor force by nearing 150,000 people and they will boost wages for american born workers.

now if we passed a comprehensive law it would be even better. but even the steps we're taking now will make a difference. and these actions are lawful. they're not only lawful, they're the kinds of action that is have been taken by every president for the past 50 years. [applause] of my when i hear some republican friends talk about this, i try to remind them, president reagan took action to keep families together. the first president bush took action to shield about 1.5 million people, about 40% unzockmented immigrants at the time. so when folks question my authority, i've got one answer. pass a bill. pass a bill. cheers and applause]

i want to work with both parties on a more permanent solution. i know that's what our congressmen want. they have been at the forefront fighting for a more permanent solution. and the day i signed a comp hencive immigration bill in the law, then the actions i take will no loppinger be necessary. but in the meantime i am going to do what i can to make the system work better. and in the meantime washington shouldn't let disagreements over one issue be a deal reaker over every issue. [applause] that's not how our democracy works. you can't disagree with one thing and say i'm going to take my ball and go home. and congress certainly should not shut down the government

again over this. americans are tired of gridlock. we're ready to move forward. and as you can imagine i've gotten a lot of letters and emp mail over the past few days. some have said it's a mistake for me to act. but then others remind me why i had to. one letter i got last week came from brett duncan,a of georgia. and he is a republican and so he doesn't really agree with me about anything. ell, maybe everything. came over from scot land. so his immigration status is pretty much settled. but he has done missionary work overseas.

he knows what it's like to be a stranger. and over the years we've gotten to know a lot of new immigrants in his community. and here is what he said. their children are as american as i am. it wowed be senseless to deport their parents. it would be bad for america. i believe brett wrote that a human being created in the very image of the almighty god is the greatest resource we have in this country. [applause] so we're not a nation that kicks out strivers and dreamers who want to earn their piece of the american dream. we are a nation that fundamentally is strong, a is special, is exceptional because we find ways to welcome people. fellow human beings. childrens of god into the fold

and harness their calents to make the future brighter for everybody. we didn't raise the statue of lint liberty with her back to the world. her beacon shining. and whether we are -- whether we cross the atlantic or pacific or rio grande we all shared one thing and that is the hope that america will be the place where we can pray or believe as we choose and that we could vote in the election without fearing reprisele and that the law would be enforced equally for everybody regardless of what you look like. what your last name was. that's the ideal that binds us altogether. that's what is at stake when we have conversation about

immigration, about ferguson. are we going to live up to hose ideals of who we are as a people? and it falls on all of us to and down to our kids a country that lives us to that promise where america is the place where we can make it if we try. so thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. ♪ ♪

♪ >> coming up on "washington journal," the impact of a raising the minimum wage.

then former deputy attorney general bill young men -- yoemans on ferguson and civil rights. that is all on "washington journal." >> up next, a discussion on academic freedom and freedom of speech at colleges and universities. the speaker is ann neil. she spoke at the city club of cleveland about commencement speakers who declined to attend or are disinvited from graduation ceremonies following student protests. this is one hour.

>> good afternoon and welcome to the city club of cleveland. i am pleased to introduce today's speaker, president and cofounder of the american council of trustees and alumni. it is an independent nonprofit organization committed to academic freedom, excellence and accountability of american colleges and universities. on academic freedom, the website states that the ideas of academic freedom and free speech are at the core of the american academic tradition. teachers must be free to teach. students must be free to learn. freedom and research are essential to the advancement of truth. so, today's forum offers a wonderful opportunity to juxtapose freedom of speech and academic freedom and to reflect for just a moment on our 102-year history here at the city club of cleveland. we probably referred to the city

club as the citadel of free speech. but we experienced some growing pains earlier. in 1943, the city club invited eugene depth to speak and he accepted. but it created a rupture in our intellectual organization with the board president refusing to do the introduction. i can't imagine that happening. [laughter] ultimately, he determined to decline the invitation. and he wrote to the city club that he was feeling disinclined to the truth of whether or not i am being welcome or to the policy of free speech. the academic world as recently seen high-profile challenges to freedom of speech. in may, condoleezza rice declined an invitation to give

the commencement address at rutgers following faculty protest over the wariraq and the use of waterboarding to obtain information from detainees. miss rice knows that her imitation to speak had become a distraction for what should be, as she put it, a joyous celebration for graduates on the families. she referred to her 30 years as a professor and chief academic officer at stanford university and stated "i am honored to have served my country. i have defended america's belief in free speech and its exchange of ideas. factory -- faculty and student protesters were in smith college and haverford college. "though we may not always agree with those in positions of leadership, i believe that it is

essential for members of an academic community to reaffirm our shared commitment to the respectful and mindful process by which we seek to learn through inquiry and intellectual engagement. that brings us to miss dell. she has published widely and appeared frequently on radio and television. you name it, she has been on it. she twice was appointed to the national advisory committee on institutional policy and committee -- and integrity. she earned her undergraduate degree from harvard college and her law degree from harvard law school where she was president of the harvard journal on education. and she practiced law as a first amendment and communications lawyer. i am pleased to welcome her. [applause]

>> thank you so much. it really is a treat to be here. as i did my research on the city club, i was pleased to see giving your past history and your principles, i don't think i really need to make a statement at all. but i will in any event. i will start by going back to imperial rome. laughing at the wrong joe could caused a man's life during emperor nero. let's go back to the year 65. upon making intestinal noise, let us call it florida in, in one of rumsfeld latrines, the poet lucan -- in one of rome's public latrines, the poet lucan

-- romans scrambled to put on their togas and get out of the p otty leslie and former find them smiling and charge them with treason. hilarious, except the executions and forced suicides were not. nowadays, inappropriate laughter may not be a problem in public latrines, but any number of current observations can bring black listings, disinvitations and other punishments on our college campuses. sensitivities are on high alert when the topics that are potentially offensive and increasingly off-limits are growing. you heard the term disinvitation season. choosing a cantus speakers should be about hearing a

distinguished person, usually someone who has taken a controversial stand. but on the politically correct campus, many students and faculty now are less interested in hearing a challenging perspective than they are in having what "the washington post" has called freedom from unpalatable speech. as you just heard, condoleezza rice had to bow out of eking at rutgers after students protesting that she was a war criminal. primary university invited ali to speak and receive an honorary degree and then rescinded the operate -- the invitation after student protest. christine lagarde, first female head of the international monetary fund was invited to speak at smith only to bow out.

on the pc campus, shouting down a controversial voice is not necessarily seen as an evil, but a virtue, a small group of close minded students and faculty is all that is needed to cut off discussion on the grounds that their view, the correct of you, is the only view. trigger warning -- this speech may contain traumatic material in the pursuit of truth. it wasn't always this way. back in december 1820, as he founded the university of virginia, thomas jefferson laid out the foundation of the -- of academic freedom. the university will be based on the emir middle -- the inimitable freedom of the human mind.

we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it. again, in 1859, john stuart outlined the matter. the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is robbing the human race, posterity, as well as the existing generation those of deceptive opinions as well as those who hold it. they are deprived of the opportunity for exchanging the air for truth. the clear perception and the livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error. in 1915, the american association of university professors issued its seminal declaration of principles, to find academic freedom as a two-way street, students freedom to learn and faculty freedom to teach.

the professor's business, they wrote, was not to provide students with conclusions but to train it to think for themselves , and to provide the maxis to those materials which they need if they are to think intelligently. for many years, there was a fairly uniform agreement among academics that nothing was more central to the life of the mind than a robust exchange of ideas. over the last 50 years, the concept of academic freedom has been under attack and from within. in its place has been an academic regime that is -- has regularly put sensitivities and sensitivities -- and since abilities first.

the ideas of jefferson are regularly considered antiquated today and an obstacle to progress of thinking. in other words, there is no need to search for truth because the institution has already determined what the truth is. political correctness has provided the impetus to punish students and faculty members for expressing certain offensive thoughts, often touching race, gender, sexual orientation, and other hot button contemporary topics. today, a student or faculty member found to have deviated from the reigning orthodoxy, far from being praised, can find himself they ridiculed or sent to sensitivity training or worse.

the pc mentality is alive and well. were we see is the weakening of the core colicky on -- core curriculum, the emergence of speech goats and trigger warnings. the tragic consequences are not only to weaken liberal arts education, but to shortchange students of the future and to undermine our competitiveness. so let's start with college curriculum. at one time, faculty administrators had the courage to define what is important for students to be able to do. students could make some choices , but they started with a largely prescribed liberal arts curriculum leading to a major that would equip them to partake in the common conversation of well-educated people. not today. a major like english today is not so much a body of important writers, genres and important

work, but a hodgepodge of classes. shakespeare and milton are not necessary anymore. advocacy and sensitivity training regularly supplant rigorous intellectual training. let's look at a few courses, all of which individually are fine courses, but the question is should this the a student's only exposure. we will look at union college. students can substitute such courses as narrative of haunting in u.s. ethnic literature for foreign language studies. at wellesley, rainbow cowboys and girls, gender, race, class and sexuality and westerns were passed for the language and literature requirement.

at uc boulder, the u.s. context requirement may be satisfied by core films and american culture. and my favorite at l myra college, where the u.s. culture and civilization requirement can be met by mental illness through media. [laughter] if you are a freshman at the university of denver, your first year seminar may be satisfied by taking gender, power and pop culture, decoding buffy the vampire slayer. and this is such a growing genre on college campuses that my organization looks forward to doing a special column on halloween on these courses. most content at campuses are equal, sensibilities are not. a lab of her own at the university of colorado colorados

rings satisfies the natural science requirement while providing students "with modern concepts of science and mathematics with an emphasis on women's contribution to these fields are co--- fields. this will also offer a critique of the traditional methods of science." that is in place or in favor of the national science requirement. education is often directed towards a predetermined conclusion where students become change agents to promote a political agenda. if, for example, u.n. role in the social justice minor program at the university of minnesota and register for the public policy, the professor has already reached a conclusion for you, advising students in the catalog that they will be introduced to the structural and institutional conventions

through which people of color have been systematically marginalized. to obtain credit, students also engage in 30 hours of service learning through social justice organizations. yes, i think we can all agree that, in years past, our college curricula have too often marginalized minority groups and provided portraits that failed to outline the complex story that is our past. but in the rush to expand that story, much of the old story has been left out, leading students and citizens with only part of that sweeping narrative and a path with a tightly controlled political agenda.

the survey conducted by the american council of trustees and alumni finds that a mere 18% expected their graduates to take a broad survey in american government before graduating. and a mere 13% require knowledge of a foreign language. some students may end up with a rich education that prepares them for life and citizenship, but it is clear they will have to find it for themselves. for as little as 200,000 today, our colleges are asking students to construct their own curriculum. that curriculum is often quite narrow. given the state of affairs, they asked the organization to assess recent college graduate feelings about their education. the survey came back and what they found was quite interesting. faced with the challenges of finding a job, recent college graduates lamented in large numbers, 70%, the absence of strong core curriculum and exposure to a broad base of foundational subjects.

as one student counted, i took a lot of courses. i just wish they had amounted to something. casey johnson is a terrific young historian at an college, whose many publications include books published by both cambridge and harvard university presses as well as co-authoring the book "intel -- "until proven innocent" about due process. what he finds is most alarming. in the last generation, he writes, with accelerating speed, the percentage of professors trained in areas of u.s. history some would deem traditional and others would team -- others would dismiss, even those who remain in the subfields often revision there topics -- revise their topics to the approach

that dominates the contemporary history profession. the result is that even students who were not in the course is taught by those trained in diplomatic and constitutional and military history are often unable to do so. -- even though students who were taught in the courses taught by those trained in diplomatic and constitutional on military history are often unable to do so. the threat is less from overreaching administrations and trustees than it is from prevailing faculty or -- orthodoxies. pro scholars, he argues, find no root in eastern studies. and american scholars, who scholarship celebrates aspects of its past, too often find themselves of pariahs in their

field. the pc culture of sensitivity permeates all of the academy, but nowhere is it more profound than when it comes to campus speech codes and the tribunal setting that enforce them. each year, there is a spotlight on the free speech of our nation's campuses. and this year, we surveyed over 400 school and found 60% contained restrictive red light speech codes. that is defined as policies that clearly and substantially restrict protected speech. these policies, as one might imagine, are not called gag orders or censorship policies. in the pc world, the speech codes come with the nine names, like anti-harassment policies, and type bullying policies, -- anti-bullying policies, policies on bias and hate speech,

policies governing speech at demonstrations and rallies. speech codes are not meant to restrict speech. they are meant to ensure tolerance and civility. you may be surprised that it was determined that case western, ohio university, shawnee state, ohio university of cincinnati, university of toledo, bright tape -- right state and youngstown state all have redline speech codes, and that means clearly and substantially restricting protected speech. for today's purposes, we will look at just one, this one at ohio state. the code begins with a statement. sexual harassment is illegal. but for you lawyers in the room, the succeeding definition is broad and the distinction between harassment and free speech is anything but clear. prohibited sexual harassment

includes "sexual jokes come a innuendo's, gestures, unwanted flirtation, advances, or propositions, leering, and any unnecessary unwanted physical contact." little did we realize in those gay days of your that an awkward gaze was, in fact, cause for litigation. [laughter] the federal government has recently put a gun to the head of campuses if they do not regularly report sexual assault, including sexual harassment. and in the policy i just read, youngman and young women are now at risk of being accused of rape and harassment and prosecuted on our campuses in campus tribunals that do not have to comply with the rules of due process if they simply engage in sexual jokes and unwanted flirtation.

let's go back to the trigger warning i referenced earlier in my talks. originally used for the mentally ill to help prevent traumatic stress disorders, trigger warnings have now become the latest rage on college campuses. student leaders at the university of california santa barbara recently passed a resolution urging officials to institute mandatory trigger warnings on class syllabi. professors who offered content that may trigger the onset of poster medic stress disorder -- posttraumatic stress disorder may not just be required to issue alerts, but allow students to skip class. if you don't like what someone says, if it is set -- if it upsets you, you can avoid the subject rather than face it. in this world, sensitivity and civility are, indeed equal to, or in fact, superior to academic freedom.

a point recently made by the chancellor of uc berkeley, thankfully too loud disapproval. don't get me wrong. fostering friendships, solidarity, harmony, and civility are important. but in the words of scholars see dan woodward, if we make the fostering of friendship, solidarity, harmony, and mutual respect the primary and dominant value on campus, then we risk sacrificing the universities central purpose, teaching and scholarship. when i was first approached to give this talk, we discussed a number of titles, including "political correctness and its impact on american competitiveness." in this way, i think the title understands that what happens on college campuses does not stay on college campuses. scholar greg luciano outlines the problem.

it encourages students to accept censorship by accepting that freedom of speech is the enemy of such. it was only a matter of time before some bad intellectual on-campus or harming the dialogue of our entire country. what happens on our campuses profoundly influences what happens in our businesses, our homes, and in our policymaking. and i think we should be concerned. the danger of political correctness is not simply to academic freedom when students have the power to think for themselves, when there are multiple perspectives and disciplines and presentations, and when they are led to believe that they should be free from upset. they are being deprived of the challenging education they

deserve. and all of us are being deprived of thoughtful citizens, prepared workers, and lifelong learners that are -- that our societies requires. scholars don't blame political correctness exactly, but they do say in large numbers they are seen college graduates that cannot think critically, right with -- and right with clarity and the last two graduate and classes that were studied were unable to compare editorials. recent surveys conducted the american council of trustees and alumni by gs k found that college graduates could not identify the terms of members of congress. they didn't know that the constitution provides a separation of powers. they thought that d-day occurred at pearl harbor.

it is true, and we can all agree that knowledge is more than rote learning. but when courses don't provide a broad sweep of history and intellectual tools to put those issues into meaningful context, and went speech codes suggest that free speech must take a back seat to sensitivity, we should not been be surprised that our college graduates are not always prepared for life after graduation, and indeed choose to impose the same principles and the same constraints that they learn from the college campus. where does social hygiene and and personal liberty and privacy begin? in research now underway, sociologists april kelly weidner tells me that she has found that political intolerance has increased in graduating classes after 2000. she has found that people are accepting speech limitations and speech codes more than -- more so than in the past, including banning certain books and controversial people for teaching.

we have taught this generation, she wrote me in an e-mail, that protecting people's feelings is more important than searching for truth. and while speech codes and other symptoms of the politically correct university were aimed to protect minority groups from harmful speech, students today, she reports, do not discriminate, believing that anyone who says anything offensive to anyone, should be removed. in the wake of the uc irvine students efforts to prevent the israeli ambassador to the u.s. from speaking, former speaker mark udall explained what he believes happened. "they believe their constitutional -- that constitutional rights were mark amodei -- they believe that constitutional rights were marginalized and not for the privilege. they concluded that jews were among the privileged, not the marginalized, not the object of empathy, and no need to protect the free speech of jews.

every reason to silence them. greg luciano paints an alarming picture. in a picture of punishing jokes, rants, drunken tirades, a growing hostility toward free speech as a cultural value. people all over the globe are coming to expect emotional and intellectual comfort as though it were a right. on the pc campus, respect for the authority of ideas takes a backseat to often to the idea of authority. i'm happy to account that the american council of trustees alumni is not at all wrong. positive actions have occurred in recent days. in late august, a group of distinguished policy makers,

trustees, faculty, and others convened by the american council of trustees and alumni came to demand a different academic culture. the report, governance for a new era, short -- chaired by a former president, was one of the very first to have about the challenges of political correctness. & by such visionaries as the former provost of columbia, and president of arizona state, it is bold and to the state. they are calling upon colleges and university to put an end to this. to insist upon diversity. to ensure a strong core

curriculum, and to demand integrity in the hiring process. a call on university leaders to make clear that i'd -- that diversity of opinion is essential and that the free exchange of ideas is the bedrock of a rich education. they urge presidents, deans, and faculty to address students on academic freedom and free expression. and we have already seen this happen with a powerful welcoming speech by the yale president peterson loewe -- peter selovi this fall. american universities must return to first principles. they recognize that the dominance of political correctness on our campuses amounts to nothing short of a war on youth, endangering the empowerment and training of our next generation of leaders. they recognize that american higher education has long been the envy of the world and it will continue to be only if true academic freedom returns as a campus value of paramount importance. i thank you and i look forward to the queue and day. -- look forward to q&a. [no audio] [applause] >> today, we are looking forward

to our forum. liberal will return to our speaker momentarily for a question-and-answer time. i would ask that you formulate your questions now and try to keep them brief and to the point. we welcome all of you joining us via media. television broadcasts remain possible by cleveland state university and our live webcast is supported by the university of akron. one week from today, october 10, the city club welcomes stephen better, president and chief executive officer of partners of the americas.

for more information on past forms, visit us online at cityclub.org. we thank you very much for your support. and we hope to welcome students from two high schools. student participation was made possible by a generous gift from the law foundation. we thank you for your support. please, stand up and be recognized. [applause] it is very appropriate that you are here today and i'm sure you are starting to formulate your questions right now. speaking of which, with the bike to return to our speaker for a traditional question-and-answer time. we welcome everyone today. holding the microphone today is outreach specialist kristin. cut and consulate specialist teddy

eisenberg. >> thank you for your remarks. you describe an alarming situation. my question is, how did it come about? is it generated by students? is it generated by students influenced by faculty, who tend to be tenured and largely of one political mind? give us some clarification. >> we could go on for some time, couldn't we? i think there are a number of causes. when you look at the 1960's when postmodernism became a ringing orthodox and caught -- reigning orthodox on college campuses, it looks at issues of power. many of the posters 1960's -- post-1960's faculty very much subscribe to that philosophy. that philosophy increasingly became part and parcel of what we see on college campuses. i think that is very much the case.

i think there has been within the academic hiring process, often a tendency to higher hope -- hire those with whom one agrees. and this has consistently come up, whether or not a professor is all on one side of a political line. we have looked at this and i think it is fair to say that a number of studies would argue that, in fact, a number of faculty members are of one persuasion more than another. but that in and of itself is not important. what he gets back to really is professional responsibility and professional rights. it gets back to the academic freedom definition. when i told you in 1915 the aaep said that academic freedom was a two way street, student freedom to learn and faculty freedom to teach him a one thing that happened in the last 40 to 50 years is an increasing deemphasis on student freedom to learn and an increasing emphasis on faculty on their right to teach.

and frankly, a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the regular puppet -- public, but also the faculty themselves as to what the limits and framework of academic freedom on. -- of what are the limits and framework of academic freedom. interestingly, there is a committee that was supposed to be focusing on right and responsibilities. and there was also supposed to be a committee to look at and to police themselves in the event they were not showing professional responsibility. that committee was never realized. that has been one of the larger problems in so much that the faculty themselves have not been willing to police themselves. and that 1950 statement quite rightly says that we don't want to be policed, and it is incumbent upon us faculty to

police ourselves. because if we do not, others will surely do it that for us. and that it's a situation where we find ourselves now. many of us are concerned, and rightly so, on the outside. trustees, policymakers, we are not seeing the students freedom to learn be what true academic freedom should be. it is a defining moment for many faculty as they year very legitimate complaints from the outside about whether or not their problems are appearing in the next generation. collects do you think that -- >> do you think that sensitivity reared its ugly head, there was some in sensitivity that it was responding to before the anti-harassment policies came into effect? you think there was a problem with harassment that needed to be responded to? and now that the situation has gotten as you have described it,

where do you find a middle ground? and where do the trustees and alumni -- not necessarily the members of the group, but alumni and trustees doing about the other interest groups who may have a problem with these kinds of policies? >> i think there have to be distinctions made between things that are legal and things that are not. -- things that are illegal and things that are not. with the definition of sexual harassment, these definitions have gone so broad that they are no longer getting at what is illegal and they are actually including vast expanses of protected speech. think you are right, we don't want a college campus that is rude and intimidating. well, i should say, maybe rude. but we don't want a college campus that is engaged in persistent intimidation and intrusion of people.

but there is a level of intimidation that we are finding is -- that we are not finding is the level that is drawn by most institutions. in an effort to respond and treat people fairly and nicely, we've gone overboard. and as a consequence, we now find ourselves in a situation where too many things are off-limits. >> as a professor at kent state university, i deeply appreciate your comments. but i'm wondering if the priority of putting political correctness of -- ahead of real discourse that our society, instead of being a cause, that it is a symptom of a broader thing, that our society has lost its appreciation for the well reasoned, dispassionate discourse of controversial ideas in lieu of the entertainment

value of discussion of controversial issues. jerry springer show, things like that. >> i actually do tend to point my finger i colleges and universities. i do think they have perpetuated an atmosphere on the college campus which is not open, often not open to the free exchange of ideas. people who dare to have a different opinion, whether on race, class, climate change, gender, whatever, rather than complaining about entertainment i think that as we look at our public discourse, which has become increasingly shouting rather than engaging, i regret to say that i do think we have led students on to believe that sensitivity and civility and not disagreeing is more important than having a robust exchange of ideas.

while the entertainment may play into that, i feel that we have to really point our finger at our academic institutions and that the health of our society depends profoundly on the health of our educational institutions. and this is one more policy that we need to worry about. >> what influenced you to focus on political correctness? and have you ever witnessed or experienced lyrical incorrectness in your lifetime? -- political correctness in your lifetime? >> i started out as a first amendment lawyer. and quite frankly come as you head -- as you heard from the head of the organization, there have been any number of people who were recently shut down and not allowed to speak. this is something that deeply

concerns me. the ability to hear differing perspectives so that one can weigh one side against another is very important. it is a bedrock principle of the first amendment. and as we look at brandeis and others, if you have a sense of speech what is the best answer? more speech, not less. i think it comes from my love of the first amendment. i was a journalist for a time and i grew up in a journalistic family. i think the free exchange of ideas is essential. and most profamily in the country in which we live. because our democratic republic relies on this thing that all of our founding fathers were very emphatic about. and it is interesting to note that all of our founding fathers work college and university trustees.

they understood that our educational institutions were instrumental in preparing us for effective citizenship. that is the long answer to your question. thank you. >> in recent years, there have been a significant number of very large contributions to american universities coming from foreign governments and to individuals with specific agendas. sometimes these gifts have resulted in chairs being named and departments of studies being established. to what extent do you think these kind of contributions, which are important, constitute any kind of problem for academic freedom? >> i think you have put your free and there -- put your finger on a very serious potential threat to academic freedom. i encourage you all to take a look at a book that that we have put out called "free to teach, free to learn," and one of the things that it talks about is the influence of foreign

governments on colleges and university campuses. i know you recently probably read about some of these dear institutes, that frankly, governments will encourage particular viewpoint. colleges have to be very careful before excepting those kinds of gifts. the whole point of academic freedom is to follow the truth wherever it may lead. and if the gift is so prescriptive that it means certain areas are off-limits, then it for an immensely undermines that accurate -- than it fundamentally undermines that academic freedom. another issue as well, we often help donors who would like to see certain areas of a field covered on a college campus. for instance, if someone wants to introduce a free art -- a free market economics course that is now the -- not otherwise available, we encourage donors

to do that, because sometimes students cannot otherwise find on-campus exposure to those areas. but it does raise even in those instances courses of academic freedom that have to be looked at very closely, and it also underscores the institution's failure itself to provide that diversity of perspective that it needs. it is self-correcting. the institutions, if they are open to a diverse perspective and make themselves available, then they will find themselves in less difficulty with donors who want to prescribe to certain things, because they will have already done it on college campuses. >> you have a broader perspective on the topic i'm about to inquire into than most. i ask you, what pattern, what emerging trend do you see in the