when you read the letters about father, they are worshipful. he never had an unkind word to say. pries tearian minister. on tuesday they hosted a forum. this is 90 minutes.

evening, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the arena stage. seema sueko. i'm the deputy artistic director here. how many of you have been to arena stage? fantastic. welcome back. give you i would context. ago, the professor frustrated about the lack of dialogue. it is a topic that might be discuss and engage in the act of listening and one another civil ly.

and when he approached us about this, we thought it felt like a good match with the mission because as a theater company, that's what we strive to do every day in our shows. put up some ideas on stage. gather a community in the audience, and hopefully he then with the theater conversations. so we thought, well, would that weome to dialogues host here without the show? and so we did a couple of tests. tests. the third of the many ofsed to see so you here. yes, people are hungry for this. we are going to be continuing the latelogues into summer and fall at the back of the programs, you'll see the dialogues.oming dialogue, is about thought your conversation maker, turn to somebody near you.

just shea. we're going to take 30 seconds for this. you came with one another. go ahead and take 30 seconds for sharing.

wonderful. wonderful. so hopefully you already had an opportunity to meet someone new this evening. and just a reminder to turn off phones or any other noise maker you might have on you. c-span whohanks to is covering this dialogue. further ado, let me turn this over to the professor, dr. amitai etzioni. thank you. you very much. thank you very much.

i greatly appreciate the decision of the arena stage to extend our discussion and give us an opportunity to continue with you.on before we proceed, i need to ask all to indulge me just one minute. minuteto talk for one about a subject we're not going tonight.s i came from immigrant parents. government takes children from their parents. them younger than four and incarcerates them separately theirometimes after parents' immigration status is a hard, they still have time uniting with their children cases, the children end up with human traffickers. you whatoing to tell

to feel. i want to share my feelings. i hope you'll hear yours. do in thee tried to series is to do two things at the same time. one to show if people come from different backgrounds and can have aiew points civil dialogue. and we tried twice before. today, of course, it is by far our most challenging topic. so we'll especially call on each other to have a frank one which is but respectful. i'm going to try now. a lot of people.

some of you and some others. we are not surprised. it is an extremely complicated issue. is one view point. are much farther apart. like to mention. to inspire.e thing

or is it more and more people told me this is so yesterday. integration is here. it is something that most of us losing faith in. we're thinking about a policy. not sure what it means, but the's why we're having discussion. some people believe that the minority person should be able to bulldoze. some of the discussion came up.

minorities would do their thing, everything would be dandy deeplyrast, racism is embedded in our institutions and power structure and economy. subject. it is the now the conversation with the phone particularly strategying role of class. one hand people avoid the ofklash of the sense discrimination. especially

african-americans, stop at ex pert. be able to protect extra important im balance. finally the one that's intrigu as and helpful conversation trigger, that's check your privilege. to meanple take that that white people should shut up because they been privileged so long, it's now a tame for other people to speak. that's not the goal.

the goal was to invite people who did better. check and see to degree because of the advantaging they had and other people didn't. frame work in the .hich the conversation the state government trap door.

>> thank you. it is will to be here. a challenging question for us. i guess i would start by saying 2050 we'll be much further along in our race we are today. the basice will see humanities in others. know roseanne barr horribly racist tweet. the president to my mine consistently and almost a mind denies the humanity of others. a mexican-american judge cannot be fair. muslim immigrants should not be allowed into the country.

statements.tounding how to get there? lot to integration has a do with it. i'm in the effort to infiltrate school. k-12, and now college, and housing. at the end of the day, we want to be in a position where a runs for office demonize will be un

successful. everyone will have gone to inools and lived neighborhoods where they know differentods from backgrounds and would know how wrong it is to paint that about other people. in the integration, i think we should emphasize class as well as race. example, the challenge our eliteteing colleges. is not majority minority. which is a wonderful thing. assemble tend to do is on the campus.s

they've built a multi-racial aristocracy. is better than all white, but still an aristocracy. the topents coming from 1% as the bottom 60%. thee are more students from top 10% by income than the bottom 90%. the problem is that our diversity efforts fall short and peopleorking class recognize that. one of the most astounding say likely to be discriminated against as african-americans.

completee level it is nonsense. all you have to say is the name of the people who have racialism and suffered terrible consequences to know it is wrong for white working class people as likely to be discriminated against. said, the fact that the programs are geared toward race, i think feeds the concept. i think we need to pay much more have in thean we past to issues of economic in evalquality. that's where he was headed with the end of his life with the poor people's campaign. is where reverend barber is to resurrecting

the poor people's campaign. i think that's where we need to more we want to become a united country in the years to come. >> okay. greetings. what do i want this word to look like in 2050? like to be in the world and not be exhausted. supremacy iswhite taxing. tamirau say the name ace or sandra brown, it is visceral, sickening feeling. i would just like to be in the world. complicated or not nice or or good asether anyone else can be. the fact worry about that i have a 14-year-old nephew people may not knowledge as

a beautiful boy who loves baseball and has a good student and oldertful kid sister at home and older brother s. the world may not see him the way i see him. keeps me up at night. scares me. he can die together for doing than walking around and listening to his car too loudly and listening to his earphones and not hearing to freeze orhim stop. this idea of the world i want to live in. i'm going to say back people in particular. that's the community that i come from and care about. not that i don't care about others. speaking from.m i have to be honest about. black fears of white people are justified. white fears of black people are not.

blackrrative of personality, and just the in pulled aside on or curb or metro station being accosted in the store because somebody thinks you something. i got the talk from my parents. you keep your hands out of the pocket. money in your hands when you approach the could wanter. you don't put anything in a bag that you don't have a receipt for. it is funny right before junior says go to best buy, do you need a receipt. i need a black man, i need a bag the outside.ipt on right? because that's true. i cannotis is to say ways the poor whites coddled.

we have to end the investment. that's not just a white people problem. we all do varying thins. is the talk we have to give our children. yes, that's a reality of the that you live. walking in there as entitled as anybody else that has money to pay for the belt or groceries or whatever else you want. the investment. even for poor whites. that investment has walked them away from politics and policies that could have helped them; right? itause they were invested in closing.wing not that's not a small issue issue. is not a pleasant topic for

most. you have to lose something to get something. you have to do what the country has never done which is tried to racial wrong. tos idea that if you just go school you'll be fine. we look at student loan debt, communities ofr colors. they had to answer to this the democratic governor of georgia. she had to answer for why she $100,000 plus still in debt. and of that is education caring for parents. she comes from a not wealthy family. we have to have voting rights. to not talk about it, we have to

end it. it is something we have to talk about. is that my five minutes? doing very well. essentialestion is for me. we tackle fair housing issues. we remedy the segregation in america which is something that was constructed. designedchestrated and residentie segregated than we were 100 year s ago. most of them northern cities, milwaukee, etit,

cetera. our hypersegregated. they are segregated. a society,egated as defacto and de jerry practices and policies place thatut into created separate and unequal societies. that and tell people we're more segregated today than we were 100 years ago, people believe me. if you think about and look at and wherey of america american people live and where white people lived and where lived, etricans cetera, where we lived in terms proximity 200 years ago, et cetera, you'll see that the very true.

how did we come from a society that's segregated to hyper segregation? we did that because at the end of the slavery, white people supremacy felte if you are not beneath me, if i this systemic system beneath me, i can't have you living next door. from me. separate you from federal policies to state local policy, they put the policy in place. because of that, because we are a residential segregated society , it has made it so much easier. mean easy.

access and all of the disparity is made profoundly easier because of residential segregation. because of in the united states, place is linked with opportunity. address, i me your can tell you how long you are going to live. i can tell you the chance of your children going through high school or going on to education. ofan tell you what kind diseases you are most susceptible to if you give me your address. that is something in my aspiration my 2050 is completely undone and unwound

my world in 20n 50 in communities that are open, fair, completely all of the and where barriers of discrimination has been torn down. the second reason this is existential for me is because i did my dna test, my son and i. my son and i, like every other -- probably not every other, but most others overwhelmingly, the majority of african-americans in this country are interracial people. we come from a global society. when i look at my ancestry map, it literally covered the globe. when i think about the fact that my ancestors come from every

space, every place on the globe, this whole question of what do race relations look like in 2050, just become so crazy. when you think about the reality of it also raises another interesting question. it is a question we talked about, appropriations. instead of appropriating someone else's culture or ethnicity. if you are a multiracial person, and i identify as african-american, but realizing that my ancestry is so diverse. if i decide to learn how to rain dance, am i appropriating someone else's culture? my ancestors were probably rain dancers. so this whole question opens up a pandora's box for me.

i will stop there because i think i have thrown out a lot of thoughts and ideas. when we talk about the question of race relations, when we think about our own ancestry and where we come from as a human race, that changes the paradox. it did for me and i think if other people thought about it, it would for them, as well. >> thank you. >> hi, everybody. it is hard to begin to have a conversation about this topic, but i think the creation of spaces where we can at least try is one of the critical points about what is needed right now.

this is particularly a fascinating, disturbing moment for somebody who works with a civil rights organization. we were talking about that earlier. some of the organizations in this country are turning 50 this year because 1968 was a very important year in the civil rights dimension. there were so many things in turmoil happening around the world, which sounds familiar to what we are experiencing right now. if i think about 2050, there are probably various ways i could think about what i would like to see, and at the core of these things, it is similar to what my fellow panelists would say. the more aspirational one would be from a systemic and policy perspective, as well as an individual level, that the golden rule is something we are

closer to guiding ourselves by and something that is closer to our behavior. not just as individuals, but also in the way that our systems, policies, institutions use their power. i think a lighter way to put that would be to say that when comedians of any background can make jokes about the latino community, and if i think the jokes are hilarious, no matter what the joke is, i think that would be great. i would also like to be in 2050, and i think this echoes what others have said, where if i am having a discussion or part of a debate and there happens to be

disagreement, one of the fallback positions would not simply be to go back to where you came from. even though they do not know where i am from, they are making assumptions based on the color of my skin. last i would say that every time i watch the news or hear a story about something or somebody who has done something wrong, at the first thought that comes to my mind is, please let it not be latino, black, or muslim. because these communities are going to be indicted wholesale for the action of an individual. so i am hoping that by 2050 we are not there anymore. i agree with what has been put here, and this can be an overwhelming thing. i want to build on what has been

said. at the end of the day, dividing people -- and we are certainly seeing policy and politics in the weaponizing of divide and conquer. at the end of the day, divide and conquer, seating division between people is a pure form of control. i think we have seen the division. when you are trying to divide people, designating a scapegoat and aggressor is an important part of the equation. i think in our country there have been some communities that have borne the brunt of that demonization for a long time. it has been institutionalized in many ways.

i bring the divide and conquer because i think that the purpose of it is to prevent equally situated people with equal concerns from coming together to hold accountable those who are actually inflicting the conditions. so i do see how class plays a role. at some point, because i am more of an advocate than an intellectual, i think part of me is more focused on understanding that both play a role. one thing i would say is, sometimes the only thing that gets me through is to take the long view with the understanding that i am very impatient.

by the long view i mean our country has had a very tortured history with many groups of people. we have not learned our lesson and there is a reason why divide and conquer comes up again and again because we fall for it every time. so for us, one of the things we were thinking about is how these narratives and dividing conquer politics are used to scare people about other people. and in that place of fear, create an environment where people are willing to go along and condone the violations of rights of other people. whether it is mass incarceration, the separation of parents from children who are coming to the border to ask for asylum.

things like that. and the fact that people at some point are willing to look the other way because they have been made to be afraid of those folks or to become numb to it. scarcity gets compounded on us every day until we start believing it. that sounds pretty dire. the long view tells us that eventually we come to our senses. we do not get all the way to where we need to go, but eventually we start to redress. the other good news is that at least 80% of americans are concerned about the tone of politics today. they are concerned about division.

they believe that diversity is one of america's strengths. this is research we did last year and i was very surprised, because of what we had been seeing. the reason i mentioned that is that i feel our country is the equivalent of the child who goes to school and everywhere they go, they hear, you are stupid. you are not going to amount to anything. you are bad. what is happening is bad. the people around you are bad. and you know what happens to that child. even though there are more children than look a certain way that gets told that, it affects the child, no matter what color the child is. that is our country today. people are hearing it every day.

at the way for democracy is changing and that the way things are happening -- and the way the ography is-- dem changing the way things are happening means that we have to make this country great again because it isn't and we should be afraid of what is. so to make a positive thing is that even in this toxic environment, which is not new, that this administration is the result of decades of building up to this point. that is the moment of reflection. so the positive is that even with all of the toxicity, an overwhelming number of americans believe america is a strength. if we do not do something about it, they will end up believing that you are stupid and bad and will not an amount to anything. that is the point of intervention for us and i think there are things we can all do.

i will leave you with this example. we're highly segregated and the less you know about something, the more the wrong perception of that can take hold. we live in a very segregated country where stereotypes about others can take stronghold because we do not come into contact with people. so we decided to start, because americans believe that diversity is a strength and they're concerned about what is happening, they want to do something about it. but it is hard to figure out what to do. so think about small things all of us can do while we continue to do the big things. that is creating spaces where people can break bread together,

can share stories and create shared experiences that allow us to be an entry point to learn more about each other. it was in that spirit that organizations we work with decided to start setting an example and started hosting recipe events where they invited a diverse number of people in their communities to come together, break bread, and talk about food and what food means for them and their family. it is a way to engage in conversation. i think that is something we can all do as individuals. you can do it with partners. again, it is individual and institutional. it is big policy and small action. >> hi. before i go forward to 2050, i would like to go back. i grew up in a small town in northern california, three hours north of san francisco. it had an extremely high

unemployment rate. fewer than 10% of my high school class went to college. i was a young republican. i bought into all that small-town conservatism. i did not understand why my parents should not cross the picket line. my dad had a gun in the closet and i thought that made sense at the time. my world was one of racial stereotypes and i still recall a painful memory of talking with my mexican-american boyfriend and asking if our other friend knew he was mexican. he said, you know, mexican is not a bad word. that is who i would have been if i had not had an opportunity to

learn from others and to experience more about race in america. i began to really understand the mechanism and meaning of race and how laws and policies make race and make racial inequality. race in my view is the social meaning that people attribute to our physical features. that is so powerful and chances are determined in many ways by that social meaning. so i admit i see the world through a racial lens. i have read richard's report and i wanted to be convinced about how we balance class and race

and i would tip the scales little bit more towards race. when i look at the differential test scores in college admissions, i do not just attribute those test scores just to poverty and economic differences. i also think about implicit bias. that is something a class-based policy cannot do a good job with. i ask my students at the university of maryland, how many of you come your teachers thought you were really good at math. maybe half the asian-american students raise their hands. how many of you, a teacher implied that you are not good at school? every black student always raises their hand. when i travel across d.c., i see neighborhoods divided by class,

but i see deep racial segregation to understand to be a function of slavery and jim crow and redlining. and the last five years, racial discrimination in mortgage lending. that is not something in the past. that is today. when i see statistics on the workplace, i see that asian americans overall have a higher income than even whites in the united states. but i also know if you look within those categories, if you look at people who have the same education, whites make more than asian-americans. so class alone cannot absolve us. as dr. perry has underscored, i

am not driving attention to inmates racial differences -- innate racial differences or susceptibility to particular vulnerabilities based on physical features. i am drawing attention to differential rates of exposure to racism. so in my view the future of race relations in the u.s. really depends on our ability to talk about race and racism now and everyday. and it means for me being obsessed with race to some degree. so, i would like to see a world in which we acknowledge as a society the work that racism continues to do to create inequality, so we can get to the heart of the problem. does this mean we cannot also consider class, gender, or immigration status? no. people who talk about race all the time are always the first to talk about gender and class and

immigration status. they do not think of race is the only thing going on. but they think it is a really important fundamental part of the problem. so, we have seen explicit, legally sanctioned racism decrease in our lifetime. what will it take to make further changes in the future? research shows that white millennials have more in common in terms of their ideas about race with other white people than they do with other non-white millennials. there has to be an intervention, and it is not just generational change. i think that intervention is

explicit racial policy that addresses racism. >> that was a fantastic panel. thank you so much. [applause] this exceeded what i expected in terms of hearing authentic voices. i am going to ask one question and invite guests to join the conversation. i think you are more than able to handle it. i wanted to ask you what you are going to do about all of the whites?

when i mean is you are talking about major reallocation of wealth and power. when you talk about reparations, we're not talking about five dollars. we're talking about trillions. when you talk about wanting to change admission so class becomes more important, and so on. everything you said implies a major take from the whites. they have not been terribly accommodating. we have seen backlash.

when trump voters were asked, is your life like you are climbing up the hill and people keep getting ahead of you, is that what you feel? that is the way the majority of the white people felt. whites like to talk about equal opportunity. everybody should participate in the race. but if you discuss about the starting points, those who are disadvantaged are always going to lose the race. you need meaningful quality of opportunities. so, how are we going to get there?

>> a lot of people think about reparations as a kind of impossible project. but the fact is, when most people are talking about reparations, they are not actually talking about a dollar for dollar transfer. they are talking about expanding social safety nets, providing more robust programs to support both people of color and poor people. it is more of a metaphor than an actual transfer of wealth. that is one thing. it is less of an impossibility than people believe because it is really about expanding government social services. asian-americans have a lot of resources these days. but they are actually one of the groups that is most likely to be ok with raising taxes on the rich for middle-class tax cuts and they endorse a bigger

government with more social services. so i notice not just about self-interest, it is about social interest and i think we can get there. where we going to do about whites? not every white is racist. we have to take that into account. there are many whites who will get on board and we cannot write them off. we do not win anything without winning progressive whites. i think there is a coalition of people of color and progressive whites and that is a possibility in the future. >> i think you actually reveal part of the issue with the question itself. i think a lot of times that we attempt to have conversations about race relations, we attempt

to have it in a binary us versus them. when people talk about multiculturalism or diversity, there is a sense that that means people of color. but diversity and multiculturalism means everybody. so my thing about actually living to realize the country we aspire to be and build an accurate story of that country is one that has a place for everybody. i think that the problem with these issues is that we tend to have them in ways that reinforce the division and antagonism to tackle them.

that was encapsulated in that question, which is, in order to get to this better vision of what race relations will be in country, what will be done with whites? that is part of the race relations question. we are all in it together. to me it reinforces this notion , that this is about people of color, and that whites are simply a problem. i think we need to get past that and figure out how to inoculate ourselves better. there is an incredible amount of effort so people do not find

ways to partner and work together. by saying that i am not being dismissive in anyway. i think the structural things that have been put in place to make of those things real are incredibly strong. but the way to preserve that structure of racism is by making people complicit in the equation. so i think the partnership has to also be in terms of how do we stop being complicit? four folks in the white community, folks who are

suffering the same inequality of power in their poor communities where this is happening, but at the same time, too willing to go along with the demonization of other folks to explain that away. at the end of the day to me we , need to look at folks who are creating these conditions and why they are so intent on distracting us from coming together by turning us against each other. at times it has been democrats , willing to do it. right now, we see a majority of republicans willing to do it. but i am not going to write either party off or absolve them completely because i think they have to be held accountable. one is definitely leading the

charge right now, but i will be the first to say it. but i am not going to write , people off because they identify as one party or another. we need to create a bigger space than that. >> so my first thought when you asked that question was that we have been transferring wealth throughout the entire history of our country. it has just been one way. a one-way street. primarily it has been white men who have benefited from the transfer of wealth. when the u.s. was first forming, we invited folks to immigrate to our nation. great britain established a system in the colonial time called head rights in which land was granted primarily to white

men based on the number of people in the household. that is the way many families who have been here for centuries gained land d wealth. it was given to them. not only that, but through the taxpayer system, everybody paid taxes and contributed to a system in which we armed militia to go in take property in land from some people to give it to others. we did that as a nation. so we have been transferring wealth in the head rights system, then transferred over into the land grant system which rolled over into the homestead system, so

throughout the entire history of the country, we have been transferring wealth. it has just not been transferred in a way that benefited us all. the largest transference of wealth was after the financial crisis when we the taxpayer bailed out wall street to the tune of trillions of dollars. one of the things we have to do is figure out a way to educate the populace and to get the populace engaged. when you talk about these issues, if i hear one more time that the community reinvestment act or affordable housing goal caused the foreclosure crisis, i will scream. wall street greed caused it. but we bailed out to the tune of trillions of dollars.

a lot of people do not realize that when we established the bailout program, that money that was given to goldman sachs and all the wall street players, you know they basically just paid each other off with that money. with our money. two years after the financial crisis, the wall street powerhouses were operating in the black. they were fully profitable because we transferred our wealth to them. so, i don't think we have a fundamental problem with the concept of transference of wealth. but we have a problem with who is getting the money would be transfer? that is the paradigm we have to change. that change comes from policy

changes, education, advocacy, and holding each other accountable. i have to hold you accountable and you have to hold me accountable. the other thing we need to do is change our system. let's say we had reparations where we actually transferred money, monetary assets, two -- to people who have been underserved in the united states. in five years, all of the money would be transferred back to the most wealthy in the nation. that is because our systems are designed to funnel wealth away from some and to others. it is the way the system is constructed. look at th ecredit system, the financial system, the criminal

justice system. look at the educational system. go through and look at every system in the nation. the apparatus is designed, constructed to strip wealth from the masses and funnel it to the few. that is something we have to actually change, fundamentally overhaul those systems so we can have more equality and equity in our society. >> i will not repeat what lisa said, she said it well. we actually do this on a regular basis. we call it reparations but you can call it corporate welfare or whatever you want. it is the same idea. when i am talking about

reparations, i am talking about a legitimate repair of communities that are damaged. we know we have done this. we know we denied black farmers. we know what that caused. black families lost property. they lost wealth. we know the wilmington race riots. it was a majority black city being. it is not now. we know why. let people got out of 10. japanese internment was a real harm the we said we have to repair. so it does not necessarily have to come in a cash payment. there are number of ways we can get creative about how we do this. some came in the form of education. it came in the form of an educational trust. we could do it in a number of ways.

we do not lack for creative solutions. what we lack is the political will. in part changing people's mind , is the difficult part. you want people to think about this as you are taking from me to give to something else. and it is not just somebody else it is somebody i think is , undeserving. i think that is the conversation we do not want to have when i say reparations, no one else in here is thinking about giving money to native american people who had their land stripped or head of their community destroyed. is thinking about, they are thinking about black people. that is what i am thinking about. that is one of the most fundamental relationships in this country that needs to be worked out. but it does not have to be a direct cash payment. it wouldn't to be richer giving me money out of his pocket. that is not how it works. we all pay taxes. even if there were reparations in some form given, we have all paid into them. white, black, native latino.

we have all paid into that system. so i do not think it is about what to do witite. i think we have to do a better job of thinking of thinking through this restorative justice. i do not think we give that part of the conversation enough space. there are communities that do not have proper dental care. their communities did not end up that way by accident. but i do think in the case of talking about something like reparations for whomever, it is not a term that is owned by a black people. we have to be color conscious in how we do it because we all face these kinds of economic hardships differently. our communities look different.

s seven and ward eight look like next to wards one and three. that is not by accident. i do not know what we do with whites. politicians have never had issues with making policies and hoping the country goes with them. they make the policy and the country follows. i think there are a lot of things we pay for all the time that passes by that may be unpopular that we do so i do not see what this cannot be another of those. >> your challenge to me was a little different, about how we get to class-based affirmative action in college admissions.

there are obstacles. right now, according to william bowen, the biggest preference is given to athletes. second most important was under minorities. third was legacies, the children of alumni. i have a book called "affirmative action for the rich." it is outrageous. they get a 20 percentage point increase. low income students got no bump up whatsoever. so the universities do not consider class in admissions. so the question is, how do we go about getting change on that issue? i do not think universities are

going to do much on their own because they have incentives for racial diversity, because race is a lot more visible than class to the naked eye. there are interest groups pushing for racial diversity. it is not that expensive to bring in wealthy students of all colors. class faces all sorts of obstacles. there is no organized constituency for class-based affirmative action. it is less visible than race and much more expensive because you have to provide financial aid for the students. so the only lever for change or , have seen make areal -- a real difference is in the states where, usually by voter initiative, people have said you cannot use race in admissions. then suddenly, universities discover class. not because they are interested in class diversity per se, but because it is the next best way to get racial diversity.

so we did see in state after state where affirmative action was banned by race, that administrators did not simply give up on racial diversity. they said, let's find new ways to get there. and they made sure they provided new preferences based on class. so to my mind, there is this bizarre situation where a conservative decision to take away race ends up with a progressive result where we finally pay attention to class. >> there were a lot of good points in a will make my contribution by not speaking.

i have good data to support it than not everybody on the panel agrees with you. let us leave it at that. can we change the lights? there are two microphones my belief. anybody want to coming -- anybody want to comment? i cannot see you. uld you stand? >> i want to thank you for a great panel. last week, there was a lawsuit filed against the district of colombia government for perpetuating a series of economic development policies of

the years that had discriminated against people of color. it is better when we have people who want to invest in the district. my question is, what can be done to take advantage of this kind the desire to invest in the district so we get more equitable development instead of gentrification and others call it ethnic cleansing? >> thank you. let us take one more. i think the conversation is about to change, we are moving into an american plutocracy and there are all kinds of movement underground that are radically changing the structure of the relationships in our society, where everybody is going to be affected by this concentration of wealth.

i think in order to get beyond, we have to get ahead. i do not know how you do that but it needs to be incorporated , into how we define the problem. or two.n take one >> i will tackle the first one because it has fair housing issues woven in. there are all kinds of strategies for making sure economic development can be done in a more equitable fashion. for example under title iii, , particularly if there are federal funds involved in the development, you can require that underserved groups are actually employed in the devepment or construction of the building or that underserved communities are going to be employed after the businesses or retail are constructed and set up.

you n also make sure you are giving opportunities for small businesses to have an opportunity to be a part of the development. there are all kinds of programs. some people may refer to them as minority enterprise business development programs that require that minority owned businesses have a shot at taking part of the development. when you talk about housing development programs, you can make sure that a slice of the new houses developed are affordable and that the residents who formerly lived in the neighborhood or community have a first right of refusal at the new housing units that come on the market.

the district of columbia does have these programs i mentioned. the problem is enforcement. if you do not have enforcement of the good policies and program, you are just going to end up with the same result. >> can i jump in? greg elisa know more about housing and i will stay away from. i am dipping my total in. claudia, youut your finger on something really important. greg andand lisa -- lisa know more about housing and i was the away from it. i am dipping my toe in. claudia, you put your finger on something really important.

these concentrations of wealth. i had a piece in the new york times about robert kennedy's 1968 campaign for president where he brought together african-american voters and working-class whites, including a lot of people that ended up voting for george wallace. he did it at a time of great economic prosperity and equality. the gini index was at a low point. so the question is whether this concentration of wealth and poverty will finally open the door to bring back the coalition bobby kennedy was able to put together. from a logical standpoint, it ought to be easier to do now than it was 50 years ago. >> i want to thank everyone of the panelists for all you have contributed to this discussion. this question is for ms. carter. you opened up your discussion

with such urgency about our black men and how it is killing q every day. -- killing you every day. i want to go back to that with this racial issue. we have a system problem and it is killing people at alarming rates. it is killing our black men. we just had a mother said to be for us and say day by day, the system is killing her. i would like you to speak a little bit more to that, because it is not about repairing the system. it is broke. america is not working. it is not working. people are dying because of it. one is because america has not

taken black people out of the allocation of land. you just think that what is the , question for america? is, howtion for america do you really think about black people? people of color? because all of your system and everything you are navigating around is the answer to that question. >> thank you for your question. it is urgent. it is not just killing black men and boys, is killing black women and girls. we are in a city where black women are much likelier to die giving birth. serena williams almost died giving birth and she is rich. i think you are right, the

system is broken. when i meant repair i talk about , repairing the people. i don't think we can repair the system. we didn't build it. i dootwhose job it is. but i do think, the pshological and emotional parts of this, the stress of this, kills people. the level of broken heartedness, i do not think we give enough credit to melancholy and depression and stress and oh the city and high blood pressure and diabetes. these things kill people. and depression and stress and obesity and high blood pressure and diabetes. -- these things kill people. maternal health.

it has been suggested that you can pass stress along to your babies. so this is a sickness that happens. i do not know if i am being coherent. i broughup like most people. you make the right choices and decisions and life will open up for you. i did all of that. i went to college. i did not have children young or out of wedlock. i went to graduate school. i got a job and i am employed and i pay my taxes and student loans. and here i am, 40, and i'm like, where is all the other stuff that was supposed to happen for me? i delayed having children. it is not an issue i had, but a lot of women are like me. i did not buy my first home until i was 40. because in this city, it is difficult. i had good credit. i did all the things you were supposed to do. so the point i guess i want to make is, i feel it. i feel it talking to you right now.

as much as i can put it into pretty words, the truth is white supremacy kills people every day. from smoking to drinking, all the things people do to cope, it is a public health concern. racism is a public health issue, just like gun violence, just like diabetes. these things are all connected. >> thank you very much. everythingu all for you have shared. i am a resident down the street. i wanted to ask what you thought about what we can look to when we talk about the vision. often times, it can be paralyzing because we talk about what we are running from. we know what is not working. but who can we look to as an

example, what pockets of society are there places where the vision you are talking about is working? what countries do we see that are racially diverse that still have high trust index? or we talk about people being comfortable with transferring. there is low trust index. anple like diversity as ideal but they do not want it next to them. who can we look to? >> another question, please. >> thank you for the panel. it is lopsided. i am not white. the three elements that i feel are missing from the room, first of all, the more diversity a

society has, the less social cohesion the country has. the japanese is doing great with that. another problem is yes, there are differences within races. that is correct. there are distribution. however, there are realities of cultural differences between the groups. black values are not the same as white values. 400 swiss people on a desert island and come back one year later and see what happens. do the same thing with 100 african-americans or africans. come back a year later and see what happens.

see what kind of society you have. i'm a statistician and i see the demographic trend. if cultural groups do not clean up their acts, i will tell you what will happen insociety. -- in society. thank you. >> i am exhausted by that question. it is attempting to be provocative in the worst way. look. i can't. i just can't. i can attempt to be nice about it, but that question is loaded with so much garbage that does not actually need to be unpacked, and i am not going to do it. this is a civil dialogue and i am being as civil as i can be. we give too many passes.

it is not a legitimate question. it is not. the whole point about the role not easyans and maybe obedience -- the whole point about throwing 100 africans and not ethiopian's? what does that mean. what are you saying about people's values? there are no black values, only white values? yes people might have cultural , things, but the moment we decide that your cultural values makes you a lesser person, i am not going to begin a conversation with a prison that is racist. i am not going to do it. the other man had a question about countries that are doing it well. i do not know of a country that is doing well with diversity. i do not know. >> i want to jump in with a couple of things. first of all, i agree with one

part of that comment, which is that the panel is lopsided. i agree with that. i can also defend it, but i agree. to be fair on that. i do think that some of the comments that were made are an example of the things that people buy into hook, line and sinker without doing a lot of thinking. so this notion that diversity leads to less cohesion can be proven wrong. there were some circular arguments in that. nobody argued that belonging to a particular group means there is a monolithic thinking in that group. so i am not sure why we need to debate that. coming from the latino

community, which many people regard as a monolith but is actually diverse, i would be the first one to challenge that. but the one thing i would say is, let's take the latino community as an example. latino is an american construct. latinos are only u.s. based like me who are of hispanic origins and would be from a number places, racial makeups, class, language. some latinos have been here since before the birth of the nation, some are first generations. the overwhelming majority of latinos are united states citizens. even though people think all latinos do not belong. those are the narratives that

are woven into our society. we are not born thinking that because you are black and i am latino is somebody is white and we are different and there is less cohesion. we get led in that direction. so this notion that diversity by cohesionads to less would argue that division is an organic thing, but it isn't. >> thank you. >> one quick, optimistic thing. [laughter] i think this other question does not deserve response. but there are 100 school districts in this country that are now trying to bring kids of different backgrounds together, looking at economic status and race and talking with the

students in those schools gives me a lot of hope. there is now a real effort to support diversity and it is student led. that is where i get my optimism. hi, i'm glad you actually mentioned the thing about the multicultural being latino, i am actually afro-latino. i don't speak spanish at all, though. [laughter] i did just want to ask about the idea of culture as a commodity. district, we are currently experiencing an economic and social change and something that could become a political change as well. there is this idea that if you express these different attempts

at urban development as cultural tourism, then that also can be a word that is not a good way of camino development but at the same time, you can have a shuttle that goes of the southwest areas which are areastely missing the that are of lower economic value. the whole idea is accessibility point b.t a to ooiubn you have this idea of this cultural expression. you come somewhere like the stage anything to yourself, wow, i am really in the city. i am with everyone, we are so diverse in this area. but you are actively ignoring the people who live here. but you can look around and see the people who are doing the physical labor, they are not

white. so you say oh, this is diverse, we are giving back to the community. but you are not, it is very empty. there is thisme, continued -- yeah, theory of gratitude of having this intellectual stimulation, this conversation. practicing actively --se ideals, so how can you how can you market just having better racial relations without creating minority cultures as a commodity? >> we have time for one brief comment. >> analysts? stage, weat the arena are talking about diversity, so, what have we done to foster true access to this kind of conversation? that is a hard question, i think it is a very good critique and i will leave it at that.

it is a very good critique and we need to think more about how to integrate. i will also answer the other question quily about diversity as a -- diversity and social collision. i think that comes from robert they're also been critiques of that work, how we define social cohesion. >> before we close, let me say that the conversation is to continue, one of our future sessions it is called the non-deplorables. we will bring both trump supporters and progressive people and see if we can have a -- now that we survive this one. [laughter] the question that we need to come back to is how we show

respect to everybody, even those who we deeply disagree with. the country, i think, is still moving to the right and if you nt to get the direction to we need to have many more people and we have not exhausted the subject. i think you would agree. we are going to get together to talk about artificial because it is about to kill our jobs. they are making weapons eponymous, so they will kill those who make them. and ultimately, computers are supposed to enslave us. so please join us on august 12. [laughter] [applause] >> one more time, thank you to

the panel. >> tonight, a profile interview with the white house legislative affairs director. he discusses his time working for mike pence and the house republican conference and what it's like working for president trump. that is at 7:30 eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on real america, on american history tv.

u.s.-moscow summit between ronald reagan and soviet leader of the council -- >> the way of democracy is somes a, clated way, and sometimes trying. but it is a good way, and we believe, the best way. to expend toi want you and to all those at this moment. my warmest personal thanks. atwatch a real america today 4 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span three. tonight, on afterward. syndicated columnist jonah goldberg with his book "a thatde of the west" argues tribalism, populism, and nationalism are threatening american democracy. he is entered -- interviewed by the editor of commentary

magazine. posit thatbook, you western civilization as we understand it or contemporary american western democratic civilization is unnatural. what do you mean by that? youf you took humans and cleared them of all of our civilization education, and put them in their national environment, we wouldn't the having conversations about books are doing podcasts. we would be teaming up into little bands of troops, sending ourselves against animals and other bands of troops, that is what our actual major is. -- nature is. that is the point of lord of the flies. these kids were the pinnacle of civilization, a british boarding school. and almost instantly, the second you put them back in the natural environment, they get very tribal, they kill each other, they attack each other. that is humanity. tonight onterword

c-span eastern. now, a debate on president trump's foreign and messing policies between weekly standard editor and chief stephen hayes and michael anton, former national security council spokesman who left the white house in april. this is an hour. mr. hayes: i have known michael anton for about 20 years. -- 25 years. we have shared more chinese and steaks than with most other people i know alive today. we are friends and we have been friends for a long time. he is a former deputy national security adviser under president trump and the author of the widely read essay, "the flight 93 election." which rush limbaugh read aloud on the air. it was a clarion call for a vote for donald trump and an attack