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.

>> donald ritchie tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "u.n. day --"q&a." ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." erested 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 calls 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: let's go to darrell. good morning. caller: good morning. that caller was real smart. but i don't know maybe i'm not so smart. i'm probably not. but it seems to me that people are making all this noise, like one caller referred to because they don't want to face the truth. if you don't face the truth then how are we going to do anything about it? god forbid teachers be allowed to teach the truth and n schools. that's all i have to say. thanks. host: james from tennessee.

good morning. caller: good morning. we should teach it because for one thing how are you going to deny history? we've been talking about history all the time. host: we hear you 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 can't just hide it forever. we talk about thing that is happened in other countries we talk about hitler about the jews what happened there but you don't talk about what happened here. what's wrong with talking about what happens in america? thank you. host: tony from new mexico. caller: good morning.

not that i'm opposed to it i'm just opposed to how it's been taught right now or even the concept. it should be the human race as far as i'm concerned and i just don't understand it. i can take it back from martin luther to the doctrine of discovery the most racist human race racist docket rin that is ever conceived that has put all this institutional racism right there. that's the whole ideology is in that doctrine that a group of people are better than and another group of people are less than. and so the better people can they can the less than people and treat them any way they want. now, i don't know where all this goes but this is where that goes. and we've got six on the supreme court and back in 2015

i think or earlier it was eight people on the supreme court that backed that doctrine up. it shows that's where it starts. and until our supreme court becomes less -- not only racist, human race rastist, because they believe in that doctrine. and 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 them the savages, there's a mistake in the constitution where it's three fifths of the people. and until we -- i thought abraham lincoln took care of that in the 13th amendment until our supreme court has diluted it and diluted it and diluted it. host: let's go to nick from

alabama. good morning. caller: good morning to everybody. one thing i don't understand we have so many problems in this country and the world and why do they call it critical race theory? that in itself is a -- the word critical. and it's only a theory? or is it fact? if you look up the democrat history of racism, that's where everybody most people already know it, the democrats were for slavery, they were -- they started the kkk, they're the ones who started jim crow, they didn't want black people to vote, they fought against the rights, their civil rights right up until the end when martin luther king jr. had that million man march and he was asked by kennedy and johnson to please don't do it now because we're going to be running for

reelection, and the bravery of martin luther king he said no we've waited too long. they were pushed to the wall. their back was to the wall for democrats to finally vote for civil rights. so how about we talk about that? who was against -- who was for racial -- oh my gosh. anyway who was for slavery who started the kkk. if you want the history let's go down but why are we pulling the scab off of wounds that we didn't do, we cannot change. and if we're all going to get along together which i think mostly we are this has to stop. teaching the history of that is no problem. it happened, it was evil, it was horrible. but to dwell on it now, that this is a thing and yes apparently they are teaching it to children in school right now is what i understand from k-12.

and it's not up to a small child to try to figure out what race is. host: bill in chicago. bill's in education. good morning. caller: thank you, sir. host: what do you do in education? caller: i'm a former teacher. i used to teach high school business. the question i have is 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 an understanding a complete and detailed understanding of american history? from its beginning before there was even a country known as the united states of america. so you go back at least to maybe the late 1500s. certainly the early 1600s.

and sure my thinking is somebody's making money off this new theory of history or a -- beside an additional way of looking at history rather than saying to themselves especially educators that are in charge of educating students in these very in parts of the country, just teach history. teach it in detail, be as specific in detail as you can. and ask for and discuss the subject matter with the students. this necessity to break it down strictly on the lines of race is not a necessity. history is what it is. and so you teach the facts, discuss the facts, try to ask for guidance how as to how to go forward based on the facts and then you move on to the next major topic within the

subject known as history. host: just before the july fourth recess house minority leader kevin mccarthy came to the floor of the house to talk about critical race theory. here's what representative mccarthy said. >> speaker today the democratic party had doubled down on what i consider the shameful history. by replacing the racism of the past with the racism of the critical race theory. they continue to look at race as a primary means of judging a person's character. we saw this just last week. senate democrats voted to confirm one of president biden's appointee who said let me quo we must do everything in our collective power to realize dr. kennedy's vision for america. let me be clear about what that vision is.

kennedy the author of how to be an ant racist proposed in his book that the solution to past discrimination is present discrimination. now, that's what the person who is now in charge of the personnel of the entire federal government is endorsing. and this devicive division are aren't confined to just one person or the department. the navy included kennedy's book on its official reading list for sailors in the department of education has praised to debunk the 1619 project citing it as an example of what should be taught to our children. critical race theory is the governing ideology that we're now finding in the biden administration. by advocating for democrats continue to feel hatred and division across the country. 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. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about the teaching of critical race theory. 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.