shares her thoughts on how the u.s. should respond to ransomware attacks and, from the pew research center, ruth igielnik talks about their research on the 2020 election. host: good morning and welcome to washington journal. it is the buzzword that is causing controversy. people interested in education, critical race theory. despite few knowing what it is, states have passed laws purporting to outlaw it in public schools. teachers are pushing back, saying politicians are making it harder for them to discuss how racism and sexism shape this country's past and continue to affect society. what do you think? that's our question.

what is your view of critical race theory? if you support the teaching of critical race theory, your number will be (202) 748-8000. if you are opposed to the teaching of critical race theory, your number will be (202) 748-8001. we will open a special line for educators and teachers. what are you hearing as we move toward a new school year? educators and teachers, your number is going to be (202) 748-8002. remember, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003 and we are always reading on social media on facebook at facebook.com /c-span, on twitter at @cspanwj, and you can follow us on instagram @cspanwj. let's start by defining what critical race theory is. here's the definition.

critical race theory is a conceptual framework that considers the impact of historical laws into social structures on the present-day perpetration of racial inequality. that's the official definition of critical race theory from the dictionary. we have seen this come up in a lot of different places in the news over the last few months, and it even came up earlier this week, when the american federation of teachers president, randi weingarten, talked about it at their meeting earlier this year. i will read a bit from what she said here from the associated press. "one of the nation's largest teacher's unions tuesday filed to defend members who are punished for teaching an honest interpretation of the united states's history, a measure

that's intended to counter the wave of states seeking to limit classroom discussion on race and discrimination. in a virtual address to members of the american federation of teachers, president randi weingarten said the union is preparing litigation and has a legal defense fund ready to go. she promised to fight culture warriors who attempt to limit lessons on racism and discrimination by labeling it as critical race theory. at least six states have passed laws limiting how race can be taught in the classroom and similar proposals are being considered in a dozen others. many of the bills are intended to bar the teaching of critical race theory, an academic framework that examines history through the lens of racism. it centers on the idea that racism is systemic in the nation's institutions and that they function to the benefit of white people in society."

that from the ap story. randi weingarten once again spoke at the conference earlier this week and she spoke about what she talked -- which he called a disinformation campaign about critical race theory. here is what she said. [video clip] >> critical race theory is not taught in elementary schools or middle schools or high schools. it is a method of examination taught in law school and in college that helps analyze whether systemic racism exists and in particular whether it has an effect on law and public policy. but culture warriors are labeling any discussion of race, racism or discrimination as crt to try to make it toxic.

they are bullying teachers and trying to stop us from teaching students accurate history. this harms students. these culture warriors -- a robust understanding of our common history. this will put students at a disadvantage at life by knocking a big hole in their understanding of our country and the world. host: let's start with jerry, calling from detroit, michigan, and jerry supports the teaching of critical race theory. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse and greetings yet again from motown. i support this because i think america and especially white, racist america needs to be taken from its constant denial of their centuries and generations of hatred of those whose skin

color isn't white like their own. one question i would ask any white person, and i am sure after i get off i will be slammed by white bigots for sameness -- for saying this, but when hasn't there been systemic racism in america? when haven't white people in america harbored generations and centuries of hatred against african-americans? i think the history of race relations in this country needs to be taught because i think too many white conservatives are glossing over -- are trying to gloss over and whitewash history in order to make white people seem less racist and less likely to hate people of color. host: let's go to john, calling from philadelphia, pennsylvania.

and john opposes critical race theory. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. i have a couple of things to say. one is i think that the media keeps promoting this. another thing is that black america forgot that white america helps -- helped -- [indiscernible] host: turn your tv down a little bit for us. caller: yes. and white america helped to put joe biden in. another thing is if you have faith, do you know, as a white person or a black person, whether you are black or white -- whether you were black or white last time around? no one knows that. that's a theory. i don't think that children should be getting this this early. they have enough pressure right now with a pandemic at all this stuff, missing a year of school,

and you want to bring this up right now when children have broken the barrier of racism during the obama era and now the raid on the capitol. you see that group and in the protest you have other groups. that's where your racism is within them groups. host: let's go to beecher, calling from port washington, maryland. beecher supports the teaching of critical race theory. good morning. caller: good morning. real quick. i don't know how many times you will have to read to people what critical race theory is and is not. i don't think they ever will understand. the same tactic we saw with black lives matter. it was never anti-police but

folks did an amazing job of making it blue lives matter. you take off the uniform at the end of your job. what the anti-critical race theory people have done massively is frozen the conversation and changed the definition, just like the fellows on this call, this conversation about the rating of the capitol. let's stick to the subject. it is critical race theory and it is not taught k-12 but it is a bogeyman for the gop, and they need something going into 2022 and even 2024 to write people up, to get to get people to vote people off school boards, at the county and state level.

thank you for educating us about what critical race theory is and is not. and continue to try to educate folks, telling america's history as it is, as hurtful as it is, but necessary to be told. host: let's go to a caller, cliff, from milwaukee, wisconsin. cliff opposes the teaching of critical race theory. good morning. caller: good morning. i think critical race theory is taken straight from marxist homes -- marxist tomes and i don't believe that it can be put towards children in grade schools. they say it is not happening but it is. i have seen the books. i am not sure if it is in my area, but it is here and if you

are looking at race as a thing, there's all colors of racism and there's -- there's -- many facets to race, and some of them are black. host: cliff, you say you have seen the books. can you give us an example? cliff jumped off. let's go to kurt, calling from athens, alabama, and court -- and kurt supports the teaching of critical race theory. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. go ahead. caller: what we are living today, isn't that critical race theory, to construct the world based on race when there isn't but one race, and it's the human race? and who has more hue and who is

more human than black people? yet we have been treated inhumane, not like we are human at all, so we are living in a world based on white people's calendars, months of the year, days of the week. white people's jesus and the disciples and everything is wrong. they whitewashed history, so to confront them with it, there's no nice way to do it. there is no soft way to do it. i don't know how it is being taught in schools but i think it needs to be taught, that what we are living today and the history of today -- history of it is predicated on white people being superior when, in reality, they are a minority of people in the world but they rule the world, monetary, military, education, you name it. and it don't matter if the country is african, asian or anything else, so we are living in critical race theory, a

theory that white people are superior to everyone and therefore they should rule the world. host: let's go to roberts, calling from new york, new york. -- robert, calling from new york, new york. and robert is an educator. tell us what you are seeing out there. caller: i was an educator as a teaching artist working in 21 schools back in previous decades, but one of the things that i saw was that people say that civics is not taught anymore. that's not so. you cannot graduate in new york without having civics as one of the items. it is standard number five, so let's get that out of the way. and critical race theory, as far as i am concerned, is just teaching history as it is. everyone says let's look at the

1776 document. the 1776 document lls for people to have voting rights by 3/5's. if we teach that, is that suddenly called critical race theory, and it is something we are making up? no. that's what it was. that's what it is. it was what it was. if you just say we are teaching history, you shouldn't have a problem with the, and again, as randi weingarten pointed out, critical race theory as a subject is not taught until college level, so all of these people making noise about kids being steered the wrong way or something like that is moot. if you teach actual history, they are going to ask questions and the questions always come up when we do the documents in the eighth grade about, wait a

minute? i didn't have rights before the -- before this bill of rights came along? and it took all the way up until the 14th amendment? and what happened after that? there you go. host: robert, do you plan to teach this fall? caller: this fall, no. like i said, it was a past vocation of mine but i continue to advise on such and one of the things that i did was use the social studies platform to branch out to all subjects back at the time of a schoolwide change and one of the main things was to get everybody interested in the past and that the past is relevant to the present. host: one of the reasons i was asking, robert, is i wanted to

know if you had seen any changes in the past year about what will be taught in the upcoming fall season. caller: i have not, but i would note that, compared to -- you know, i am an oldster, you know, so things that were taught 50, 45 years ago disappeared in the past few decades based on anecdotes that i get from people who are now in their 40's. you know, apparently they were given short shrift when it came to certain subjects in order to specialize in them or something like that. the more you know about where you are from and where you are going is critical to figuring out how to live in society because it seems that there's some that were glaringly lacking in knowledge of what form this

country -- i come from ancestors that go back, you know, 10,000 years here as well as ones that came over in the 16 30's and i am told -- in the 1630's and i am told by people, traditions of this and that and the other thing, and i told him you are skipping over -- thing, and i told them you are skipping over 150 years worth of stuff, and half of these things people are calling traditional did not get legislated in until the 20th century. host: earlier last week, historian, author and professor annette gordon reed was on book tv for an in-depth interview and she talked about controversy over critical race theory. here is what she said. [video clip] >> what people have done is made

any talk about race critical race theory. critical race theory us all talk about race but not all people who talk about race are critical race theorists and most of the people talking about race are not doing theory. you do not do theory with six-year-olds and seven-year-olds, and i'm not being disingenuous. i do not think that's what's going on. i think there's a concern about talking about topics, from what i have read and what people have said, that make white students feel bad. so if you are talking about slavery and they know that the vast majority of slaveholders were white in the united states -- some will say that africans had slaves too and people they

captured and sold, but we are talking about americans and the relationship we have had with one another and have had since 1776, but to say that you cannot talk about those things because you will make white students feel bad means that you cannot talk about history period. i mean, we are not responsible -- no one should be teaching them -- i mean, they are not responsible. no one should be teaching them that they did these things. but how do you talk about the -- without reading the constitution? if you read the constitution, it will talk about race, and white kids may feel, like, how did my great-great-grandfather respond to this? they may have responded to say -- responded by saying it is great that black people cannot

be citizens here. i feel bad about it, but that's part of life. life is not all about feeling good about yourself all the time. and it is also an opportunity to learn, to say, look, those people had ideas with which i disagree. i want to do better. i want to do different things. you are not held hostage to all of that. this is an answer to your question here, but i am as perplexed as you are about it other than a real concern about airing these stories, because it kind of does inflame some of the inequalities that exist in society today. people do not want to admit the things that happened to african-american people that were unfair, that were not right, and -- but i am not saying we shouldn't talk about that. host: once again, lawmakers around the country have been

talking about critical race theory and whether it belongs in public schools or not. let's look at some of the tweets from congress on critical race theory and what some conservative lawmakers think about it. here's a tweet from congresswoman debbie lesko that says "critical race theory pushes an an accurate version of history to divide people based on the color of their skin. it has no place in our military or anywhere else in our nation." here is a tweet from representative glenn grothman that says "we have always taught children to dream big and achieve goals. critical race theory is a dangerous ideology that changes that and will leave children with no hope for their future. i cannot think of anything more damaging to tell a child." a tweet from senator marsha blackburn that says "randi weingarten is raging -- is waging a war against american parents and families to teach critical race theory.

they will put money and power over our children every day of the week." a tweet from virginia foxx that says "ready weingarten -- randi weingarten referred to parents who oppose critical race theory as culture warriors. these are proud patriots who refuse to let their children become indoctrinated. it has no place in the classroom." let's hear what you think. we start with alan, calling from wells, main. -- wells, maine. good morning. caller: critical race theory is important to understand, but from a standpoint of essentially understanding where we are, critical race theory is an element of critical empire theory, which includes critical

economic theory, critical political theory, critical cultural theory, critical war theory and critical piece theory. -- critical peace theory. we have to understand that the aspect of empire is the overarching factor in understanding how we have inversely progressed -- [laughs dr. frank: -- progressed -- [laughs dr. frank: declined from our original revolution against empire. but we are going to be entering

a second american political, economic, social and affective revolution -- and effective revolution against empire, but it is going to be peaceful and it is not going to be a violent revolution as some people thought in terms of bad mouthing bernie sanders's concepts. host: let's go to stephen, who is calling from lincoln, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: hey. hello. can you hear me? host: yes we can. go ahead. caller: first, i would like to answer the first call her's question, and i am not -- first caller's question, and i am not a bigot, that every country had

slavery. the british, through colonization, ended slavery. host: you are saying the founding fathers into slavery? caller: the founding fathers put the foundation in motion to end slavery. anti-slavery is at the heart of the country and was a big debate. secondly, the 3/5 rule had nothing to do with voting. it has to do with representation. the northern states did not want the 3/5 rule. they wanted no representation among the slaves because that would give the southern states more power. it had nothing to do with slavery. and a lot of people have a -- people have not even been discussing critical race theory. they want to revise racial consciousness because they don't like the civil rights movement. they are anti-civil rights movement.

they don't like mlk. they went to separate humans into groups. -- they want to separate humans into groups. lastly, the woman saying we are teaching about america's history, she doesn't understand that what makes america unique is that it is the one situation where the majority rejected slavery. every slave wants to be free. go to any country around the world and they always want to be free. the major difference was the majority that held the sleeves wanted to free them because they rejected slavery. that's what we are celebrating when we are celebrating america. that's what we are celebrating when we are celebrating western values. we are saying we will make this country unique and what is great and unique about this country is that it was ended and there was a genuine rejection of slavery,

which did not happened in most of the world, and the british and particular -- british and particular -- in particular, they force them to end slavery. host: was good at darrell, calling from gainesville, georgia. good morning. caller: that caller was real smart. i don't know. maybe i'm not so smart. i'm probably not. it seems to me that people making all this noise, like when caller referred to -- like one caller referred to, is because they don't want to face the truth. teachers should be allowed to teach the truth in schools. that's all i have to say. thanks. host: let's go to james, calling from murfreesboro, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning.

can you hear me? host: we can. go ahead, james. caller: ok. we should teach it because, one thing, how are you going to allow history? we have been talking about history all the time. good morning. host: we hear you, james. turn your tv down and go ahead. caller: ok. we need to teach about everything that happened in this country to native americans, to blacks, to mexicans, to all the people that are here. you cannot just hide it forever. we talk about things that happened in other countries. we talk about the jews, but you don't want to talk about what happened here. what is wrong with talking about what happens in america? thank you. host: let's go to tony, calling from santa fe, new mexico. tony, good morning. caller: good morning.

i am not opposed to it. i'm just opposed to it how it has been teach right now or even the concept of critical race theory. -- how it has been taught right now or even the concept of critical race theory. i don't understand it. i can take it back to martin luther, to the doctrine of discovery, the most racist doctrine that was ever conceived. all this institutional racism right there. that's the whole ideology in that doctrine, that a group of people are better than at another group of people are less than and so the better than people can take the less than people's land, can treat them any way they want. now, i don't know where all this goes, but this is where that goes. we had a case on the supreme

court in 2015 or earlier. it was eight people on the court that packed that doctrine up -- that backed that doctrine up. that's where it starts. and our supreme court becomes not only racist -- because they believe in that doctrine. let's get back to the constitution and the declaration of independence. please go and read the declaration of independence because there's a mistake in there where we call you savages. there's a mistake in the constitution where 3/5 of the people -- and i thought abraham lincoln took care of that with the 13th amendment until our supreme court has diluted it and diluted it and diluted it. host: let's go to anette,

calling from alexander's city, alabama. -- from alexander city, alabama. good morning. caller: hey. we have so many problems in this country and the world. why did they call it critical race theory? critical? is it only a theory or is it fact? if you look at the democrat history of races whom -- of racism, that's where most people already know it. democrats were for slavery. they started the kkk. they are the ones who started jim crow. they didn't want black people to vote. they fought against their rights, civil rights, right up until the end, when martin luther king junior had that million man march and he was asked by kennedy and johnson to please, don't do it now, because we will be running for reelection, and the bravery of

martin luther king, he said, no, we have waited 2 along. they were pushed to the wall, waited 2 along, for democrats to finally vote for it. we could talk about that. who was the racial -- oh my gosh, anyway, who was for slavery? who started the kkk? if you want to history, let's go right down. but why pull the scab off of wounds that we cannot change? if we want to get along together, which mostly we are, it has to stop. teaching the history of that, no problem. it happened. it was evil, it was horrible, but to dwell on it now? this is the thing. it apparently they are teaching it to children in school right now k-12 and it is not up to a

small child to try to figure out what race is. host: let's get to bill, who is in chicago, illinois, and abilities in education, so good morning. -- illinois, and bill is in education, so good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you do in education? caller: i used to teach business, for more than 30 years. regardless of how you define critical race theory, who came up with that idea or this new subject matter that needs to be considered and why is it replacing a complete and detailed understanding of american history from its beginnings before there was even a country known as these united states of america? you go back to maybe the late 1500s, certainly the early 1600s, and sure, my thinking is,

somebody is making money off this new theory of history or additional way of looking at history rather than saying to themselves, especially educators that are in charge of educating students in these different parts of the country, just teach history. teach it in detail. be as specific and detailed as you can and ask for and discuss the subject matter with the students. there is no necessity to break it down strictly along the lines of race. history is what it is. so you teach the facts, discuss the facts, try to ask for guidance about how to go forward based on the facts and then you move on to the next major topic,

which is the subject known as history. host: just before the july for recess, house minority whip -- the july 4 recess, house minority leader kevin mccarthy spoke. [video clip] >> the democratic party had doubled down on what i consideration people history. -- i consider a shameful history by critical race theory. they continue to look at race is the primary means of judging a person's character. we saw this just last week. senate democrats voted to confirm one of president biden's appointees who said, let me quote, "we must do everything in our collective power to realize dr. can -- kendi's vision for america." let me be clear about what that

is. kendi proposed in his book that the solution to past discrimination is present discrimination. that is what the person who is now in charge of the personnel of the entire federal government endorses. this divisive vision is not just confirmed -- confined to one person or department. the navy included kendi's book on its official reading list for sailors in the department of education, citing it as an example of what should be taught to our children. critical race theory is the governing ideology of -- the biden administration. by advocating for it, democrats continue to sow hatred and division.

i agree with senator tim scott. america is not a racist country. america must reject critical race theory for the simple reason state-sponsored racism is wrong and always will be. it was wrong when it was segregated lunch counters of jim crow and it was wrong when it was segregated classrooms -- critical race theory. guest: let's see what -- host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about the teaching of critical race theory. here's one tweet that says "the semantics are a distraction. we should not teach our kids that their race is their destiny or that we can judge others by the color of their skin. i don't care what you can it, propagandizing our kids is wrong." another tweet says "i support

teaching our full history to students, including the despicable events. morally corrupt or ignorant people will not recognize the injustices that were and are being committed. to hide the past -- don't hide the past." another -- "i don't." another facebook post that says "the majority of you have no idea what crt is. you are just afraid of your children looking at your ancestors, and quite possibly you, their parents, in a different light." another that says "people should know what it is before screaming about it. crt is taught in law school to understand and possibly avoid in the future the pervasive influence of racism in drafting legislation in america. it turned into a culture war issue to prevent the teaching of

history of racism in america as if their kids weren't exposed to enough racism at home." let's go to eric, calling from columbus, georgia, and eric supports the teaching of critical race theory. good morning. caller: thank you for your time. i want to say this. at the beginning of your excerpt, you had shown the definition of what this is. you showed that nice lady who said it was only going to be taught to college students. prior to that, i didn't know that -- i was not clear on critical race theory. i was caught up in the definitions of what the media said it was, but now that i am aware of that to me, this comes down to a bitter truth. even though you know this is not going to be taught now to your children, what will you say? and, even though you know some of this stuff is actually

breaking down history -- "his s tory" -- it frightened some people. -- it frightens some people. that one lady who said it pulls this caps off, that is frightening to people. thank you for your time. host: howard, calling from new york, good morning. caller: history must be taught and the first thing that must be understood is that black people are a great and powerful people. we've just had a couple of bad centuries. there are no pyramid's in europe, none -- no pyramids in europe, not at all, but we have a lot of -- we have a lot in africa. had the 13th amendment been legitimate, we would not need

the civil rights act. when you know history, you really understand what goes on, what has gone on and you know your greatness. let's teach it from the fact that there were no pyramids in europe. host: let's go to michael, calling from patterson, new jersey, and michael opposes the teaching of critical race theory. good morning. caller: i just saw on the news that -- can you hear me? host: yes. go ahead, michael. caller: i saw on the news today that critical race theory teachers, that one lady wanted to get rid of all the white teachers in the school. she's from the dominican republic or whatever. these people that want to push that on other people so they have trouble, i hope -- not all of a sudden --oh my god! i'm not a racist! but you know what? this country is built on

progress. you are not perfect and no one is perfect but the lamb of god. i had a black history class. you know what they told me? the first chapter in the book of revolutions -- book of revelations, they said something, and the teacher said, he's black. guess what? no he's not. he's jewish. guess what? he is the lamb of god. the lamb. i am trying to teach the truth. how did the slaves get to this country in the first place? the ships got -- there were wars going on and captives were took, so i am saying race theory is not good because it is dividing our kids and bringing guilt and hate and division. why? because the government wants to step in and take all of our freedom away. host: jalisco to christopher,

calling from orangeburg, south carolina -- let's go to christopher, calling from orangeburg, south carolina. good morning. caller: i am a teacher in high school. host: what are you seeing over the conversation about critical race theory? caller: i want to clarify that there is no curriculum in k-12 throughout the u.s. that i've been able to locate where critical race theory is taught, not a single one. i would say this is part of a culture war movement on the right where critical race theory is standing in for anything they don't like at the moment. i think -- the thing is critical race theory isn't taught in k-12 because it is theory. i don't teach any theory. i can get -- i can barely get kids to focus on historical

facts, let alone any historical framework. so it is not happening in k-12 education so far as i can tell. host: are you seeing anything in the south carolina legislature trying to limit anything you can teach? caller: i am and it worries me. i will say, the laws that were suggested, and i don't know the law off the top of my head, the reference for you, but it is very vague, covers a lot of things, and because it is so vague, it could technically cover a lot of things, which is dangerous, obviously. as far as the department of education goes, i don't think so, but there are things they were pushing for in the legislature, but smaller the moment. host: there's been discussion of whether critical race theory should or should not be taught at military academies and for the u.s. military. in an exchange between

republican senator tom cotton and defense secretary lloyd austin last month, they talked a little bit about the teaching of critical race theory in the military to her here is the exchange. -- the military. here is the exchange. [video clip] >> the military has included critical race theorists on his reading list, including dr. ibrham kendi. here is something you said. do you agree -- here is something he said. do you agree? >> it is important to have a full context of anything you are being asked to evaluate. >> mr. secretary, do you believe that race and sex should be the key factor when selecting combat leaders rather than, say, operational excellence, agility

and integrity? >> i do not. what you said it be key components in making any selection. >> i am glad we are in agreement. if troops are selected -- are subjected to the kind of training from critical race theory, given what you have said, should they reported to the chain of command, the inspector general, other appropriate channels? >> they should. they have always had that ability. i would recommend they do in the future. i will also say that diversity, equity and inclusion is important to this military now and will be important in the future, and so we are going to make sure that our military looks like america and that our leadership looks like the ranks of the military. >> i agree with that. the military has always been one of the most diverse institutions in our society, where you can

get ahead irrespective of the color of your skin, who your parents are or where you came from, and i am glad we agree on that. this is not about diversity in general. it is about a very specific kind of anti-american indoctrination seeping into parts of our military based on the whistleblower complaints we receive. host: that was an exchange between senator tom cotton and defense secretary lloyd austin over the use of critical race theory in the military. now, there's also been discussion of the teaching of critical race theory at the u.s. military academy, and last month, the joint chiefs of staff chair came to capitol hill to defend the teaching of critical race theory at military academies. here is what the general said. [video clip] >> you can get much broader on whatever the theory is, but i do think it is important, actually,

for those of us in uniform to be open-minded and the widely read, and the military academy is a university, and it is important that we train and we understand. i want to understand white rage. i am white and i want to understand it. so what is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the constitution of the day states -- of the united states? what caused that? i want to find that out. it is important we understand it because our soldiers come from the american people, so it is important that the leaders now and in the future understand it. i have red mountain -- i have read mao, marx, lenin. that does not make me a communist. so what is wrong about having some situational understanding about the country we are here to defend?

i am offended that our noncommissioned officers are being called "woke" for studying a theory. looking at laws, antebellum laws prior to the civil war, where you had the three fits compromise. we brought it up to the civil rights act. it took another hundred years. i do want to know. i respect your service, but i want to know if it matters to our military and the discipline and cohesion of this military. host: before we get back to our phone calls, i want to remind everyone we will continue this discussion about critical race theory tomorrow morning, monday, on washington journal. we will have a roundtable at 8:00 a.m. with chanelle wilson, who is a professor at bryn mawr college, and ian rowe, a

policy fellow at the american enterprise institute, so if you want to talk more about critical race theory, join us again tomorrow morning at 8:00 a.m., monday, 8:00 a.m. eastern, for this roundtable on critical race theory on washington journal. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to gary from atlanta, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning heard i want to speak -- good morning. i want to speak on critical race theory because critical race theory is trying to explain why black neighborhoods were in the shape they are in. they were in that shape because of redline districts, where banks would not loan money to black neighborhoods and that's why they went down. if you are not teaching the truth, then you must be teaching a lie, that the reason black people are in that situation is because they are inferior. that is what you are setting up

to be taught. for the gentleman who called about slavery, england had eliminated slavery in the 1800s. it had ran its course all throughout the world. the one thing that the gentleman did not mention was that slavery went on in america for 300 years. so where were the white people fighting against it? even though some northern white people were against slavery, none of them was against white supremacy. all of them stood up for white supremacy. they just had a different idea of how slavery was supposed to be conducted, but none of them -- none of them -- had to announced white supremacy. -- had denounced white supremacy. show me a history book where white people back then have changed to the people white people say they are today. host: john opposes the teaching of finical race theory. good morning.

caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i am not surprised at all about the emergence of critical race theory. i worked at a university for about 15 years and over those years it was stunning to me how many growing clusters of teachers and faculty actually -- absolutely hated white men and would -- and some of my psychology teachers would look at the most vulnerable to be recruited. you have students coming out of education, many areas of the degrees, who are completely immersed in these teachers that are nurturing them and helping them because they want them to join the fight against the evil white men, and some of their points may be logical, but i don't understand why nothing starts with the point that white abolitionists should be part of the main story of this. the weight is characterized,

does not come across -- the way it is characterized, does not come across as evil. we had black students in the fall and didn't seem to be any friction, but one semester, black students start walking around, and i'm walking around in a dress shirt and tie with a name badge and i'm being called white boy, and we didn't hear this until they started doing the seminars, hearing from speakers that the whole campus is full of racism. get in their face and we will back you up. we will protect you. you will be able to express yourself against any white person. teenage students don't have the critical thinking ability to decide what is critical and what is abusive. host: this is something that happened last year, 10 years ago, 20 years ago? caller: over 15 years ago those

incidents happen. i have been out of the university system for over 10 years, so i am saying it does not surprise me we have gotten to this point now, because those seeds that were planted back then about the use growing groups on campus that are protected -- if you say anything against them, they say you are a racist. i haven't -- i have a number of college degrees. a different departments -- at different departments, i would have to go and complain about how teachers in class are saying white men are all evil, and they are convinced they should be able to say this as part of their rights. host: let's go to jim in evans berg, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i retired as an american history teacher two years ago. the book i used was -- i don't know -- 10, 15 years old, but we had a chapter on the civil rights movement.

i was surprised that many of the segments of it went right along with the chapter of the book. now, this was before critical race theory had become a thing, and i think that's what it is now, a thing that the right is using because they do not really have any policy positions, so they are using the scare tactics to try to, you know, gin up support, but what i was new -- was doing was teaching american history. there were no lies in it. it was all part of our history. and it showed how terrible things were. you had american soldiers, black soldiers coming back from world war i, world war ii in their uniforms, walking down the street with their wives, attacked by white mobs, being killed, you know, the dogs being turned on kids, fire hoses being

turned on kids, and when you read about this, it is one thing. when you see what was happening with the segments from the eye on the prize thing -- it is american history. there were no lies there. it is just teaching factual american history to show how one group of people have been treated like second-class citizens all through our history. host: let's go to crystal, who is calling from wilkes-barre, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for allowing me to call. i am glad the guy mentioned the eye on the prize thing. i was a young girl in my mother was killed in riots. i was only seven-year-old -- only seven years old, trying to figure out who i was as a black

girl, so i went to college to major in african-american history and i was enlightened. i learned things about myself, about my race and i loved it. i was never taught -- i work in the education system now. they are not taught even a little bit about african-american history. i live in a predominantly caucasian area. they are not taught that. another thing. i am really interested in this theory and how african-americans are affected economically and in other ways because of our race. another thing i want to mention -- i am a long time mention -- longtime listener. i am in my 60's now. the caucasian lady called and said democrats did this, democrats did that, and they were for the jim crow and

slavery, but we must understand that those same democrats that did it when republicans opposed it, they became republicans, and they are not the same democrats today. host: let's go to liz, who is calling from jonesboro, georgia. liz, good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. i absolutely pulled my hair out because these people calling in who don't understand. the presenter at the top of the hour explained what critical race theory is. general milley explained it. the caller from georgia, the teacher from south carolina. there is no curriculum at any level of public schools that talks about teaching anything like critical race theory. it is a law school course, people. and most of the people calling

in are not going to understand that there there is no curriculum. it is for law schools and it helps people look at the world and look at laws that have evolved in this country that came out of racism. so that scares me that you can give people information and they still do not get it. host: let's go to david, who is calling from denison, texas. good morning. caller: let's straighten out a couple of things. someone talked about british slavery in the 1700s. they abolished it in 1733, and that's misleading. they did not abolish it in america, where they had british people pay for it through bonds that were paid over hundreds of years. that made slaveholders extremely rich over the years. anyway -- the three fourths of a human being thing in the

constitution was something pushed by the north to reduce the power of the south. if slaves had been counted as a full human being, the south would have had seven -- 37 more congresspeople. think what that would have meant for legislation that would openly reverse these things. they based the formula on a things they had done years earlier with the continental congress when they were the norte counted as a complete person. they would be taxed at a higher rate. none of the states really paid money to the continental congress, which led to the continental constitution. host: we would like to thank our callers for that first segment. we will come back to this topic of critical race theory tomorrow

morning at 8:00 with a round table. coming up next, tatyana bolton will join us to discuss the recent ransomware attacks and how the united states should respond. later on, ruth igielnik will talk about the recent analysis of the 2020 presidential electorate. we will be right back. >> tonight, drew pearson, a man who derailed the political careers of several members of congress. >> it appeared in over 600 newspapers every day, even holidays and weekends.

he did that until he died in 1969. he had a radio show sunday nights, very popular radio show. he tried to make it in television in the early 50's. he was a best-selling author. he was a man who told the truth. he told what politicians would prefer not to see in the newspaper. he tried to get behind the news and tell people what was really going on in washington. he ruffled a lot of feathers. >> author of the columnist, tonight at 8:00 eastern on q&a. you can listen to q&a as a podcast wherever you get your podcasts.

>> weekends on c-span two, every saturday will find events and people to explore our past on american history tv. book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. it is television for serious leaders. discover, explore, weekends on c-span 2. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with tatyana bolton, the cybersecurity director at the r street institute and the policy director for the cyberspace commission. she is with us to discuss the recent ransomware attacks and how we should respond. good morning.

guest: thanks are having me. host: remind our viewers what the r street institute is. guest: it is a nonprofit public policy research organization. our mission is to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets. host: you have a significant background in cybersecurity. tell us what your background is in this area. guest: i come from the commission where i focus. before that, i worked as a cyber policy lead at the infrastructure security agency. i am the director of cybersecurity and emerging threats for the r street institute. we focus on cybersecurity metrics and diversity in cybersecurity. host: i like to start by

defining what the topic is. tell us what ransomware is and why it is dangerous. guest: it is a type of malware that hackers use or states use to get into your network. they either block you out of your network or encrypt your files and demand a ransom. it has become very common in the last year. it has gotten worse. host: president biden talked with vladimir putin on friday about the issue of ransomware. what the united states will do if american companies keep getting attacked by ransomware from russia. how do we know it is russia behind this? how does it get to the level of the u.s. president talking with the russian president? guest: we have not formally attributed the attacked to

russia. the best thinking in research on this which public companies do, the government does, all of that leads us to believe there are criminal gangs that are operating within the borders of russia. it isn't particularly russia. because they are operating within russia's borders, that's why this has been brought up in conversation with the russian president and president biden. it is important. it is now an issue for our critical infrastructure. host: in what way does this affect our critical infrastructure? guest: this incident did not hit our critical infrastructure. we did not see an attack our electric grid or financial sector.

there are 16. we saw it attack a managed service provider. because of that, it can very easily move to become an issue. the last attack we saw was against the meat processing company. that was an attack through our food network on our critical infrastructure. the more we see this, the more we see ransomware attacks and tax that are -- hacks that are going against agencies and companies that are providing some of our critical services like health care, banking, that is where it becomes an issue of national security to the united states. host: after his call with vladimir putin, president biden he was optimistic that something would happen. does he have reason to be

optimistic that russia is going to do anything to crack down on these nongovernmental actors? guest: i think there is more room to be pessimistic. i think biden is typically optimistic. i am not surprised he is in this instance. because of the way that russia has gotten away with a lot of the attacks it perpetrated and has allowed to be perpetrated within its borders, i would say giving them approval, we are not sure they are going to stop. the only point at which they will stop his and we see real consequences. to the extent that president biden is ready to take strong action against russia or most likely in cyberspace, we will see russia backed down.

until then, i'm not sure we should be optimistic. host: viewers can take part in this conversation. we will open up our regular lines. democrats (202) 748-8000,. republicans, your number is (202) 748-8001. independent voters, (202) 748-8002. keep in mind you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media, facebook and twitter. you can always follow us on instagram. what are some of the -- you just mentioned some of the things the u.s. may do on cyberspace. what are some of the options we have as a country to fight back against or punish people who are using ransomware? guest: most of our offense of

capability is in the department of defense and u.s. cyber command. we have probably the very best offense of cyber operation in the world. we do have good options. those are still very limited. this isn't a typical physical response. when not sending tanks or planes , nor should we want to. it is still limited in the sense that we can only do so much to hit their servers that are hosting these groups that are committing the attacks. we can hit perhaps some of the internet conductivity that they have. we can block them out of their computers.

because of the way they operate, it's an interconnected group of people working together, we are still limited. it is difficult to get every hacker participating in the attack. while we have very good capabilities, because it is not within our borders, if it was within our borders it would be very difficult. host: we just saw a major ransomware attack over the fourth of july holiday. can you tell our viewers a little bit about what happened over the fourth of july with revel? can you tell us what happened? guest: what happened is using the knowledge that the fourth of

is a slow one for companies on their systems and with a smaller contingent of networks, this group that is a collective of hackers, they went into a company that provides software to manage service providers. they are the group that provides security or network support, the workings of your computer to small and medium sized businesses, your dentist's or drycleaners or small organizations that do not run their own cybersecurity. because they went through that managed service provider, the group was able to knock off line and lock out of their computers, thousands of companies. that includes 800 grocery stores

in sweden, some school systems across the world, it affected american businesses. they demanded a $70 million payment to unlock those computers. we have not heard if they paid the ransom. we are not sure if the state of the backups. it is the biggest ransom demand we have heard publicly today. host: what has been the response from the u.s. government? does the government always respond to these attacks? is this a private business concern only? guest: sometimes it is, depending on the severity of the incident. it is the responsibility of the company to respond. president biden in this situation directed the federal

government to put its weight and force behind a response. this is one in a long string of ransomware incidents affecting the united states. they used a zero day vulnerability to get in. the company isn't aware of it, they used that to get in. now that it is known, they can work to catch it. they can get fixes for other companies that use the software. the government is responding. what the government will do, they will find the companies affected, sometimes that is hard. not all companies come forward. they are working with the

federal government to respond to the incident. they will provide whatever services they can do. they will block the perpetrator to stop the attack. they will get systems back up and running. that's if they are probably doing right now. host: is the response usually virtual? is there a physical response, something the government does, send troops somewhere? is it all a virtual response? caller: it is going to be virtual right now. you don't want to take an attack and take it to the physical realm. at that point, you are escalating the situation.

you wouldn't want to go that far, especially because we do not want to get into war with russia, that's not in our best interest. president biden has left his options on the table. i would be very surprised if this went to a physical altercation. host: president biden talked a little bit about his conversation with vladimir putin. i wanted you to listen to a little of what he said. this is president biden. >> i made it very clear to him that the united states expects when ransomware operations are coming from his service, it is not sponsored by the state.

we expect enough information to act on who that is. we have set up communications to communicate to one another when each of us thinks something is happening in another country. it went well. >> you said there would be consequences. >> yes. host: what consequences do you think he is talking about? guest: it's yet to be seen what happens. there is a unified coordination group that has been called in the government to respond to this. part of their role and part of the role of the white house will be to determine what to do and how to respond, what level of response this warrants and whether they are going to consider some of the previous attacks.

part of that can be through u.s. cyber,. responding with offensive cyber capabilities. they have sanctions on the table as well as other forms of non-military response. we have yet to see the white house, the press secretary, the national security council come out with any statement to specifically what they will do. my personal opinion is the united states needs to be much stronger with russia. russia only understands that. while his comments and words to vladimir putin were threats, it's a step in the right direction. we need actual action, strong action against russia to make

sure they understand how serious we are and give them consequences. host: let's let some of our viewers take part. we will start with charles in texas. good morning. caller: good morning. she is right on her previous comments. until we do something that will get their attention, vladimir putin is not going to respect. he's not going to do anything until he is forced to. we will have to force him. guest: i agree. there are words and actions. russians are going to understand our actions. we need to be strong in the face of this.

i think that it is critical that we are tactical, that we understand what we are doing. attacks in cyberspace can get out of hand. a ransomware group thought they were committing a limited attack. it knocked out all the gas in the east coast. i trust u.s. cyber command to do this right. we still need to make sure that we do it right as we take action. host: thank you for bringing up colonial pipeline. i was going to go there next. that's where the issue really is home for many americans, when colonial pipeline's affected the gas supply in the united states. colonial pipeline paid the $4.4 million in bitcoin it, even

though they were able to get some of the money back. in your opinion, should companies pay during these ransomware attack's? should they turn it over to the government and hope something is able to be resolved? guest: that's a really difficult question. in some cases, the companies probably are making the right decision for themselves to pay the ransom individually. what happens, this becomes an action problem. so many companies are being hacked. individually, they may be making the right decision. however, when all of these companies continue to pay ransom, it incentivizes ransomware groups to continue to hit our critical infrastructure and those services we hold most dear because they are so eager

to get their services back online. they are more likely to pay the ransom. you may be saving your company, by paying them as a group internally, we are making this a big problem. what i think we should do is create resilience within our system. we need to make sure we identify those factors that are most critical to the united states. we call those systemically important infrastructure. we need to find a way to get benefits for those. host: you brought up the question i have had for the longest time about ransomware and corporations. major corporations back up their data, even if someone comes in and says you can't get into your

dated today, why can't they go back to their backup from the previous day or the day before and just keep going? what is it that stops companies cold? guest: in some cases, companies are backing up their data. in many cases, they are not. it's a fallacy to believe they are available. in certain sectors, backups are required by regulation. in many sectors, it is not required. you see a varied level of separate -- security cross our sectors. water is one of the least secure. that's why we need that designation and why we need to make sure we are making requirements clear and holding

companies to those requirements so that when an attack does happen, they have backup. in some cases, those backups can be encrypted. they know exactly what a company will do. they stop the attack. they will use them to restore service. what the hackers do, they either encrypt those backups as well, that's the first thing they do when they get into your network. they find the backups and corrupt them or encrypt them. those are not available if you're keeping them on the network. it's important to have minimum standards that backups are available and they are in a network that is not as accessible. host: let's talk to sidney calling from louisiana on the independent line. good morning.

caller: i have a question on how is it that they can find the ransomware people and say they are in russia or china, but for 20 years we've been unable to find out who is doing robo calls? guest: we have a lot of different tools that we have available to the federal government or private sector companies that will look for indicators such as language coders are writing in or what specific markers are in the code. code is unique to the person who wrote it. that is what we use to determine who wrote or who perpetrated hacked.

you can try to change your signature. you can try to mask it or obfuscate. as for robo calls, i wish i could find a way to stop them. host: what do we know about vladimir putin's relationship with these criminal groups inside russia? is there a relationship? guest: i would point to the rest of the way the russian government handles crime. generally speaking, the russian government is fairly strong. it has strict control over its media, over its enterprises happening within borders. it does that by surveilling, keeping tabs on everything going on in the country. it's very hard for me to believe

the russian government wouldn't be aware of a large network of hackers within its borders. to believe they aren't aware is a little bit naive. if you take that for truth, they are aware of it. it is on vladimir putin to address that threat and make sure they are preventing cyber crime from happening. this has been an issue for 10 years that we've been working allegedly to try and address with russia. i think that hopefully after some of these attacks with president biden getting more strong with vladimir putin we will see a change. host: president biden met with

boudin in geneva. -- vladimir putin in geneva. >> we made it clear that we are not going to continue to allow this to go on. we ended up drawing ambassadors, we closed down some of their facilities in the united states. he knows there are consequences. one of the consequences that i know -- i suspect we may think it doesn't matter. his credibility worldwide shrinks. let's get this straight. how would it be if united states was viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections of other countries and everybody knew it? what would it be like if we engage in activities that he's engaged in?

it diminishes the standing of a country that is deathly trying to make sure it maintains its standing as a world power. it's not just what i do. it's what the actions that other countries take that are contrary to international norms. it's the price they pay. host: he has delivered what he calls a warning in geneva. does he need to respond now that he has talked to pruden about it -- vladimir putin about twice? guest: i believe so. at this point, to not respond would be a massive show of weakness. if we sit back and do nothing in one of the largest ransom attacks on the united states, i

think we would lose all credibility. to his point, credibility is important. it is important to vladimir putin. for him, what's most important is keeping regime control and keeping his country as a world power. as long as we are allowing him to do anything within his power to hold that control and doing nothing to stop them, he will continue doing that. host: let's talk to andrew calling from new york on the democratic line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call and thank you for c-span. two general questions. is there anything you could do to defend against the attacks? the united states is one of the

preeminent countries in the world, we are susceptible to this extortion. how would you compare the israeli attack on iran? thank you for your time and have a good day. guest: i will say, to answer the last question first, i think that attack has not been officially treated to the united states. we have not said we have perpetrated that attack. that was an attack that created physical consequences in iran. it slowed down their nuclear reactor in their borders. that was an attack on their infrastructure sectors.

it is slightly different, more severe than what happened here. this latest attack did not affect our critical infrastructure. it did not have real-world consequences. the colonial pipeline hack only affected the system of that network. i would say it was much more sophisticated and much bigger. to the point of data and everything going online and the united states being dependent on physical infrastructure, i agree. we have a strong dependence on our digital life. everything we do from banking online to having digital medical

records and even your drycleaner or your water being controlled by computers or someone at home who is remotely accessing control, all of that has become much more digital in the last 10 years. as we do that, as we move toward a more digital life, we need to consider cybersecurity in that. you can't bolt on cybersecurity at the end. you need to build into those products. it has to be a consideration. that's why it is so important that we have a resilient ecosystem where we control our networks, we secure our networks

and train our people so they know what to do, using two factor authentication. we need to respond quickly and get back online fast if we were -- are attack. resilience is key, -- key. host: i think it's worth addressing considering the lead states invented the internet and now it seems like we are falling behind. how did these hackers get ahead of the u.s. in exposing weaknesses? how is it the country who invented the internet did not foresee the exploitation? how did this happen? guest: the cyber security experts have been warning about attacks like this for decades.

an introduction showed what would happen in the united states. unfortunately, congress and previous administrations have not taken the threat seriously enough to invest real money at it. that is where we've gone wrong. we spend seven hundred billion dollars a year on national defense, which we need a strong department of defense. if you take that as a part of national security, we only spend $2 billion a year on cybersecurity as opposed to 700 billion.

it is nowhere near where it needs to be. we need to invest a significant amount into our cybersecurity to make our systems resilient. we will be comfortable as a nation, we are protecting those things that are most important to us. we have been securing them against physical attacks, which are much less likely to happen. the risk is cybersecurity. host: another social media follower has this question. aren't all of the vulnerabilities due to the nsa using this to spy on everyone? who has denied the attacks are coming from russia and has argued the u.s. is responsible

for the lion share of cyber attacks around the world? what is your reaction to that? guest: that's just trying to pass the blame or create a smokescreen so people don't think his country perpetrated these attacks. i came here when i was seven. i am a u.s. citizen and have worked in cybersecurity. i understand the mindset. i'm not surprised he would say it. it's ridiculous. to the question about nsa, nsa was caught spying on american citizens and created what i would say was an unfortunate situation where the united

states consumer doesn't trust that agency. they do a very critical job for the american people, to surveilled foreign nationals and foreign countries, which we need them to do. the nsa needs to be able to do that. i have never heard them argue for weaker encryption standards. we should all be supportive of strong encryptions, not having backdoors. host: george is calling from virginia on the republican line.

good morning. caller: question, when you have things like the pipeline and the d.c. police department, hospitals have been subject, is there a post-analysis to say what they can do to prevent in the future? guest: for those that we have the resources to respond to within the federal government, they do take a look at what happened, they do analysis. they gather data and information and put it in. they make sure we are protected against attacks in the future. this gives us the understanding how hackers are thinking. they do it at a granular level

by offering patches and software updates to protect our networks. that's why it is important to accept those software updates, as annoying as they are. they are catching vulnerabilities. there is also information analyzed in a more strategic level to make sure we are doing the things most important to critical infrastructure to protect it, like how do we make sure ransomware is broadly responded to so we have less and less ransomware. that's where you see the call for more action and consequences, more going after hackers and getting money back in bitcoin. you see that as a consequence of

us trying to impose those consequences on hackers. host: sarah is calling from illinois on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question that, if they are doing this to us, why can't we do it to them? is that the only way that he is going to learn this? we are a very smart country. this is scary. thank you, c-span. i only listen to you. host: are we doing this to them? guest: the ransomware attack's are not the kind of thing the united states want to do to other countries. could we go in and block other data or attack critical

infrastructure and locked them out? sure. we could. is that we stand for? i think not. what we want to do is support the international norms of no attacks on critical infrastructure. no allowing the criminal gangs to operate within our borders and allowing them to attack citizens and block them out of their own systems and costs -- cause pain and monetary damage to small businesses. just as we are affected and feel for our small businesses when they get attacked and have to pay millions of dollars, if your friend started her own business and she is running a multimillion dollar business,

her network gets locked down. she has to pay money to get back into her business. perhaps she can't make a profit. that's bad. companies across the world would feel that hit if we did that to them. what's important is we hit the people we think are responsible we block the hackers. we hold to account the people who are doing this for money. we put them in jail. we bring them to justice. that's america. we bring the criminals to justice, we leave the small business owners and the other people, the regular people out of it. host: you argued in a column for a cabinet level department of cybersecurity. explain to us why we need that. guest: there are sony different

reasons i think it's important. dhs has a huge bureaucracy. it focuses on national security issues for protecting our homeland, including border protection and others. the immigration issues alone have politicized the agency. it continues to be a problem which bleeds over into the cybersecurity mission, making it more difficult for them to do their job. they don't have the authority they should have in terms of making decisions in cyberspace. most importantly, cybersecurity has risen to a prominence that deserves a cabinet level agency.

it can only do that as a separate agency. what's going on within dhs is not sufficient to protect us from the next cyberattack. we need to do that as a separate agency. host: tyrone is calling from illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. it's great to listen to you on c-span. you have a lot of great topics. if bitcoin has an algorithm that changes every three seconds, why don't we go to something like that? i am curious why we don't do that. guest: bitcoin is a complicated question. it does have strong security.

i would say the financial services sector has the best security. it is able to use similar types of encryptions and protections for the u.s. dollar in the digital economy. i'm not sure it's necessarily necessary to move to bitcoin. it is not considered an actual currency. moving to that would be coming with a huge set of questions. host: we would like to thank tatyana bolton from the r street institute for being with us this morning and having this great conversation about ransomware and how the u.s. should respond. thank you so much for being with us. guest: thanks for having me.

host: coming up, ruth igielnik will discuss the recent analysis of the 2020 presidential electorate. later on, we will take more of your calls on critical race theory. we will be right back. >> monday night on the communicators. >> republicans and democrats a been attacking big tech. the have coalesced on we need to use more antitrust enforcement. they have different reasons for doing it. they sort of coalesce. for democrats, it's rooted in

animosity toward big business in general and corporations in general and we need to shrink them in size. for republicans, it's tied to this culture war against technology, where they perceive them as biased against conservatives and the way they moderate content or their corporate culture. it is really tied to their feeling that tech companies are out to get them. >> watch the communicators. monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. the u.s. senate returns from the fourth of july break, the day the nominee for under secretary of state for civilian security and human rights, former diplomat has the alliance for peace building.

chuck schumer has warned senators it's going to be a busy month with late months and debates on the infrastructure bill. the senate gavel's and monday at 3:00 eastern with a vote to limit debate on the state department nominee. live coverage of the senate is on c-span 2. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with ruth igielnik, researcher at the pew research center. she is here to talk to us about horror organizations analysis of the 2020 election. good morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: tell us about this survey and its methodology. who did you talk to and who are these people who took part in the survey? guest: we have a survey panel, we serve americans my tree -- monthly on a variety of issues,

including the election. we spoke to the same people in 2016, 2018, 2020 about the election. we are asking them and matching their voting record to official state voting records to determine if they voted. we created validated voters. they told us they voted and they have a record for voting. host: you are not just taking it people's word that they voted in 202018, and 2016. you are matching what they said with what they actually did. and understanding that? guest: that's correct. states are required to keep records if someone voted. we can look at those records and match them with people who

participate in the survey to see if they actually voted. host: you voted from the panel. tell us what that is. guest: that's a nationally represented survey panel that we feel -- field monthly. we ask voters about the issues of the day. we have about 11,000 people that participate monthly. we are able to use those same people over time to track them, understand their habits, whether it's voting habits, whatever it is. we are able to analyze that data and look at how people change over time. host: we know that polling has not had the greatest reputation over the last eight years or so. tell us about the integrity of this poll and why we should trust it? guest: we work very hard on our

methodology to make sure our survey panel is representative of all americans. all have equal opportunity to be selected for this panel. we have special methodologies that make sure our panel represents what all americans look like in the additives -- attitudes of all-americans. we can really get a diversity of opinions across the country. there have been challenges in the past. we feel our survey panel is very robust. we not only match people to their voting records and feel we are representing the electorate, we do special statistical methods to make sure the share of voters meets that in the

election. we feel like we are able to adjust for those things and make sure it is represented. our survey work is accurate. host: now that we have the background out of the way, tell us what the survey actually found. what are your major conclusions from your latest analysis? guest: we are able to track the same voters through the 2016, 2018, 2020 elections. that gives us an opportunity to look at how different groups may have changed. one overall thing we saw in the research is donald trump and joe biden performed well in the 2020 election. they both broad and strong bases of support from 2016 voters. we also saw that both joe biden and donald trump brought new voters into the process. that split unevenly. where we saw biden get the edge

and win the election was new voters that were mobilized by the 2018 democratic surge, people who didn't vote in 2016 it, did voted 2018 came out in 2020. they split 2-14 joe biden. it was enough to push him over the edge. with this survey, we were able to look at how demographic groups shifted within that story. this is where we saw things like suburban voters more toward joe biden. he saw a movement among white men in the direction of joe biden. at the same time, we see donald trump make gains with hispanic voters. donald trump gained about 10 points with hispanic voters from 2016 to 2020. host: host: voter turnout over

all went up by 7%. why? guest: this was a record turnout election on both sides. we saw a record among democrats and republicans. it's hard to say why. we know a lot of americans utilized different methods of voting than they have in the past. more americans were using mail-in ballots. some of that may have contributed to the turnout. it wasn't just a surge for democrats and republicans. host: donald trump lost the 2020 election. he received 10 million more votes than 2016. what explains this? guest: he made gains among a lot of groups. he brought in a lot of new voters.

we looked at people who didn't vote in 2016 it, didn't vote in 2018, did voted 2020. donald trump got about half of that group. that is a sizable number of voters, even though it was only about 20% of all 2020 voters. that is a lot of americans. he was able to mobilize a lot. host: viewers can take part in this conversation. we will open up our regular lines. democrats, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000. republicans, your number is going to be (202) 748-8001. independent voters, your line is (202) 748-8002. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading social media on facebook, twitter, and

you can also follow us on instagram. was the 2020 election unusual in the number of people that showed up? was there anything unusual about that? guest: the 2020 election was unusual in the number of people that showed up. there were record numbers of people. what was it unusual was the type of people. we can tear -- compare voters and nonvoters to see what people are voting and who are not. even though there was record turnout, the characteristics of who voted was very similar from the selection to past elections. voters tend to be a little bit older, a little more educated, a little more white.

we saw that this election. the differences between voters and nonvoters remained similar. host: did you see from anything in your data were mail-in ballots or different ways of voting has anything to do with turnout and outcome? guest: it's hard to draw a delight -- direct line. we did see people use mail-in voting, half of 2020 voters voted by mail or absentee, which is a record number. four out of 10 said it was their first time doing so. we see there is a huge surge in new methods. host: we are also going to open up a special line. first time voters in 2020, if

you were first time voter, we want to hear from you. your number is 202 -- (202) 748-8003. first-time voters, if you voted for the first time in 20 20, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8003 host: you found out that president trump and president biden were able to bring new voters into the political process. who were the voters demographically? guest: it's a good question. voters tend to be younger because and that group, people who were not eligible in the past. the interesting thing is the split between who trump brought in and biden brought in.

under 30, that group went biden. the group over 30 when heavily donald trump. we see age divide. host: was there a gender gap in 2020? guest: not necessarily in my new voters, but there was one overall and that shrunk in the past. mcgrath tended to do better with women. republicans tended to do a lot better with men. that is still the case, but it shrunk -- but the gap shrunk. democrats doing a little bit better with men and republicans making an -- making an improvement with women, particularly white women. host: we will start with gary who is calling from jacksonville florida on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. the 2020 election, i think a lot of it was republicans looking for flawed candidates that they

ran in georgia. i think a lot of republicans are turned off by absolution like obama care. the republicans want to repeal obama care without providing solutions. a lot of people, it doesn't seem to be a party of solutions anymore. thank you. host: d want to respond to that? guest: one thing we did see among new voters and voters are for if republicans were mobilized by voting for donald trump. we asked if their support was for donald trump or against biden and they were more likely to say that there was motivation for donald trump. host: one of our social media

followers has a question for you. did you find anything odd or irregular in the 2020 election that has never happened before? guest: that's a good question. we can't say that never has happened before, but that -- but i think one of the newest thing is the difference in how people voted. nearly half of 2020 voters voted by absentee. that is novel. that is something that is new this year and a changed up the dynamics. host: let's talk to jeff who is calling from jackson, michigan. the morning. >> -- caller: good morning. trump wasn't the kind of person i thought would competently

leave the country. he had a reputation long before he got there, and i think his problem was the way he was consolidating power in an effort to stay in power. his personality, i can't see that as representing our country to the world. it's not where the majority of people want to be, and i think the election results were honest. it showed that he had tremendous report, but at the same time he never reached a 50% approval rating. i don't understand how it is people think he was cheated out of something. he was never cheated out of it. he never won. a look at what's going on in the courts. his lawyers are now getting dragged into court for all of the lies they were telling and his fans won't have anything to do with it. i don't know what it takes to reach these people. host: go ahead and respond,

ruth. guest: it's a good question. we did look at these voters and there's no question that they felt favorably toward donald trump. they asked a question where we allowed people to, and their own words, talk about why they liked donald trump. we will said there are certain aspects about him i don't like. people still said there were things i -- things they did like and they wanted to support him. overlooked -- overwhelmingly on the republican side, people were voting for trump and not against other things. even though it can be challenging to understand, we did see a lot of pro-trump sentiment against -- sentiment in the new voters. host: one of our social media followers wants to know whether your survey that with this and what you think.

can the gas to settle the big lie that voter fraud did not make biden the winner? did you ask any of these voters if they thought the election was legitimate? guest: we did not ask that question directly, but there were record numbers of people using these new methods for voting, people who were voting early, people who are voting absentee. that wasn't just on the democratic side. we had large numbers of republicans who voted early and by mail and absentee. while there is skepticism, we did see a lot of republicans using those voting methods. host: let's talk to jerry who was calling from somerset, kentucky on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. my research shows that republicans have two problems. age. in the 2016 alexa, over 56% of

the republican voters were over 50 years old. and that -- and the 2016 election, over 56% of the republican voters were over 50 years old. how many of those passed away. the democrats, 50% of their voters were under 50 years old which means that between 18 and 24. you can imagine how many young people that were 14 years or older had turned 18 and voted democrat. would you comment on that? guest: that is exactly what our data shows. republican voters tend to be older and democratic voters tend to be younger. we are seeing this shift in voters overall. this is the first election where we have baby boomers and the population. the rising shares -- rising

shares of those voters and they are overwhelmingly supporting democrats. the caller makes a good point. republicans more favorable toward older voters and mcgrath's more favorable toward younger voters. as the composition changes and as these younger voters move into the larger shares that will play out. host: let's start with one of those groups of voters which are suburban voters. how did they vote this time around? guest: suburban voters supported joe biden. that is a shift overall from 2016. suburban voters were more split

in 2018. that trend remained in 2020. one thing that is interesting is the demographic nature has been changing, but among white suburban voters we did see that shift where they are moving in the direction of democrat. at the same time, donald trump also gave support among rural voters. we saw both move, but those suburban voters are a much larger share of the electorate and that means bigger gains for joe biden. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to david who was calling from michigan on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: good morning and thank you for this very interesting discussion. i consider myself to be a

kennedy democrat, though i was not old enough to vote in that election. my question is regarding states and counties and how their selection -- and how this election had a difference from what we would expect. also, would you sign an affidavit attesting to the research you have done and what about the thousands of affidavits that contest was going on in several counties during this election? and do you have a comment when we look at the ingram county, the county discrepancy in michigan which seems to point to actual election fraud at the ballot machine? did you use any of that information for your analysis?

guest: unfortunately, the research was not individual states or counties go it's hard -- so it's hard to comment on specifics except to say that some of the counties that we saw in this election were suburban counties. that's more and more becoming a battleground in the american election. suburban counties overall, voters were moving in the direction of democrats. i can't comment on specific areas or even specific cities, but we know a lot of the movement in the suburbs are those bellwether areas. to your question, we stand by our research and i stand by this research. we try to be incredibly thorough. we work hard to make sure we have all of our bases covered so

we very much stand by this. host: one of our social media followers has a question asking about the new voters. let's see if you have an answer. did you measure the racial and ethnic write-down of new voters? guest: -- ethnic breakdown of new voters? guest: yes and it was less white and more likely to be black and hispanic because they are younger and as the country changes demographically, younger voters and younger americans are more racially diverse. particularly among new voters for joe biden. host: let's talk to colleen who was calling from maryland on the republican line. caller: there was someone that spoke that asked a question and

made a comment that 50% of the republican voters were over 50. however 50% of the democrats were under 50. my thought quickly ran to will a 50% were over then 50% were under on the republican party and i don't believe that anyone has addressed the fact that donald trump blocks this country out of one of the greatest we ever had and went to foreign countries and spoke up for america. he did for america what should be done all the time. guest: that's a good comment. the republican breakdown was a little closer to 6040 -- 60-40. donald trump had a lot of young

voters supporting him. when we looked at new trump voters vote -- versus voters who voted previously, that group was much younger. he brought new, young people absolutely. host: one group we talked about already are suburban voters. let's talk about religious voters. one of the things that you found in your survey was that biden grew his support among religious groups while president trump held his ground. talk about how religion played into this election. guest: donald trump didn't just hold his ground. he made some gains among villages voters that he already had such -- had strong support with. joe biden made some gains among less affiliated religious voters, people who are not affiliated with religion.

that's a group that has always been a strong for democrats. donald trump, republicans have had this strong base of support among more religious voters. if trump continued to grow his support. host: let's talk to marvin who was calling from fresno, california on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, ma'am. the element -- the analysis of 2020. my opinion. the pandemic incompetence by donald trump. he downplayed, lied about it, but -- mocked masks, held rallies, contrarian area he went against medical advice. i think also that the country

was collectively exhausted by this man. this man wore us out and i think a lot of republicans, whether they admitted or not, were -- whether they admit it or not, were turned off. black turnout. i think blacks did not show up in 2016. this time, blacks showed up. they stood in line despite the suppression tactics by the republicans. people were committed, not necessarily for biden, but wanting to stop him and not wanting to have another four years of the drama. people were exhausted by donald trump. guest: that's a really good point. that does show up in our data. i mentioned republican voters overall were very motivated voting for trump rather than against biden.

at seven out of 10 said they were voting for trump rather than against biden. democratic side, democrats said they were voting against trump rather than for biden. in a lot of ways, this was an election that was all about trump on both sides. republicans were voting for trump and democrats were voting against him. host: can you look at your data and help us figure out how joe biden won in 2020 and hillary clinton lost in 2016? guest: i think it's a lot of these small ships. we saw in our data this was not an overwhelming victory. it was a lot of these small shifts among demographic groups that help joe biden amass the support he needed. we talked about suburban voters that he made gains with. men, particularly white men, biden made some gains with

preeti also made some gains with white men without a college degree. it will continue to be a strong group for republicans. donald trump one that group --won that group in 2020. it was joe biden chipping away at some of these small demographic groups that ultimately helped him come to victory and that additional search of new 2018 voters. voters who sat out in 2016, but were mobilized by that democratic surge into thousand 18. they voted for biden about two to one. host: another group we talk about when it comes to presidential elections are those third-party voters. those third-party voters showed up again in this election.

back in 2016, relatively high number of those voters voted for the libertarian or the green party nominee. what happened in this election with those voters? guest: a high share about 6% of 2016 voters voted for a high -- voted for a third party. it which must -- it was only 2% in 2020. that group voted for joe biden. that is where he got an additional surge of support. among those third-party voters, they decided to turn out for one of the two major candidates of 2020. host: do we know why, there were libertarian and green party candidates on the ballot. do we have any inkling why those voters turned away and voted for one of them to major parties? >> unfortunately,

guest: unfortunately, we don't know the why. we know that in general were more supportive of biden. host: let's talk to mike who is calling from reston, virginia. caller: good morning. i just have a few comments. i haven't called in a month. i listen to c-span. they were saying that the senate . they did not. the trump supporters telling us that there were us a plot against trump. that does not make sense. the election system.

gerrymandering, campaign financing, boxes removed. all of that stuff, and people think they can overturn the voters. i think talking about it, we give credibility that conspiracy theory. the court said there was not. no one presented evidence that it was fraud it. you can talk as you much. you have to present evidence and they did not and they lost the election. i think they are headed into a very dangerous area. people who support him, i'm sorry to say, are mostly

outrageous. confederate states and dictators, that's who supports trump. guest: unfortunately, we don't have data that speaks to what you are talking about. one thing that's interesting is you talked about the methods of voting. we did see republicans and democrats using these new methods. i think a lot of things about the way we are conducting elections is changing. i think, to your point about what this might mean for future elections, one thing that was really interesting about this election is that new voters are brought into the process by both sides. do these new voters stick around ? do they stick around and participate in the process in 2022? host: one of the things we can't

forget about what when we talk about the election is that in happens in the middle of the pandemic. one of our social media followers has a question about that to see if that was addressed anywhere in your analysis. with the pandemic going strong -- with the pandemic going strong, did it surprise you that we had more new voters in this election? how did these newer voters vote? guest: we had a lot of newer voters and they generally split with some voting in person and some voting by mail in ballot. more democrats voting door -- more democrats voting early or by mail. that includes new democrats. republicans voting in person on election day or in person early and that includes new republicans. that is one of the new influences that came with

conducting an election during a pandemic. we saw people on both sides using the new methods. host: where there any other pandemic related issues that showed up? guest: we wanted to make sure to capture the way that it might have influenced the election and that was the main one. host: let's talk to peter who is talk -- who was calling from new york on the republican line. good morning. caller: ruth, i have to agree with just about everything you have said so far. i think your statistics and what you are saying is right on, spot on. but you have not discussed, it was really four key battleground states that determined who won the election. the fact that a lot of mail-in ballots, there's no way you can determine whether there was corruption or not because it's

impossible to detect that the way that they reduced the standards. the main influence i believe was the mainstream media. president trump had over 90% of the stories done about him were negative. also, social media and the like suppressed the hunter biden story that they said it was fake news and that it was russian propaganda. also, the 50 intelligence people who signed a letter saying it was russian propaganda and that turned out to be false. also, the russian collusion accusation that went on for four years turned out to be false. i personally believe a lot of that had to do with the reason why president trump lost the election and john biden won.

thank you for taking my call. guest: thank you and thank you for the support. as you said, this did happen -- this did have to do with key battleground states. one of the things we have seen about battleground states in general is that they are really changing demographically, particularly racially and ethnically. donald trump's growth for hispanic voters. it was particularly among hispanic voters without college education. he did better with hispanic voters than -- hispanic without college education than hispanic voters with college education. to the extent that we are seeing demographic change in battleground states, some of that is playing out in the

electric -- in the electorate overall. host: do we know what issues drove the election? was the election really all about president trump? guest: that's really what showed up and our data is that the election was primarily about donald trump for both sides. that the majority of democrats said they were voting against donald trump and the majority of republicans said they were voting for donald trump. this was a referendum on donald trump. when we look back to the 2016 election, we saw that both candidates were viewed negatively and in some ways it was a referendum on both sides. 2020, at really was all about donald trump. host: let's talk to robert who was calling from mesa, arizona on the republican line. caller: i just wanted to say that the eisenhower republican and my 60's. we organized in maricopa county,

the one that's going through this audit even though we have gone through two audits and a court cases and they produced no evidence of any kind of fraud. we used absentee violence -- we used absentee alex. it's -- ballots. we organized in this state against the tea party libertarians and the qanon freaks. we were part of the lincoln project and let's vote and we deliberately make sure that we turned out as many people. a lot of people turned over to independent because they could not happen -- a lot of people changed over to independent in 2018 because they cannot handle what was going on.

i'm hoping, i'm praying that our investigations get to these people because they were tied very heavily with the q1 and the insurrection. i don't care -- the qanon and the insurrection. i don't care what anyone says. host: go ahead and respond. guest: i think you make a really good point about independents. that was a group that beau biden won in this election. -- joe biden won in this election. democrats voted more than 90% for the democratic candidates. in this election, people who don't lean toward either party or support either party in that

vote went to joe biden. host: let's talk to jeff who is calling from florida on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. it seems to me, if i understand things correctly, that a person needs to register to vote before they can vote. that is where we can put this big lie to rest from ever happening again. you need to register people with a fingerprint. that fingerprint, if they are doing a mailing -- mail-in ballot, comes with a little ink pad. you stick your thumbprint on it. when he goes in, it registers that you have made your vote. if there is any doubt as to if it was you or someone else that can pull the physical copy, see if it matches your name and if

there's any question at all they know who you are and they can come and ask you if you vote -- ask you "did you vote? host: go ahead and respond. guest: that's really interesting. unfortunately, our research does not speak to that. think the question does speak to one of the strengths of our research and that is that we try to verify these voters. these are people that tell us they voted and then we went to their records and verified it. we are confident that we actually have voters. you have the information they gave us and we were able to match that directly to state records to be able to see that these were actual voters. we feel that this is the real strength of our research, that we are able to identify these are the correct voters. host: we would like to thank ruth igielnik for being with us this morning, and talking to us

about the analysis of the 2020 presidential electoral. guest: thank you for having me. host: we are going to be talking again about your view of critical race theory. you see the numbers right there on screen. we will -- we are waiting for your calls. we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv discussing nonfiction books. tonight on afterwards. -- tonight on after words, how they can work better in the chaotic world. best-selling author james patterson and former president bill clinton discussed their thriller "the president's

daughter." ♪ >> the secret service was founded in the aftermath of the assassination of abraham lincoln. it wasn't until the death of john f. kennedy that the presidential protection service started to get closer attention from the american people. in the prologue of her new book, she writes that she started her coverage on hooker gate. we talk with her about her in-depth look in her new book subtitled "the rise and fall of the secret service." . ♪

host: we are back and we are going to return to our question from the top of the show which is your view on critical race theory. we are going to open up special lines. that means if you support the teaching of critical race theory, your number is going to be 202-748-8000.

if you oppose the teaching of critical race theory, your number is 202-748-8001. we are going to open a special line for educators and teachers. especially want to hear from you as we start getting ready for the new school year season. educators and teachers, your numbers going to be 202-748-8002 . keep in mind you can always text us at 202-748-8003. we are always reading on social media on twitter at, on facebook . we are going to start five defining what critical race theory's. it is a conceptual framework that considers the impact of historical laws and social structures on the present day perpetration of racial inequality. that is actually what critical race theory is so we want to know what your view is of that and whether you think it should

be taught or not. president biden was asked about critical race theory on friday and i'm going to bring you a little bit of what he had -- two bring you a little bit of what house press secretary said. president joe biden believes our children should learn about our history including the dark moments. when -- when pressed about the president's stance on critical race theory, jen psaki calling for culturally responsive education, critical race theory and ethnic studies curriculum to be taught from pre-k-12 grade in schools across the country. the president believes that in our history, there are so many dark moments and that there is not just slavery and racism in

our history. there is a systemic racism that is still impacting today. as he believes, as i believe as a parent of children that kids should learn about our history. she added so as the spouse of an educator and as somebody who continues to believe that children should not -- should learn not just the good but the challenges of our history. that is what we are talking about. even as this becomes -- politically charged. that comes from white house press secretary jen psaki. we want to know what your view is of critical race theory. let's start from georgia. ev, good morning. host: are you there? caller: good morning. i want to say how appreciative i am of a c-span. the stories, the wonderful

programming that we have. i wanted to say that i oppose the critical race theory context even being put into the mainstream because we are not bridging any critical race theory within our k-12 system. we have critical race theory being taught at graduate and law school as you said. the concept of the impotence to create the intersectionality of theory and young people k-12. they are not even in the frame of the syllabi to even be able to understand. we give them a practical learning at k-12. it seems to me to be another one

of this polarization in the society that is being funded and promoted at the political debate. same with the voting rights laws. they are passing laws with giving a legitimate political conversation to an unconstitutional law, the civil-rights act for the supreme court and its impotence upholding the illegitimacy of a construct of an idea that we know has no valid reality. yes, we are having this debate. we can have these discussions. in true fact, we just seeing where as a country we came together in a coalition. the pew report, that report was very clearly that the country is in fact understanding that we

are not going to be united with this kind of polarized conversation. the people already voted in a coalition in this country. arizona changed. we sought -- we lost the north carolina seat. when you look at those things, when you have a coalition that brings together the diversity, the critical race diversity to give context of a discussion. when you have critical race theory's that come together, we are not one race country. we are united country of many races, many diogenes, many ideologies. we came together and toward -- we came together in 2020 and we will come together in 2022. host: let's go to the line with the caller from denver, colorado. caller: i would like to put this

in context. the real question should be have african-americans experienced oppression throughout u.s. history? that is a simple yes or no. most scholars do not know what critical race theory is. it is generated by right wing meter area -- right wing media. we know this is a fact. they did this also with sharia law. that was the panic over the last few years. that did not work out for them, and it just went away. crt will go away. please allow me to connect the dots.

in 2012, i believe, there was a great textbook battle. between texas and california. texas put in its platform that they opposed critical thinking skills. i will read it to you. this is a fact check from the washington post. the republican texas wrote that the 20 that 12 platform is part of the section on education. -- 2012 platform is part of the section on education. critical thinking skills and similar programs that simply relabeling outcome-based education which focuses on behavior modification and has the purpose of challenging students fixed beliefs but undermining parental authority.

it's not only crt. they opposed critical thinking. keep in mind. the base of the gop. the only demographic of females that trump won. white women with no college education. high school educated people who don't know basic american history, let alone crt. host: let's go to edward who was calling from new jersey. edward, good morning. caller: yeah. i support teaching critical race theory. it boggles my mind that i wonder why teaching jewish victimization critical race theory is a thing. we teach that they have been during history. i think if we can teach that, we can teach the victimization of minorities in america. thank you. host: let's talk to jay who was

calling from washington, d.c. good morning. caller: thanks, c-span, for this national public square. hello? host: we can hear you. go ahead. caller: sorry about that. i think they ought to, this is just sheer propaganda. take the critic -- take the term critical race theory and strike it from any curriculum and replace it with history of american slavery. all i got was a little snippet of frederick douglass, which was pretty helpful for me because it caused me to read more about him later on. this is sheer political propaganda. the actual economics, jobs, and

even immigration reform. no solutions. they have no solutions because they don't want them. they use stuff like this, defund the police. name we -- named me one national democrat, national pelosi, biden, chuck schumer, who promotes any of these wild propaganda theories. thank you so much. host: several states have passed laws that would include what they consider to be reticle race theory. here is a story from education week -- that they consider to be critical race theory. ida will -- idaho, ohio bans teachers from introducing certain concepts. one of them, that one race or sex is inherently superiorly -- superior, that any individual is

consciously or unconsciously racist or sexist because of their race or sex and that anyone should feel discomfort or guilt because of their race or sex. governors in idaho and oklahoma recently signed these bills into law. it bills in iowa and tennessee are awaiting the governor. a similar law also passed in arkansas although it only applies to state agencies and not public schools. some of those lost have been find -- some of those laws, but these talk about what these bills that are passing say legislatures are actually banning teachers from talking about in education. let's go back to our phone lines and let's talk to calling from illinois. good morning. caller: you know. this is a mess in our country, and if we don't get this together we are not going to move forward.

things happened in our country just like things happened in your life. you do not cancel out things that happened in your life in the past. so why do america, especially white america, want to erase history? you cannot erase history? just like you cannot erase what happened to you and your past life? i think critical race theory is important because we have to teach our kids the truth. if you go after critical race theory, the next thing you going to do it that's the next thing you want to do is go out bible. this is really ridiculous. get over it, white people. it happened. slavery in all of these other things happen in our country. you are not going to change it. were not going to erase it. get over it. if you say that you are christians, face the truce -- face the truth. whether it's good or bad, you are going to have to teach it.

host: i will remind all of you that we will continue this discussion about critical race theory with a roundtable on tomorrow morning washington journal. if you tune in at 8:00, you will get to hear and talk about this issue of critical race theory again with chanelle wilson who is the assistant professor of education at bryn mawr college and ian rose who was the domestic policies domestic fellow. we will be talking about critical race theory at tomorrow morning at 8 a.m. eastern here on washington journal. let's talk to john who was calling from vernon, new jersey. john is an educator. good morning. caller: good morning. good show. i would like to talk a little bit about the critical race theory. if it's going to be taught, that's fine. i think it has to be taught from all sides.

i think if you look at the riot in tulsa in the early 20's, i think people need to understand that most of that neighborhood were descendents of slaves that actually were slaves of american indians that were bought out by the trailer terrace. if you're about to talk about that riot. talk about the fact where they came from and who they were slaves of. let's teach the entire thing. don't just teach one side. let's talk -- let's teach all of it. host: let's go to roger who was calling from pineville, north carolina. caller: good morning. here is the way i see it. i'm in my mid-60's and i have seen quite a bit of changes over the years. quite frankly, my opinion is this has absolutely nothing to do with race.

it has everything to do with culture. that's what people are really looking at. thanks a lot. host: i want to remind all of you watching that later on today, former president trump would give remarks at the conservative political action conference at dallas texas -- dallas, texas. we are going to have that live on c-span at 4:45 p.m. eastern. you can watch it here on c-span, online at c-span.org, or you can listen in on the free east but -- free c-span radio app. let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about critical race theory. here is one tweet that says " what is emphasized in history class has always been subjective. her instance, the mexican-american war. when i was growing up, the text was never taught that nearly half of all mexican territory was ceded to the u.s. after the

war. i am all for teaching history that opens one's eyes here is another one that says i am a teacher -- here is one that says ." i am a teacher. for the history we ted -- the teacher rate -- the history we teach lacks nuance. when you consider how many history teachers are there to be coaches, you know the context isn't there. here's a tweet. "the call of the talked about world war ii is spot on. why is it that we can get the world history of the holocaust, the people are scared to talk about the our pride -- the apartheid that existed and to some extent still exists in our country." let's talk to jack who is calling from florida. caller: i definitely think we should talk about race and its impact on air history. whether that is critical race

theory, that is a whole different thing. i think that as a theory should be discussed along with other theories. i definitely think we need to discuss history in the context of slavery and its impact on our economy, the severe jim crow laws that were passed after the civil war. yes, in depth -- yes, i definitely think it should be discussed. host: one of the places where critical race theory is be discussed right now is in the texas legislature. it's as we talked about earlier, a lot of the textbooks that are adopted by american schools are adopted because of what happens in places like texas and california reedit texas is discussing right now about what should be done with critical race theory in the text is legible -- in the texas lake --

in the texas legislature. texas lawmakers have filed at least three bills pardoning how -- at least three bills how is taught in schools. that students learn white the premises is morally wrong and study writings by minorities and -- by women and people of color. the legislation comes after governor greg abbott signed into law a bill from this year's regular legislative session that restricts how current events and america's history of racism can be taught in texas schools. it has become commonly referred to as the critical race theory bill although the term critical race theory never appears in it.

app says more must be done to abolish critical race theory in texas and later put the issue on the special session agenda. that's what's going on in texas right now when it comes to critical race theory. this is a tip -- this is a topic that is going on around the nation when it comes to legislatures or people are talking about critical race theory everywhere. we want to know what you think about critical race theory. if you support it, you never is going to be 202-748-8000. if you are against it, your numbers going to be 202-748-8001 . we really want to hear from our educators and teachers. if you are an educator or teacher and you want to talk about this. -- about this, we want to hear from you at 202-748-8002. let's hear from lewis was coming from saulsberry, north carolina. caller: good morning. as you can see, i am a black man . i do know that there is a lot of

things that white people just don't want to talk about. slavery is one of them. how the hora and separation of families -- how the horror and separation of families, doing all kinds of atrocities to people of color. i don't know why they want to put their head in the sand and be ashamed of the fact, and that's understandable. but what they have to do is this. have understand that what happened in the past, we can not longer go and think it will not happen in the future if we forget the past. i tell them go ahead and pull up their bootstraps, get ready because what they're trying to do not succeed. it will be taught even if, what are they gonna do? they're going to ban all books concerning history question mark this sounds like a communist country when you start banning books on what you need to teach. that is not america. they want to go to russia or china. host: let's talk to raymond who

is calling from orangeburg, south carolina. raymond, good morning. caller: yes, why do we call it critical race theory? a theory is not a fact. i'm well over 70. host: are you still there? caller: i don't know why we call it critical race theory. it's not a fact. teach facts to our kids. i taught american history. i didn't appreciate the part. yes i'm speaking. because what they are talking about is a theory. host: let's talk to ron who was

calling from san diego, california. ron, how -- ron, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you question mark this is my first time calling c-span. i am very excited -- how are you? this is my first time calling c-span. i am very excited. there is no critical race theory being taught in elementary school or high school. it's a college course. aside from that, there is a lack of people of color and women in the curriculum. when we talk about history, we have no discussion at the elementary school. -- elementary school of the perspective unless teachers introduce them themselves, which i do. the perspective of people of color are the people who are being oppressed. there is no perspective similar to how howard zinn talks about

the history of the united states and so as an elementary school teacher, i bring a different perspective. how do these people feel? what is that look like when you talk about the trail of tears? i think that's an important discussion that our history is lacking in the elementary school. that's what it -- that's what i bring in, another perspective besides those are the conquerors and the white history of the united states. host: let's talk to robert he was calling from south bend, indiana. i think we lost robert. i am. let's look at what's going on in --um, --um, let's look at what's going on in arizona. governor signed -- the measure

house built 2906 prohibits the state and local governments to engage in orientation, training or therapy that suggests an employee is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive whether consciously or unconsciously or co--- unconsciously." the house passed the bill. the house -- the state senate passed the bill. the measure comes as critical race theory becomes the latest flashpoint in the culture wars. the theory, which is decades old, examines the impact of racism on history and maintains racism is systemic. republicans have used the term critical race theory as a catchall for teaching racism with some panning the theory as discriminatory. that bill was just signed into law in arizona.

let's talk to darrell who was calling from jackson, tennessee. darrell, good morning. caller: good morning. the problem that we have is critical race theory is a law school concept taught about how politics affects, how the law affects the political nature of this country. what we are talking about is high school. this is much too complex. what we are doing now is trying to deny the racist history of america. the fact that slaves were not happy, the fact of reconstruction was worse for black people then slavery was. jim crow laws that happened to black people, -- jim crow laws, lynchings that happened the black people. we have the government sponsored segregation. we have brown versus the board of education.

we are just trying to deny everything and what we have to do is have honest conversation and find out what really happened and what we can do about it. host: we would like to thank all of our viewers, callers, guestst critical race theory at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. later today, former president trump will speak at the conservative political action conference in dallas at 4:45. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] >> span is your unfiltered view of government.

we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> do you think this is just a community center? it is way more question is way more than that. >> students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for any. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front rosita democracy. -- row seat to dimock see. -- two democracy. -- to democracy. >> president give -- president trump gives remarks to the conservative political action conference in dallas today. >> tonight, historian donald ritchie tells us how a man who derailed the political careers of several members of congress

and attracted the attention and anger of every president from fdr to nixon. >> it appeared in over 600 newspapers every single day, even holidays and weekends. he did that from 1932 until 1969 and the column continued under jack anderson. he had a radio show sunday night s and he also tried to make it into television in the early 50's. he was a man who told the truth as he said and he said when you hit the truth that hurts the most. he told what politicians really would refer not to see in the newspapers and he tried to get behind the news and tell people what was really going on in washington. he ruffled a lot of feathers, it's -- especially presidents, senators, representatives.