kennedy. watch the announcement live monday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span or listen on the free c-span radio app. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1970 nine, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today, we continue to bring you coverage of congress, the white , and, the supreme court public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. now, a discussion on race and politics. political science and sociology professors and representatives from advocacy organizations discussed the challenges and solutions for dealing with race relations. hosted by arena stage in

washington, d.c., this is an hour and a half. [indistinct conversations] >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. thank you. welcome to arena stage and our civil dialogue. i serve as the deputy artistic director here. i am curious, how many of you have been to arena stage before? raise your hand if you have. oh, fantastic. well, welcome back. i thought i would give you a little bit of context about the civil dialogue program we are doing here at arena stage. a few months ago, the professor sitting behind me and to my right, up broached us, -- approached us feeling frustrated

, like many of us were about the lack of civil dialogue in our nation and how polarized we seem to be. and he wondered whether arena stage could be a place for civil dialogs to take place where we deliberately bring together people with multiple perspectives on a topic that might be difficult to discuss and engage in the act of listening and speaking with one another civilly. when he approached us about this, we felt that it was a very good match with our mission, because as a theater company, that is what we strive to do every day in our shows. put up some ideas on stage and gather a community and the audience. hopefully, you then leave the theater with conversations. so we thought well, would people come to dialogues that we host here without the show? and so we did a couple of tests. this is the third of the tests. and i am pleased to see so many of you here and see that people

are hungry for this. so we are going to be continuing these dialogues into the late summer and fall. at the back of your programs, you will see the list of upcoming dialogues. since this is about dialogue, to whet your conversation maker, i would ask you to turn to somebody near you. and hopefully someone you didn't come here with and just -- we're only going to take 30 seconds for this. just share why you came with one another. so go ahead and just take 30 seconds for that sharing. [indistinct conversations]

>> wonderful. wonderful. so hopefully, you had the opportunity to meet someone new this evening. and, just a reminder to turn off

your cell phones or any other noisemaker you might have on you. special thanks to c-span, who is covering this dialogue this evening. without further ado, let me turn this over to the professor who will shepherd us through this conversation. doctor, thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. i greatly appreciate the decision of arena stage to give us this opportunity to continue a conversation with you. before we proceed, indulge me for just one minute. because i want to talk for one minute about a subject we will not discuss tonight. i cannot, as an immigrant, parent, a human being, and american, disregard the fact that our government takes children from their parents,

many younger than four, and incarcerates them separately. even sometimes after the immigration status is clear, they have a hard time uniting with their children. and in the past, in many cases, these children ended up with human traffickers. i'm not going to tell you what to feel. but those who share my feeling, i hope we will hear your voice. now, what we try to do in this series is to do two things at the same time. one, to show that people come from different backgrounds and different viewpoints can have a civil dialogue. we tried twice before, and it is by far our most challenging topic. especially calling on each other to have a frank conversation, but one which is mutually

respectful. and second, the topic for tonight is what we envision race relationships should be in the united states 30 years from now. in 2050 or so and how we're going to get there. in preparing myself tonight, i talked with a lot of people. some of you and some others, and it will not surprise you that it is an extremely complicated issue. the media talk about black, white, asian, so one. it is monolithic communities with each having one viewpoint. it is far from it. and to my surprise, i found the communitys in each exceed the differences among the communities. so mexican-americans and cuban-americans are further apart than mexican-americans and followers of bernie sanders, and

so on. and so among the foundations which keep coming up in the conversations i would like to , mention something before i turn it over to you. the one issue that keeps coming up is do we really want to , aspire to a colorblind society? or, as more and more people tell me, this is yesterday. this integration is something most of us are losing faith in, and instead, we're thinking about a policy which is a race conscious policy. i'm not sure exactly what that means but that is what we are -- but that is why we have this discussion tonight. other people draw the distinction between structural and personal racism. to understand that, what i meant is to say, some people believe that if you work hard enough,

dedicate yourself, you can pull yourself up with your own bootstraps and, whatever things are in your way, a minority person should be able to bulldoze ahead. some of this came up under the role of black fathers. again, if just minorities would do their thing, everything would be dandy. in contrast, this factual idea is that racism is deeply embedded in our power structures and our economy, and therefore is not subject that an individual can tackle on their own. another conversation i found intriguing is the role of class. on the one hand, people say, to

avoid the bad class or sense of discrimination we should really , focus on helping all people. all disadvantaged people, disregarding the racial background. the push back to this is that minorities especially, african americans, suffer extra injustice. so if you go to class-based, you will not be able to correct for that extra imbalance. we so often get caught up in different combinations. race and class and so on. finally, and the one i found intriguing was a phrase which is controversial but i find it actually surprisingly helpful as a conversation trigger, and that is check your privilege. now, some people take that to mean that white people should

shut up because they have been privileged so long it is not a time for other people to speak. i just read in a book so you want to talk about race, she explained that is not at all what the phrase means. the phrase means when white people feel they did better because they worked harder, saved more, and such. they should check and see, to what degree there achievements are due to their own efforts or advantages they had that other people did not. to sum up the frameworks in which the conversation might be framed, i am sure we going to -- i'm sure we are going to her more. you made a commitment that each of the speakers will speak only for five minutes in the first

round and there are trapdoors. [laughter] to save time, we will not introduce the speakers. you have the full bio in the program. >> thank you so much. it is wonderful to be here. you have posed a challenging question for us. i guess i would start by saying i am hoping that by 2050 we will be much further along in our race relations than we are today. that people will see the basic humanity in others that is lacking. just today, many of you know roseanne barr tweeted out a horribly racist statement about valerie jarrett. we have a president who, to my mind, consistently and in a

mind-boggling way denies the humanity of others. a mexican-american judge cannot be fair, he says. muslims, immigrants should not be allowed into the country. i mean, these are astounding statements coming this far into the 21st century. so, we would be much further along in 2050. how to get there? i think, integration has a lot to do with it. i have spent the last 20 or 25 years writing about efforts to integrate schools at the k-12 level and at the elite college level. i am now starting to get into housing which lisa knows far more about than i do. at the end of the day, we want

to be in a position where a politician, who runs for office demonize denigrate and other groups of people would be unsuccessful because everyone will have gone to schools and lived in neighborhoods where they know individuals from different backgrounds and would know how wrong it is to paint a broad brush about other people. now, in the integration effort, and here i will probably be more controversial. i think we should emphasize issues of class as well as race. take, for example, the challenge of integrating our elite colleges. a place like harvard university

is now majority minority. which, is a wonderful thing, but what they tend to do is assemble wealthy students of all colors on their campus. so they have built, in essence, a multiracial aristocracy. which is better than an all-white aristocracy, but it is still an aristocracy. so at harvard, they have as many students coming from the top 1% by income as the bottom 60%. there are more students from the top 10% by income than the bottom 90%. the problem is that our diversity efforts fall short when they ignore class and white working-class people recognize that.

one of the most astounding polls i have ever seen was one in which white working-class voters now say that they are as likely to be discriminated against as african-americans. on one level, that is complete nonsense. we just know the names. all you have to say are the names of the people who have faced racism and suffered terrible consequences because of it to know that it is wrong for white working-class people to say that there is likely to be discriminated against. having said that, the fact that our affirmative action programs, are geared towards race feeds this concept. if we are going to move forward, we need to have programs that will integrate us by race and by

class and pay much more attention than we have in the past to issues of economic inequality. that, after all is where martin , luther king was headed toward the end of his life, with the poor people's campaign. it is where reverend barber is now headed in trying to resurrect the poor people's campaign. and i think that is where we need to go if we want to become a more united country in the years to come. >> greetings, everyone. so what do i want this world to look like in 2050? i will tell you. i would like to be in the world and not be exhausted. dealing with white supremacy is taxing emotionally, mentally, physically. when you say the names to me or sandra bland, sterling brown, it is a visceral, sickening feeling. i would just like to be in the

world, as complicated and as not nice or not put together or good as any other person can be and that not be a reflection on my race or my community or say something about who i am. i want to not worry about the fact that i have a 14-year-old nephew who people may not acknowledge as this youthful boy who loves baseball and is a good student and a thoughtful kid, and who has a little sister at home and an older brother. the world may not see him as i see him. that keeps me up at night. that scares me, because the truth is he can die today for doing nothing other than walking around, listening to his car radio too loudly, listening to his earphones and not hearing someone tell him to freeze or to stop, right? and i think this idea of the world that i want to live in --

black fears -- and i'm going to say black people in particular because that is the community that i come from and i care about. not that i don't care about others, but that is where i am speaking from and i have to be honest about that. black fears of white people are totally justified. white fears of black people are not. and it is merited that this black criminality is allowed to justify our murders, our the tensions just the indignity , of being pulled over and put on the curb, being pulled aside in the metro station, being accosted in a store for being accused of theft, being followed around because somebody thinks you might steal something. i got the talk from my parents. when you go in the store, keep your hands out of your pockets. you have your money in your hand when you approach the counter. you don't put anything in a bag that you do not have a receipt for. it is funny when you go to best buy, they asked do you need a bag, do you need a receipt?

he is like, i am a black man. i need a bag with the receipt stable to the outside. [laughter] tears to a way in which those poor whites in particular have been coddled, because part of what i think is going to get us to this better place is we have to end this investment in white supremacy. that is not a white people problem. that is a all of us problem. i think we all do various things to prop up white supremacy. part of that is the talk we had to give our children. that is the reality of life we live. but we should be able to tell people, you're going in the store, live your life. walk in there as entitled as anybody else who has money to pay for that belt or that set of groceries or whatever you want. but we have to end that investment in white supremacy. this belief that white people are superior even for poor , whites. that investment in white supremacy has walked them away from policies that could have helped them, because they were

invested in it. so i think we have to talk about this wealth gap that is growing -- it's not closing. it is getting bigger. blacks, latinos, asians lag and that is not a small issue, but something like reparations is going to be something we need to talk about and economic redistribution. it is not a pleasant topic for most because people think they will lose something. but, you have to lose something to get something. if you want racial harmony, you have to do exactly what this country has never done, try to remedy racial wrongs. we have to talk about the education gap closing. i think this idea that if you just go to school, if you just make the right choices, you delay marriage, pregnancy, invest in your careers, you'll be fine. but we look at student loan debt, for example, the nominee for the democratic governor of georgia had to answer for why he

$100,000 intill has debt. part of that is education and also caring for parents. she comes from a not wealthy family. i think we have to have full voting rights for the first time. we have never had full voting rights in this country and i think that is a conversation we have to have. we have to talk about mass incarceration, and we do not have to talk about it, we we have to end it. i think food equality and scarcity is something else we need to talk about along with housing. i think that is my five minutes? dr. etzioni: you're doing very well. [applause] >> this question is existential for me. for a couple of reasons. the first is, what i do on a daily basis, which was alluded to, is tackle fair housing issues. so my job is to remedy the

vestiges of racial segregation in america which was something that was constructed, orchestrated, designed. we are more residentially segregated today than we were 100 years ago. and we are residentially segregated in many of our cities, many of them northern cities, chicago, detroit, milwaukee, etc. we are segregated as a society because of the fact out --de ure policies that were put into place that created separate and unequal societies. when i tell people that we are more segregated today than we were 100 years ago, people don't believe me. but, if you think about it, and go back and look at the history of america, and where african-american people lived, where white people lived, where

native americans lived, etc. in , terms of our proximity to one another 200 years ago, 150 years ago, etc. you will see that that , statement is true. so how do we come from being a society that was not hyper segregated but had a very much real class and caste system to a society that is hyper segregated? well, we did that because at the end of slavery, white people, because of white supremacy, felt well, if you are not beneath me, if i do not have this systemic caste system that designates you as being beneath me, then i can't have you living next door to me. we have got to separate you from me. and so from federal policies down to state policies and local policies our governments put , those policies in place to

create separate and unequal societies. because of that, because we are a residentially segregated society, it has made it so much easier -- i mean, easy for the perpetuation and the creation of all of the disparities that we just talked about. educational disparities, health disparities homeownership , disparities, credit access disparities. all of that is made profoundly easier because of residential segregation, and that is because in the united states, caste is inextricably linked with opportunity. where you live matters. if you give me your address, i can tell you how long you are going to live, and if you tell me where you live, i can tell you your credit score, your chances of being incarcerated, the chances of your children

graduating from high school or going on to get a higher education. i can tell you what kind of diseases you are most susceptible to if you just give me your address. and that is something, in my aspiration, my 2050 aspiration, is completely undone and unwound. we are living in my world by 2050, in communities that are open and fair, completely accessible, where all of the barriers of discrimination have been torn down. now, the second reason this is so existential for me is because i did my dna test, my son and i. and 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 covers the globe. fact thatnk about the my ancestors come from every space, every place on the globe, this question of what do race relations look like in 2050 think crazy, when you about the reality of what is america today. it raises another question and that is a question we talk about and that is a question of appropriation. appropriating somebody else's culture or somebody else's ethnicity. are a multiracial society and i identify as african-american, but realizing

my is history is diverse, if i how to rainarn dance, am i appreciating -- appropriating somebody else's culture? up aquestion opens pandora's box for me. i will stop there because i have thrown out a lot of thoughts and ideas. when we talk about the question we thinkelations, when about our ancestry and where we come from as a human race, that changes the paradigm. it did for me and if other people thought about it, it would change it for them as well. everybody. it is hard to begin to have a conversation about this topic. i think the creation of spaces

where we can at least try, it is one of the critical points about what is needed now. this is a fascinating, disturbing moment for somebody who works with the civil rights organization. we were talking about that earlier. some of the organizations in this country are turning 50 this year because 1968 was an year in the civil rights dimension and there were turmoilngs and happening not just in the united states but around the world, which sounds familiar to what we are experiencing now. of 2050, there are ways i could think about what i

would like to see and at the core of all of these is similar to what my fellow panelists would say. the more aspirational one would both a systemic and policy perspective as well as at an individual level. the golden role is something we are closer to guiding ourselves by and not something we like to throw to the wind. individualsust as but in the way our systems, our policies, our institutions use and wield power. i think a lighter way to put that would be to say that when comedians of any race or any background can make jokes about

the latino community, and i actually think the jokes are hilarious, right? 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 some folks have said, where if i am having a discussion or i am part of a debate and there happens to be disagreement one , of the fallback positions may not be go back to where you came from. even though they do not know where i came from, they are making an assumption because of what i look like in the color of my skin. last i would say that every time , i watch the news or i hear a someone who has done something wrong, the first thing that comes to my mind is please do not let it be a latino,

black, or muslim because these , communities are going to be indicted wholesale for the actions of an individual. i am hoping in 2050, we will not be there anymore. i want to build, because i agree with what has been put here. this can be overwhelming. i want to build on what has been said in a related direction which is that at the end of the people, and we are certainly seeing right now coliseum politics, like the best example of coliseum politics one could witness in the weaponize ng of dividingizim conquer. divide and conquer is a form of

control. we have seen that when you are , trying to divide people, designating a scapegoat and an aggressor is an important part of the equation, and i think in our country there have been some communities that have borne the designating a scapegoat and an important part of the equation and there have been some communities in our thetry that have borne brunt of that demonization for a long time and it's institutionalized and systematized in many different ways. do -- i bring the divide and conquer because i think that the purpose of is to prevent equally situated people with equal concerns from coming together to hold accountable those who actually are inflicting those conditions, right? so i do see how class plays a role there. and at some point because

more of an advocate than an intellectual, i think is more focused on rather than debate which is more important, to understand that both play a role and we have to break that right? would the one thing i say is sometimes the only throughat gets me is to take the long view with the understanding that i'm very impatient and that mean waiting for things to change but playing an active role in changing them, but by the long view i mean that our country has tortured history of peoplegroups and we haven't learned our lesson and there's a reason why divide and conquer comes up again and again, is because we fall for it every , right?ime and so for us in the u.s.,

weref the things we thinking about is how these narratives and these divide and conquer politics are used right to scare people about other people and in that place of fear create an environment where folks are willing to go along and condone policies and violations of rights of other people, right? whether it is mass incarceration, whether it is the separation of parents from children who are coming border to ask for asylum, right? and a series of things like fact thathe people, at some point, are willing to look the other beenecause they've made to be afraid of those folks or to mistrust their institutions and/or to become numb to that because a scarcity -- scarcity gets compounded on us every single day until we start believing it. dire,t sounds pretty

right? so the good thing -- the thatview tells us eventually, we come to our senses. we don't quite get all the to where we need to go, but eventually, we do kind up and start to redraft, to adjust course. but the other good news is that at least 80% of americans are concerned about the tone of politics today. concerned about the division. that diversity is one of america's strengths. is research that we did last year and frankly, i was because ofsed what we've been seeing. thateason i mentioned is i feel that our country right now is the equivalent goes tochild who school and/or at home and

she goese he or hears that you're stupid. amountnot going to to anything. you're bad or what's happening is bad or the around you are bad. and you know what happens to child. even though there's more children that look a certain way tha that get told that, it affects a child no matter the color of that child is and that is our country today. every are hearing single day that the way our demography is changing or things aret happening means that we have country great again because it isn't and because we should be afraid of what is. so for me, the positive thing is even in this toxic environment, which is not not theit's creation of a single man, that this administration is the result of years and decades of building up to

that's theand moment of reflection, right? so to me, the positive is even with all the toxicity,intense an overwhelming number of believe that america has a strength, but if we don't do something will end upey believing that you are and you won't amount to anything. and so that is the point of us,rvention for all of and i think there are things big and small that we can all do and i'll leave you tinythis little, example is that, as you mentioned, we're highly segregated and, as you know, the less you know about thething, the more that wrong perception about that thing can take hold. and the reality is that we very segregated country where stereotypes strongthers can take hold because we don't come into contact with people.

decided to start -- because americans believe that diversity is a strength and they're about what's happening, they also want to do something about it, but it's hard to figure out what do about it. so think about small things while we can do continue to do the big things that have us exhausted. and that is creating spaces where people can break bread share stories and create shared experiences that allow us to point to learn more about each other. and it was in that spirit organizations we work with decided to start example and started hosting recipe for unity events where they diverse number of people in their communities to come together, break and actually talk about food and what food means for them and their engages as a way to in conversation. i think that's something all of us can do.

it can do organizationally, you can do it as individuals. with partners, but again, it's both ends. it'sindividual and institutional, and it's big policy, and it's small actions. >> hi. before i go forward to 2050, i would like to go back. grew up in a small rural town in northern california north ofee hours san francisco. it had an extremely high rate, fewer than 10% of my high school went to college and i republican. i bought into all that small conservatism. welfare bredt dependency and i didn't understand why they parents

didn't cross a picket line and my dad had a gun in the that made sense at the time. my world was a world of icial stereotypes and still recall and hold this memoryvivid painful of talking with my mexican american boyfriend and asking him does our other friend know you are mexican? mexicanaid you know is not a bad word. that's who i would have been if i hadn't had the opportunity to learn from others and to experience in america.ace it was not until i was a college that i began to really understand the mechanisms and meaning laws andnd how policies make race and make racial inequalities. theace in my view is

social meaning that people physical to our features and that is so life's chances are determined in many ways social meaning. so i admit i see the world racial lens. read richard report and i wanted to be convinced about how we class and race and i would just tip the scales a little bit more towards race would say. so when i look at these differential test scores in college admissions, i don't just attribute -- and i know either, but i don't attribute those differential test scores just to poverty and economic differences. about implicit bias and that's something a class-based policy can't do

a good job with. i have asked my students at the university of maryland, many of you -- your teachers thought that you were really good at math and maybe about half the asian american students raised their hands. many of you, someone, a teacher, implied that you good at school. every black student always their hands. when i travel across d.c., i see neighborhoods yes, divided by class, but also, racialeep segregation that i understand to be a function of slavery, jim crow, red lining, and now in the last five years, racial discrimination in mortgage lending. something not that's in the past. that's today. i see statistics on the workplace, yeah, i see that

asian americans overall have a higher income than even the united states. but i also know that if you thoseithin socioeconomic categories, if you look at people who have the same education, then make more than asian americans. alone can't absolve us. hasr. joya perry underscored, i am not drawing attention to innate differences or susceptibility to particular based onlities physical features. i'm drawing attention to differential rates of exposure to racism. view, the future of race relations in the u.s. on ourdepends ability to talk about race racism now and every

day. 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 create inequality so we can get to the heart problem. does this mean that we cannot also consider class immigration status? no. people who talk about race all the time are always in world the first who talk about gender and class and immigration status. they do not think race is on, but thing going they think it is a really important, fundamental part the problem. so we have seen explicit sanctioned racism change and really decrease

over our own lifetimes. will it take to make theher changes in future? forumch from the pew shows that white millennials have more in common in terms of their ideas about race thanother white people they do with non-white millennials. got to be an intervention and it's not generational change. and i think that explicition is racial policies that address .acism >> that was a fantastic panel. thank you, thank you so much. [applause] >> really exceeded everything i expected in of really hearing clear and authentic voices.

let youoing to not off so easily and i'm going just one question, and then we'll invite the rest of you to join the haversation, but you to forgive me it's going to be a difficult one. you're more than able to handle it. >> speaking of race easy one?is the >> give me a minute. we'll go the opposite order maybe. so i wanted to ask you what are you going to do all those whites? and what i mean by that is here andabout there about major reallocation of wealth and power. so when you talk about reparations, you're not $5.ing about you're talking about trillions. abouten you talk wanting to change the mission so class becomes more important, it means less rich will be admitted.

on.so on and so but everything you said a major take, a take frank, whites. they haven't been terribly and we've seen a backlash and all kinds of fears and when book,ad roth child's she spent five years with the trump voters and the one thing they all agreed on is when she asked them is your like climbing up a hill, it's a very steep hill? keep cutting heavahead of you? is that what you feel? and that's what the majority feel. white people now, before we get all the s -- here's the point. whites like to talk about equality of opportunity. it means everybody should

race.ipate in the but if you start from different starting points, those who are disadvantaged are always going to lose the race. a little it in more technically, you need some equality of results get a you can meaningful equality of opportunities. so how are we going to get there? mind going the other order? >> so a lot of people think this reparations as kind of impossible project, but the fact is when most people are talking about reparations they're not actually talking about a transfer. dollar they're actually talking about expanding social providings, about more robust programs to support both people of color and poor people. it is more of a metaphor i actualhan an

transfer of wealth. and so that's one thing, i it's less of an impossibility than people believe because it's really expanding government social services and i know from my own research, let's americans. asian americans have a lot of resources in terms of socioeconomics these days. are actually one of the groups that's most likely to be okay with raising taxes on the rich for a middle class tax cut, a biggerendorse government with more social services. justknow that it's not about self-interest. it's about social interest as well, and i think we can get there. what are we going to do about whites? not every white is racist and that's also something to take into account, that i know many whites and i'm sure most knowe in this room that there is -- there are get onites who will board equality and social justice and we can't write

off. we don't win anything without winning progressive whites and so i think there a path forward, a coalition of people of color andprogressive whites, that is a possibility in the future. actuallyhink you reveal part of the -- 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 a binary us them. the divide and conquer again, what i mean by that is that almost invariably when people talk about multiculturalism or diversity, there is a sense that that means people of color, right? but diversity and

multiculturalism means, everybody. about, you know, the both and the actually living -- to realize the country we aspire to be and build an accurate story of that country that we aspire to be is one that has a for everybody. and i think that the problem with these issues is that we tend to have them in ways reinforce the division and the antagonism to andally tackle them that was incapsulated in that question, which is so in order to get this better vision of what race relations are going to the country, what's with to be done whites? but that's part of the race issue.ns we're all in it together, right?

again, to me, it just reinforces this notion that is about people of color, not about whites, and problem.e simply a i think we need to get past and also figure out -- inoculateow do we ourselves better to the happens,ion that right? so the majority of whites in country actually find themselves facing economic challenges that are -- that bear some similarity to what people of color in higher percentage in those communities are experiencing. an incredible amount of effort in trying obfuscate that reality so people don't actually find ways to partner and work together. by saying that, i'm not being dismissive or in any

because i think the structural things that have been put in place to make those things real are incredibly strong, but the way to preserve that structural racism is by complicit in that equation. and so i think that the to also be has in terms of how do we stop complicit? for folks, you know, in white in the community, folks who are the same inequality of power and economic conditions in their pooregregated communities where this is but at the same time, sometimes, too willing to go along with the demonization of other folks to explain that away. the day to me we need to look up at folks who are creating these

and why they are so intent on distracting us from coming together by turning us against each times, it has been democrats willing to do it. we see a majority of republicans willing to be and do it, but i'm not going to write either absolve them completely because i also think that they both have to be held accountable. again, one is definitely leading the charge right now and i'll be the first one to say it, but i'm not going to write people off because as part of one party or another. i think that we need to space thangger that. >> so my first thought when that question was that we've been transferring wealth throughout the entire of our country and it's just been one way.

a one way street and it's primarily been benefitedwho have from that transference of wealth. was the united states first forming, we invited folks to immigrate to this nation. think about this. britainreat established a system in the colonial period called head in which land was granted primarily to white of based on the number people in the household, so way -- to them. that, but through system,ayer everybody paid taxes and contributed to a system in

armed militia to go and take property and land from some people to give it others. we did that as a nation. so we've been transferring wealth, when the head rights then transferred, sort of rolled over into the land grant system. that rolled over into the homestead system. that rolled over into the fha system. so throughout the entire history of this country, we've been transferring wealth. but it's just not been transferred in a way that all.ited us the largest, huge transference of wealth was the foreclosure and financial crisis when we, outtaxpayer, bailed wall street to the tune of dollars. of and one of the things that we have to do is figure out

a way to educate the get the and to populace engaged because when you talk about these hears, i mean, if i one more time that the community reinvestment act affordable housing goals caused the foreclosure crisis, i think i'm going to screen my head off. not what caused the foreclosure crisis. wall street greed is what foreclosure and the financial crises, right? thewe bailed out to tune of trillions of dollars and a lot of people don't welize that when established that bailout tarp,m called the tot money that was given goldman and all those wall street players, do you know just basically paid each other off with money?ney, with our two years after the foreclosure and financial crises, the wall street big

powerhouses were operating in the black. fully profitable ouruse we transferred wealth to them. think -- we have a fundamental problem with the concept of transference of wealth. a problem is who's getting the wealth once it's transferred? and that's a paradigm that and thato change change comes from policy changes. it comes from education. it comes from advocacy and it comes from holding each other accountable. i have to hold you accountable and you have to me accountable. the other thing that i think is tolly need to do change our systems because -- now, this is true. let's say we did have reparations where we

money,y transferred peopley assets, to who have been underserved in the united states. in five years, all of that be transferred back to the most wealthy in the nation and that is because our systems are designed to funnel wealth away from some and to others. way the entire system is constructed. system.the credit look at the financial system. look at the criminal justice system. i mean, just look at the educational system. just go through and look at every system in the nation. designed.tus is stri constructed to have to actually change that system,

overhaul all of those systems and canratuses so that we have more equality and equity in our society. brief comments. >> so i will try to keep mine brief. won't repeat what lisa said. we call it reparation, but call it corporate welfare, you can call it whatever you want to call it. idea.he same but when i'm talking about reparations, i'm talking about a legitimate repair of communities that are damaged. and we know we have done this right? that we denied black farmers fha loans. we know we did that and what that caused. black families to lose property. -- we know why, because black people got out of town, right? before. done this

japanese internment right, was a real harm that we said have to repair. so it doesn't necessarily have to come in a cash payment, right? ways are a number of we can get creative about right?do this -- and by other citizens of the state. so it came in the form of trusts right? we can do this a number of ways. we don't lack for a lot of creative solutions. we lack is the political will and in part changing people's minds i difficulthe most part of this because you want people to think about this as -- people do think about this. from me tong give to somebody else. and it's not just to somebody else. it's somebody that i think undeserving, right? and i think that's the conversation we don't want to have because when i say reparations nobody else in here is thinking about giving money to native people who have had

their lands stripped or their communities destroyed. about -- thinking they're thinking about black people and i am, too, because let's be clear. theink that's one of most fundamental relationships in this country that needs to be worked out. doesn't have to come in a direct cash payment and it wouldn't be richard money out of his pocket, right? even ifay taxes so there were reparations in some form given, we've all paid into them. latino,lack, native, asian, we've all paid into that system so i what think it's about to do with whites. i do think people have to be --s an ignorance question if we give people more information they will feel differently about it, but we artainly have to do better job i think of this sorthrough of -- as a kind of restorative justice, right? we given't think that part of the conversation enough space and, of course, there are

communities that we seen appalachia that don't have proper dental care. pick,ave a bone to too. their communities didn't end up that way by accident, but think in the case of talking about something like reparations for whomever, right? that's not a term that's owned by black people. existsterm that right? we have to be color conscious in how we do that face theseall kinds of economic hardships differently. lookommunities different. see ward seven and eight look like next to ward one and three and that's not by accident. for one community won't work for another, and i think there, color has to be part of that conversation so i don't know what we do with whites, but i will say the country has never had an issue, politicians have never had an issue with making policies and hoping goes with them, right? and they make the policy and the country follows, right? that we'reknow going to win the public

opinion debate on this aree, but i think there lots of things that we pay for all the time right that us bys and that pass that may be unpopular that we do so i don't see why this couldn't be another one those. >> i think your challenge to me was a little bit how we getbout to class-based affirmative action in college admissions. i'll make it very concrete here and there are lots of obstacles. right now, according to bowen, he said what counts in college admissions? the biggest preference is given to athletes. chancesease in your of admission if you're a recruited athlete. second most important was underrepresented minorities so african-americans, latinos, got a 28% increase in their chances of admission. third was legacies, the children of alumni. book called affirmative action for the

rich. it's outrageous i think. a 20% increase. low-income students got no up whatsoever. universities don't now consider class in admissions, and i think the question is how do we -- how some go about getting change on that issue? voluntarily i don't think universities are going to do much on their own because incentives for racial diversity because -- race is a lot more visible the naked eye and there are interest pushing forare racial diversity as they should. because it's not that expensive to bring in wealthy students of all colors. class, on the other hand, faces all these obstacles. there's no organized for class based

affirmative action. raceless visible than and it's much more expensive because you have to provide financial aid for these students. only lever for change that i've seen make a is in therence states where usually by initiative people have said you can't use race in admissions. universities discover class. not because they are in classd diversity per se, but because it's the next best get racial diversity. and so we did see in state after state after state, where affirmative action was race, that universities and administrators didn't simply on racial diversity. they said let's find new theyto get there and made sure that they provided new preferences based on class. so to my mind there's kind

of this bizarre situation where a conservative decision to take away race a progressive result that we finally pay class.on to >> first of all, thanks. there was a lot of good and i'll make my speakingion by not about the 20 things i like to say and check my privilege, but i want to make a record -- and i have good data to support it, not everybody on the panel agrees with you that should ban race as a consideration of admission. let's leave it at that and you.it to we have problems -- can we see people? there are two microphones i believe so anybody wants to comment and such?

well. why don't we take turns. would you start, please? >> i want to thank all of a great panel. last week there was a lawsuit filed against the district of columbia government for perpetuating a series of economic development policies over the years that had discriminated against people of color and had privileged white people. it was an effort to attract the so-called creative class to the district. it meant bringing in a lot of wealthy whites and displacing a lot of poor blacks. now, it's better that we have people that want to invest in the district than question is what can be done to take advantage of this kind of there to invest in district so that we get more equitable development rather than what some people like

to call revitalization, others call gentrification call ethnic cleansing. what's the key to more equitable development in the district? >> thank you. >> my name is claudia. the conversation is about to change. we're moving into an plutocracy and there are all kinds of movements underground that changing the structure of the relationships in our society where everybody is going to be affected by this wealth, andn of i think in order to get beyond, we have to get ahead of these kinds of movements know how you do that, but i think it needs to be incorporated into how we define the problem. >> we can take one or two comments. i'll tackle the first one because it's got some fair housing issues in.n but there are all kinds of strategies for making sure an economic development

can be done in a more fashion. under title 3, particularly if there are any federal involved inre the development, you can require that underserved are actually employed thehe development or construction of the buildings or that underserved communities are going to be employed after businesses or the retail up.constructed and set you can also make sure that you're giving opportunities for small businesses to have be a partnity to in the development so there of programs. some people may refer to minority enterprise business development thatams that require

minority owned businesses at taking part in the development. but when you talk about housing development programs, you can make sure a slice of those new developedt are are affordable and that the residents who formerly lived neighborhood or the community have a sort of first right of refusal at those new housing units that come on the market. is -- andm actually the district of columbia does have these justams that i mentioned. the problem is enforcement. don't have enforcement of these good policies and programs, then end upjust going to with the same result, right? and i think that's one of the reasons why the district sued was because it did not have a good compliance program.cement >> can i jump in?

quick. so i'm going to stay away from housing. toe in, butmy claudia i think you put your finger on something really important with these concentrations of wealth. i had a piece in the new times recently about robert kennedy's 1968 campaign for president where brought together african-american voters and whites,class including a lot of people who ended up voting for did itwallace and he actually at a time of great prosperity and index was at its low point. the inequality has grown much greater. so the question is whether this concentration of wealth and concentrations of openty will finally the door to bringing back

that coalition that bobby was able to put together because from a it oughttandpoint to be much easier to do now than it was 50 years ago. >> i just want to thank the panelists for all that you've contributed to this discussion, but this ms. carter.for you opened up your with such urgency men and howack it is killing you day by day. want to go back to that with this racial issue. have this system problem. is killingoblem people. and at alarming rates it is black men. mother sit had a

before us and said day by system is killing her. toould like for you speak a little bit more to is not aboutit system.g the it's broken! working.s not it is not working. ofple are dying because it. one is because america has taken black people out of the allocation of land and we just -- they just -- just think that you questiont is the for america? is question for america how do you really think black people? people of color? question.r

because all of your system and everything that you are navigating around is the answer to that question. >> so thank you for your question. i'm sorry i didn't get your name. so yeah, it is urgent and i would say it's not just killing black men and boys. and killing black women girls. you're in the city where black women are much likelier to die giving birth. i mean, serena williams almost died giving birth and rich, right? so what does that mean for me? but i do think you're right. is broken. i don't disagree and when i meant repair, i meant people.g the i don't know that we can repair this system. we didn't build it, i don't know whose job it is to fix it, but i'm going to take some leave from that. but i do think -- i do think psychological and emotional parts of this, the stress of this does kill people. and there's a level of brokenheartedness that i give enoughwe

credit to melancholy and and stress and obesity and high blood pressure and diabetes, right? kill people. maternal health. suggested that you can pass stress on to your babies, right? is ans intergenerational sickness and i will say as, you know -- i don't know if i'm being coherent, but, brought up was like most people, right? you make the right choices, you make the right decisions and life will open up for you. i did all of that right? i went to college. have children out of wedlock or young. i went to graduate school a job and i'm employed and i pay my taxes and my student loans, right? and here i am, 40, and i'm still like okay well, where's all this other stuff that life was supposed to have for me? put off having children.

is that a possibility for my life? maybe not. that i'mt an issue having. there's a lot of other women like me. i didn't buy my first home was 40, right? because in mice city, buying a home even for a middle income person is difficult and that's being nice and i had good credit, right? did all the things that you're supposed to do. so the point i guess i want make is i feel it, i feel it talking to you right now. me and asover much as i can intellectualize it, as much as i can put it into pretty words, the truth is white supremacy kills people every and i feel like from smoking to drinking, all the other things people do to it's a public health concern. racism is a public health gune, just like violence, just like diabetes, just like maternal health. alle things are connected.

[applause] >> thank you very much for that. >> thank you all very much for everything you've shared. my name is josia, i'm a resident down the street in wantedsburg, but i about a compelling vision or example? think oftentimes, it can be immobilizing because we talk about what we're from.g we know what isn't working, but who can we look to as an example, what pockets of society, are there places vision that you guys are talking about is working, where we are moving towards that? we seeuntries do that are racially diverse that still have high trust index, right? when we talk about people being uncomfortable with transferring, it's a lot there's low trust index, people like diversity as an ideal, but then they don't want it right next to

them right? who can we look to? >> another question, please. >> thank you for the panel. great panel. too bad it's totally one sided so if i may, if you not evend, i'm white, but i will pretend to try to defend whites for a it's okay with the three elephants that i thought were missing from nobody seems, to be talking about. i'll be brief. one first of all, obviously, the more diversity a society the less social cohesion. the japanese are doing great diversity, thank you, okay. and eventually if anything, many societies are fractured, eventually broken up thanks to diversity so that's great, but that's one part of it. another one is yes, there are differences within races, within groups. distributions. however, they are realities

of cultural differences, of groups.etween the black values are not the same as white values and so on. very simple thought experiment. throw 100 swiss people on a desert island and come back see whatter and happens. 400 japanese on a similar desert island, come back a year later and see what happens. then do the same thing with 100 african-americans, except ethiopians. and come back. >> is easy, easy. with 100 muslims, and come back a year later and see what kind of society you have. my second thing and the last thing, very brief is i have looked at the demographic trends going forward into 2015. i tell you right now, if cultural groups do not clean up their act, i'll tell you tot's going to happen society. thank you. that i'm exhausted by question.

quite frankly. it's an attempt to be provocative in the worst way. look.ow, i can't. i just can't. can attempt to be nice about it, but that question loaded with so much garbage that doesn't actually need to be unpacked to -- andt going this is a civil dialogue. i'm being as civil as i can because i think we give too many passes like well it's a legitimate question. it's not and pretending that it is, because even that 100e point throw african-americans, maybe not ethiopians, what's that mean?ed to what are you saying about people's values? about --talk people might have cultural things, but the moment we decide that your cultural values makes you a lesser person, then we are at the end of a conversation than at the beginning so i'm not to begin a

conversation with the premise that on its face is racist and problematic. not going to do it. somebody else can, but i'm not going to do that. >> okay. question here. >> and countries that are doing well. >> sorry he had a question about countries that were it well. i quite frankly, don't know countries that are doing with diversity and social things. i don't know. wanted to jump in with a couple of things. think -- first of all, i with one part of that comment in particular, which is that this panel is lopsided. i agree with that. i can also defend it, but i agree. fair onnow, to be that. i do -- i do think that some comments that were made kind of are an example peoplethings that line and hook sinker without doing a lot

of thinking. so this notion that to lessy leads cohesion i think can be wrong. there were some circular that right? so nobody argued that belonging to a particular group or any given group monolithic's a thinking in that group so i'm not sure why we need to have a debate about that. the latino community, which many people and itas a monolith, is actually very diverse. the first one to challenge that. but the one thing i would let's take the latino community as an example. is anno, by the way, american construct. folks from latin america are americans. latinos are only u.s.-based like me who are of

hispanic origin, can be from a number of different places. class,makeup, language, first spanish or english, you name it. heretinos have been since before the birth of the nation. some are first generation, here yesterday. the overwhelming majority of latinos shockingly are states citizens right? even though everybody thinks don'tll latinos belong because -- but let me take that as an example. >> we are running out of time. finish your point. >> there's an example, but those are the narratives us to buyoven for into, right? thinking not born that because you are black and i'm latino or somebody's white we are different and less cohesion. we get led in that direction so this notion that diversity by itself leads to cohesion would argue

that division is an organic thing, but it isn't. >> thank you. one more. optimisticuick thing. think -- and i'll agree with you now. this other question does not deserve response. but there are 100 school countrys in this that are now trying to bring kids of different together,s looking at economic status and race and talking periodically with the students in those schools gives me a lot of hope. in new york city, for example, there's now a real effort to support diversity and it's student led, and i think that's where i get my optimism. >> and we have one more question. >> yes. hi. i'm glad you actually mentioned the thing about -- multiculturalism of being latino.

i'm afro-latino. i don't speak spanish at all, though. want just to ask about the idea of like commodity.a we're in the southwest. we're currently experiencing an economic and social change and something that could in effect become a change, as well. thathere is this idea if you express these -- yeah just these different attempts at urban development as cultural tourism, then that also can be a word that's synonymous with communal development, but at the same time, you have aike you can free shuttle that goes in the southwest areas, but you're completely missing like the areas that are of economic value. and the whole idea is like this ease of accessibility from point a. to point b.

but at the same time, point expensive very hotel to the smithsonian museum so you have this idea creativehis cultural expression that, you know, you have these values,le cultural you come somewhere, you can yourself i'm in the city, i am with everyone, we area, diverse in this but you are actively like ignoring the people who live here, but you can look see thend you people that are doing the physical labor, they are not oh,e so you say that this is diverse, we are giving back to the community. veryou're not, it's empty. but at the same time there this like continued -- yeah just like feeling of just like gratitude of like having this intellectual stimulation, this conversation, but you're not actively, you know, practicing these ideals. you -- yeah i

guess how can you market havingou know, better racial relations without creating minority culture as a commodity? >> we have time for one brief comment. panelists? >> so the question is we are stage.arena we are talking about diversity, but what have we foster true access to this kind of conversation? that's a hard question. that it's a very critique. i think it's a very good critique and we need to think more about how to integrate. i will answer the other abouton quickly diversity as a -- diversity and social cohesion. fromnk that comes roger putnam's work and the important thing is there's been also critiques of that define social cohesion, for instance. >> well, before we close let say the

conversation has to continue as we learned. our future sessions, are nothere deplorables. we're going to bring both trump supporters and seeressive people and if we can have a conversation. now, that we've survived this one. the worst we heard is that binary. we've heard worse than that before. the question we'll need to is how we show respect to everybody, even we so deeply disagree with, those who are profoundly biased. think the country is still moving to the right and if you want to get the about, wewe talk need table to be able to bring n many more people and we have the subject, i think you would agree. on august 12th, we're together to

talk about the artificial intelligence, which allegedly is about to kill jobs. making weapons autonomous so it will kill those who make them. and ultimately computers are supposed to enslave us. so please join us august 12th. forget about those vacations! [applause] one more time. thank you to the panel. [applause] see you.

♪ ♪ >> c-span's washington journal. live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up, sunday morning, and history professor john fea discusses his book me," the evangelical road to donald thep which covers evolution of support for the president. and then we'll preview the nato summit with heather conley. washington journal, live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern sunday morning. join the discussion. >> sunday on news makers, judicial crisis network chief counsel and policy director carrie severino her organization's legislative and political strategies for the upcoming court nomination. the judicial crisis network conservative nonprofit

that is supporting president trump's choice to replace anthony kennedy on the high court. she's interviewed by roll bloombergreg of news. watch news makers, sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> sunday night on afterwards, interfaith activist with his book the hunt, a refugee's memoir of coming to america. escapedg how he death threats after connecting jews and christians globally through media. he's interviewed by religion reporter julie. constantly point out all of these strangers who small and in large ways. there are people whose names mentioned because you met them one time in bosnia years ago and never talked to them again. you're so aware of the role that strangers play in each other's lives.

us on have advice for being good strangers to us?le around >> i woke up and i >> i was losing hope, and every time, i was strong because i knew people have faith in me and held me up. in a park,was waiting on the fishing boat, but because i have faith in the strangers in the park. and without having faith in humanity, there's no hope. they really helped me. someone told me his grandmother and grandfather were trapped because of the holocaust.

>> sunday night at 9:00 p.m. 'sstern on c-span two "booktv." >> secretary of state mike pompeo began a trip to north korea for meetings on denuclearization and the return the remains of american soldiers killed in the korean war. following the meetings, the north korean ministry issued a statement, calling the negotiations regrettable, calling -- accusing the u.s. of attempting to unilaterally pressure the country into abandoning its nuclear weapons. >> mr. secretary, how to the meetings go? >> a couple things. we had many hours of