ahead on christmas day. former political speech writers talk about the impact of presidential rhetoric. ♪ host:host: we begin in august

when the u.s. pulled its troops from afghanistan. several guests joined us to share their unique perspective on america's longest war and how it ended. he decided to stay in kabul after this u.s. left and he explains why. >> many people who were in more dire straits than i was and i thought they should be prioritized. i have helped to facilitate their escape. i already grab in exile and i am an aspiring poet as well. i wrote a piece saying i do not want to leave home. i did not want to do it again, for better or worse.

i lay claim to the land more than the taliban do and they will have to deal with people like us in the country. host: are you safe right now? >> there have been individuals who acted on their own accord and went rogue and took out dissidents. for now i'm physically safe and i hope it stays that way. host: you are speaking out against the taliban. would you classify yourself as a dissident? guest: i am a dissident in a way that i will not let them construct a world of their own accord. if the taliban are concerned

about the brain drain happening in the country and they want the talented people who have already left the country feel safe enough to return, they will have to create a society that is more acceptable, more in line with modern values and is not necessarily have to be a completely liberal system. there can be an idea of reconciliation of different visions. it. is -- it is bleak. it is not a very hopeful vision. post-conflict societies present an opportunity where you can transform the society to something better if you put the right amount of effort and thinking into it. host: when you walk out your door today, what is it like?

guest: i went to the bank. it was open for the first time in 10 days. there were a lot of people in line. there were taliban fighters asking people to respect the line. there were six. the city is slowly getting busier -- not as busy as a used to be -- that taliban do not interact with people. two nights ago they checked the paperwork on our car. the city has changed. obviously you do not see a lot of women on the road. women are dressing up more religiously so that has changed,

but the number of women you see on the road has changed so it is different. i think the country is not going to be the same for a long time. host: when you have interacted with the taliban, how is it that you are able to get past their checkpoints and carry-on? guest: i think there is a misperception on their part as well. that everyone was here, everyone who was part of the republic before them, that they were diasporas of the west. i grew up in an extremely cultural family.

when i interact with them it is a pleasant surprise for someone to be informal pants and dressed up in a more western way to greet them in their own way. i can see that pleasant shock in their eyes. that gives me an opening to speak sense to them, to the little margin that, there -- that i can because there have been people that i need to help. that is a unique position i have that i am trying to use to the utmost advantage of the people who need it. host: you have helped people get out of kabul. can you tell less who they are and how do you talk to -- us

who they are and how do you talk to the taliban? guest: i had a lot of my contacts internationally as well. there are fixers on the ground to actually help people get into the airport and you either use specific embassies -- a few embassies are using a hotel here in kabul. some of my friends managed to get through to the airport of

their own accord. they spent six days sleeping on the floor of an airplane, 50 people sharing one toilet, having packaged meals only to eventually on the third day be thrown out security, general logistics -- we have had to reach out to the taliban to help facilitate either the movement or to secure does logistics. i have been able to do that. that is a little difference that i do not think would have

happened otherwise. >> you referenced fixers on the ground. tell us who these people are. >> there is something to be said about the social hierarchy that is created with the phone numbers you are handing out. fixers are either the people commissioned by international organizations in order to either move people that are in danger or locate them and move them to safety. there are also our friends who have taken this up as a way of thriving in the shadow economy and they charge people a lot of money for movement into the airport. you would expect that when the worst of times hit us, the best nature of human kind comes out. that is not what we see. even if there are rare cases, it

breaks your heart. there will always be people among us who thrive in other people suffering. host: can you give us an idea of how much they are being charged? guest: it was a few hundred dollars. it eventually moved up to $2000 or $3000. one of the fixers charged 25 thousand dollars, which is mind blowing. who has that much money laying around in a country that has no government, where banks are sheltered? host: once you get to the airport, what is happening around the perimeter? guest: it is very crowded.

you hear firing quite a few times in the day. the management of the airport with regards to seeing people's documentation, on the other hand the taliban do not know who to lead in and who to -- let in and who to let go. documentation. they were still turned away -- some people had documentation. we were still turned away. there was a woman who made a post on her facebook the other day saying " despite how much work i have done for this country, i was rejected at the

airport." there have been in imagine armageddon and everybody running around and everything being chaotic multiplied by 10 and you have the airport in kabul right now. host: before we get to calls, what is your message to america? guest: there is a very interesting piece in the new york times today from the chief of the army in afghanistan who has also fled the country. basically the essence of it is " we lost because the u.s. tied our hands behind us and then hyden calls us cowards -- biden

calls us cowards. do not belittle the sacrifices we gave to the country." the american populists have the power of their own voice. they need to keep president biden in check because he acts like none of this was his responsibility. i understand the withdrawal. there were better ways to go about it. there were better ways to support the armed forces. there were better ways to keep the afghan government , which

was extremely corrupt, and check. the population that started dreaming in the past 20 years, they are not stripped of it in the near future. a fragile state in afghanistan will haunt the region, will haunt the world. we hope it does not get to that. the moment the united states decides to isolate afghanistan, decides to impose sanctions, the only truly suffering people will be the poor people of afghanistan and they have seen a lot of suffering. generation after generation have been stuck in this cycle of violence and poverty. let's find a way to work this.

this is not the situation the united states wanted. host: more than eight hundred thousand servicemen and women served in afghanistan from 2001 to 2021. guest: my first trip over in afghanistan was in 2002. i made five other trips over there throughout the years. i started taking wounded veterans back to afghanistan. i got to see the country transform. the good we were doing that many

times was not on the news. the civilian population would come up and say " thank you. we don't ever want you to leave." coming back. to see how it ended was disappointing. we up and abandoned a lot of our allies that we were making. it was not the best strategy to exit the way we did and it was very unfortunate that we lost some more american soldiers over there during our exit. host: we are here to talk this

morning about warrior call. you are the cochair of national warrior call day. can you tell us what the warrior call is? guest: it is a pledge we came up with. we went to the last 2 dod suicide prevention conferences. we can help veterans and active duty. the ones we are losing are the ones who are isolating themselves, the ones who feel so alone that they get to the point where they feel the only answer is to take their own life. we should find those ones, the ones were not calling in. how do we find those ones before they make that ultimate decision they can't come back from?

we came up with this idea to make a pledge called one person a week. have an honest dialogue and discussion to make that call that could save their life and find out where they are before they get to that point. be honest with yourself and others to take that call if somebody is calling you in need of help. we all know somebody who has served or is serving. you just need to check on their welfare.

had physical courage my whole life but i didn't have emotional courage. i was seeing three psychologists at one point. i did not stop until i got what i needed that was mission essential to me. the wife and i have gone through marriage counseling. we are all going to face at some point in our lives. people are out there. they're waiting for us to reach out to them. you are not alone. there is family, friends, peers,, even strangers who will help if you reach out.

host: is this only for people who already know people who have retired from the military or can anyone participate in a warrior call? host: -- guest: anyone can participate in a warrior call. you just have to recognize that they served in the military and all you have to do is ask " how are you doing?" anybody can do this. " is there anything i can help you with?" we cannot help everyone, but everyone can help someone. this is something small that we can all do. you may not have the answers.

they may come to you and say " i'm struggling with this or that." i don't have all the answers. i'm not going to stop helping you until we find the answers. host: one thing we see a lot of people in public say to veterans is " thank you for your service. " should we add " and how are you doing?" onto that? guest: it can't hurt. be that person worth service

members risking their lives for. return the favor by checking on their welfare. host: tell us what should and should not be said when we are making a warrior call. are there things we should say? are there things that we shouldn't say? guest: i would stay away from promising anyone anything because once you say " i'm going to do this," it is a promise, and it hurts more if you break it. get to know them more, even if

it takes a few more minutes. ask them " where are you from? what are you doing now that you are out of the service? what was the hardest part of being in the service? it is ok if you do not want to answer my questions but i'm curious about --" they may take offense, but that is when you know you are heading in the wrong direction. physical reactions are key. look to help someone. if you cannot help someone, look

to link them up with someone who can. host: these calls can be important. the suicide rate for veterans has been consistently higher than for civilians. this comes from the rand corporation where they point out that for the past 12 years suicide rates have been consistently higher among veterans than nonveterans. you can see the chart here where that number is clearly going faster for non -- going up faster for veterans than nonveterans. there is a crisis line you can call for veterans who need someone to talk to. that is a veterans crisis line.

let's let some of our viewers take part in this conversation. let's start with joe in west plains, missouri. caller: i am a vietnam veteran and i want to thank this man for his organization. once you are back from these crop holes, i don't know why you would be committing suicide. you are safe now. i don't understand why you would be committing suicide now or thoughts of it. your safe now. i'm test the way we -- pissed the way we left afghanistan. we haven't won a war since world war ii and i'ms pissed.

i'm pissed about the way biden left it. guest: thank you for your service. a lot of people do not talk about it. when they talk about 22 a day it is sometimes higher. those suicides, for the longest time the highest percentage has been vietnam veterans. just like this war, we were trying to stay out of it so our generation does not become highest percentage. a lot of times people have a hard time dealing with the way they left that country because they saw the good over there. now they see what it is going to

become and i have to remind myself too i did my best while i was over there. it was not my decision that we left at all. i have to be content that i did what i could and that is all anyone can expect. i can't change the past. i effect the things i can't change, which is reaching out to the people around me. i can save their lives. host: are there any discharge procedures that people go through before they leave the armed services that help look out for some of these issues? guest: i got out seven years ago so things have changed.

i came back from -- we talked about warrior call and suicide prevention and building resiliency. the command there really cared about their troops. for three days straight in a row, they kept filling the auditorium or theater with troops in the morning and evening. it was mandatory. a law that these young kids were trying to explain to them -- a lot of these young kids were trying to explain to them " this may not help you now but it will help you later."

it showed how much time they were willing to give us. host: earlier in the year we talked to author sarah rhodes about three women recruited by british intelligence to bring down access forces occupying france. she begins by talking about how she began researching her book d-day girls. guest: i knew i was interested in women in war. women in hyper masculine spaces are interesting to me. i realized at some point i did not know who the first woman in combat was. who was it? when i started asking that question i thought i was going to get someone in iraq or vietnam.

it did not occur to me that it would be in world war ii. suddenly the book opened up to me. these are the first women in organized combat who were given uniforms, they answered to command, they were effectively soldiers and we had not heard about them. host: we have become so familiar with the invasion that took place 77 years ago today as boats arrived on the french sure what role did these three women play in terms of that operation? guest: between 1941 france falls and 19 44 when the allied forces return, there's nobody. in that time winston churchill

had this idea that even if we could not fight in europe, the anger of occupied people was something that could be militarized and if we had an organized group of guerillas that could really weaken hitler. why don't harm and organize a subterranean writing that can weaken the enemy -- fighting force that can weaken the enemy? the bbc sends out an alert well of france, 12 of these units percolating underground and they

say tonight is the night. we need you to rise up we will be there in the morning. that night the french resistance cut across bridges, roads, power lines, communication lines and in the morning normandy is isolated. we hear about what a fight it was to get off the beaches into europe. a trip that should have taken hitler's panzers three days took three weeks because the french resistance had so thoroughly damage the infrastructure the panzers needed to get to the beaches. host: i'm reminded what general eisenhower said in his address to the soldiers and airmen, saying they were part of a great crusade. my question is, did these three

women fully understand what the crusade? guest: certainly. let's give a bit of background into why these three women. they were recruited in 1942 at the lowest moment of the war. it is the height of, the german empire, the height of the japanese empire, and no one has won a battle. anyone who can be put to war has been put to war. they need native french speakers because you have to send in people. they are going to parachute in, arm and train a resistance. they need to be deeply undercover.

they need to the germans and the french -- fool the germans and the french. there was a manpower shortage so they hired women. a native born french woman married a brett and she is called by the soe. with three daughters, she says yes. she is not enjoying her life in the country. she says yes, framing it in the language of motherhood. what happens to my daughter's is britain's fault. what life did these little girls have?

andre burrell was very young. she had worked in an underground organization getting pilots out of france. she was a big asset to the allies until someone blew her network. she got out of the underground network and said put me back in felt she had not done enough for france. mauritius is that french-speaking colony that was captured during the napoleonic wars. she is french-speaking with a french passport, wealthy and the day hitler's roles in, she becomes an enemy alien.

they were intensely patriotic. host: you tell some incredible stories in the book about how they were literally able to get past nazi soldiers. guest: the demographics of an occupied territory are almost entirely email. men have been killed in the battles 2 -- female. men have been killed in the battles to defend the region. all of the officers were kept throughout the war. french officers were not allowed to repatriate even after the armistice. the men are gone. when you send a woman behind enemy lines in an occupation, they blend in more than a young soldier who happens to be

french. they had a natural advantage. they were the first female paratroopers. they were the first female sabotage agents. they are building the networks that will be on the normandy coast all across the channel coast for the day whenever it comes that the allied army reaches the continent. each one of those pockets of resistance were armed and trained by these women and their colleagues. host: the day began in june and continued into august. allied troops landed, 73,000 american soldiers. it included 6900 ships and landing craft, 50,000 vehicles

and over 11,000 planes. the death toll was four thousand in total. those killed or missing among the allies, nearly -- how did you go about researching this book and where did you travel? guest: there were different phases of research. i did not know french so i had to move to france and get around french. i can get around an archive but i'm not very good at speaking. these were ordinary women. these were not macho g.i. jane types. they were ordinary women who spoke french. the whole span of productive adults women hood was -- idled

womanhood was considered -- adult womanhood was considered. if they were picked up off the street and trained, i thought i could do. i jumped out of a plane, i built a radio, i learned morse code, i tried to learn all of the skills these women did and i was a very poor spy. i wanted to walk in their footsteps. she was commander on d-day of the french resistance in normandy behind lines and she bicycled everywhere so i knew where she lived, i knew where her contacts did, i biked normandy to felt what police felt. i also spent a lot of time in

the archives -- what elise felt. you can still see -- every day somebody has a piece in the paper about samara unexploded ordinance that was found in a cap field -- some more unexploded ordinance that was found in a cow field. this is an organization that had about 400 agents behind enemy lines. i got very close to some of the families. there is always a balance when you are researching, the feeling that if you are doing it on behalf of somebody you owe them hagiography versus being a detached historian.

because i came to the story so late in the game very few normandy veterans are alive. very few u.s. oe agents are alive. i was not able few soe -- few soe agents are alive. i am still close to some of the families. host: why do you think so often those from this generation did not talk about their experiences when they came back home? guest: they were traumatized. the son of the leader of the french resistance told me " we are english -- we don't talk about these things."

host: we traveled to the tulsa history -- he begins by telling us what triggered the unrest guest:. guest:the trigger incident for the -- triggered the unrest. guest: the trigger incident for the tulsa race massacre was 2 teens. he knows there is a restroom available for his use in the downtown drexel building on the upper floor. he walks over to the drexel building, boards the elevator being operated by sarah page. something happened on the elevator, something that caused the elevator to lurch.

he brushed up against sarah page. she began screaming. he was frightened. elevator landed back in the lobby, he fled. sarah page exited the elevator. she was comforted by the store clerk from a local store. she told him her story of being assaulted on the elevator. he called the police. sarah page would later retract the original story or recant that story. she refused to cooperate with prosecutors who arrested her allegedly solar. that might have been the end of the story had it not been for the intervention of the tulsa tribune which published a story

"nabbed negro assaulted white g irl." the article went out of its way to make sarah page seem virtuous . it had its desired impact. a crowd of white men gathered on the lawn of the courthouse. the men began talking about lynching deck role in. men gathered together, many of them world war i veterans. the white mob continued to swell

, numbering in the thousands. unsurprisingly, words were exchanged. a white man tried to take a black man's gun. according to one of the survivors, all hell broke loose. it ultimately devastated the thriving greenwood community. black men put up a fight against this onslaught that the white mob crossed the racial dividing line, burning, shooting, murdering people. some of the men in the mob were deputized by local law enforcement. some of the men prevented the tulsa fire department from putting out fires. between 100 and three hundred

people most of them black lost their lives. hundreds more were injured. property damage at the time is conservatively estimated at $2 million, which is $10 million today. some people in the black community were rounded up and taking to internment centers in the city sensibly for their own protection but according to survivors, it left the community defenseless. host: across the world has some photographs of what that scene looked like. i should point out as we begin our conversation that we will show some photographs you may find disturbing but we feel it is important to give a sense of what happened. i want to jump in and ask you

about this district called black wall street. what can you tell us about greenwood? guest: black wall street is a moniker attached to the financial district of greenwood. it was more like a black main street. these were commercial establishments, dance halls, pool halls, however dashers, all manner of small businesses. really, a commercial district of the time that you might find in many places. this was a segregated black community. it was a community of necessity because black people were not allowed to interact in the regular economy. they created an oasis in

greenwood. host: the death has come under suspicion. why such a variance? guest: the essential death toll is 37, but most historians and those who have studied this believe that the death toll is much higher, somewhere between 100 and 300 and there are reports to that effect at that time. the reason for the discrepancy really involves a number of factors, including -- we know a number of people were injured mortally, left town and died elsewhere. some family buried there can summarily without record. actual record-keeping was suspect in that period. there is documentation that

indicates there are mass graves somewhere in tulsa. there is a mass graves investigation underway even as we speak. host: if you are a current or former resident of tulsa, oklahoma, we would love to hear from you. our guest is hannibal johnson, author of a number of books on the events that happened a century ago. this is the 100th anniversary of the tragedy in tulsa, oklahoma. there has been a renewed renaissance in studying this, something that may not have been studied 50 years ago. guest: a number of people talk about a conspiracy of violence with regard to this story. conspiracy is a strong word. i don't think we can prove agreement but this story was

kept under wraps for many years. when the master happened told saul was on an upward trajectory -- massacre happened, tulsa was on an upward trajectory towards being the oil capital of the world. there was shame, shame that this incident had been allowed to unfold on what people consider to be a cosmopolitan, forward looking city. in the black community there was ptsd, anxiety and fear, fear that such an event could recur and anxiety about sharing the event with children, like this information might somehow hamper them in their progress towards adult hood. there were a number of breaks in terms of knowledge or awareness,

first came on the 50th anniversary. ed wheeler posted an article about the history and a black magazine. he received death threats. people told him you should not be talking about this. a historian at michigan university released a book on the topic. people became more aware based on that bug by the major opening came between 19 97 and 2001. they released a report in february, 2001. that drew international attention. it opened the floodgates in terms of curricular reform. host: thank you for being with

us. thank you to the tulsa historical society and museum. " let the blame for this uprising lie right where it belongs on those armed negroes and their followers who started this trouble and who instigated it and any persons who seek to put half the blame on the white people are wrong and should be told so in no uncertain terms." guest: the mayor blames the

black community for its own demise. post massacre several black men were indicted for the offense of inciting a riot. it is victim blaming, lame shifting and unfortunately characteristic of race relations of that period. that period is known as the nadir of race relations, the low point of race relations. host: on his website with archival photographs and headlines looking back 100 years ago, you were in tulsa, oklahoma. there were some security threats over the weekend. how is the city remembering the horrors that happened one hundred years ago? guest: there are a lot of things

going on. legacy fast is a festival celebrating black history and celebrating greenwood history. tonight weather permitting we expect a torrent of rain but there is a candlelight vigil that starts around 9:30, bedtime the first shots were fired. -- the time the first shots were fired. it is important to people in the community that we not just fixate on the massacre, that we understand we are talking about a community and a community consists of people. these were remarkable african-american people who created this incredible community, who nurtured the

community and sustained it through the massacre and rebuilt it substantially. it thrived through the 50's and into the 60's. the events are marking the massacre, the anniversary of which we commemorate today but also black wall street, that entrepreneurial character that existed in the community and made the community the talk of the nation. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers so students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service one with these

television providers, giving you a front row seat -- along with these television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> george weigle talks about some of the people will he profiles in not forgotten, his new book of elegies. >> other of here, these were people who went into public service to get things done and some of them were sparkling wits , some of them were dour norwegians, some of them were utter termers, but they were all people who wanted -- charmers,

they were all to achieve things for the common good. >> george weigle on c-span's q&a. ♪ >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear those conversations on c-span's new podcast, presidential conversations. -- presidential recordings. >> not everyone >> certainly johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to

them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> i do not want a report on -- if i cannot ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. >> presidential recordings. find it right now wherever you get your podcast. >> both house and senate have adjourned for the holiday recess and will return in early january for the second session of the 117th congress. the senate will take up the president's social spending plan, known as build back better. despite joe manchin announcing his opposition to the bill, senate democratic leadership also will take up voting rights legislation, which may require

changing filibuster rules. there is a february 18 deadline for both chambers of congress to pass federal spending legislation to avoid a government shutdown. watch these developments on the c-span network when congress returns. or, watch our full coverage on c-span now, our new mobile video app. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to screen video -- stream video live or on-demand, any time c-span, your unfiltered view of government. -- any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> we believe one of the greatest characteristics of being american is we are striving to provide equal opportunity for all. >> c-span's video documentary competition, 2022. students are giving us a behind-the-scenes look as they give us our entry using the #studentcam.

you can join the conversation by entering the c-span studentcam competition. create five or six minute documentary. and answer the question, how does the federal government impact your life? >> be passionate about what you are discussing and express your view, no matter how large or small you think the audience will receive it to be. know that in the greatest country in the history of the earth, your view matters. >> remember that content is king. remember to be as neutral and in partisan as possible in your petrella both sides of an issue. >> c-span awards $100,000 in cash prizes and you have a shot at winning the grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20, 2022. for rules, tutorials or how to get started, visit

studentcam.org. c-span on the go, watch the day's biggest political events live, or on-demand anytime, anywhere on our new local video app. c-span now, access top highlights and discover new podcast for free. download c-span now for free. -- today. >> washington journal continues.

host: welcome back in merry christmas. we are looking back at some of the most interesting and different guests we have had on this program. in february, congress was reeling from the january 6 u.s. capitol riot. sean spicer, now a host on newsmax, joined us to share his thoughts. >> i have a show every night on newsmax at 6:00. i look at it a family because we cover it. we have been covering it for a while and we will cover it tonight. i look at it from the standpoint of what are other people asking? what are the questions they have and how can we break it down for them during the one hour that we have? host: the questions would be

what and how would you answer them? guest: i get to ask the questions. there are a lot of questions with respect to a former president. the constitution is clear about the purpose of impeachment being for removal of office. if someone is no longer in office, you have to question what is the purpose of the proceedings themselves? tonight, we will have alan dershowitz on the show and we will break it down from a constitutional perspective. a lot of times we get lost in political arguments and forget to step back and say the constitution is clear about what the purpose of these things are and the procedures by which they will be held. we get to have a discussion on the show about what is -- what the political arguments are and what the constitutional arguments are. i think the fun part is you get to look at the questions you are getting everyday on washington journal. a lot of times, that is what i

will say. i am hearing a lot about x, can you break it down for people? it is more of the discussion between political and legal to have an understanding of issues and politics that is going on. host: if you boil it down, did the president incite the crowd on january 6? what is your take? guest: i think that is not entirely true in the sense that that is not the question. the fundamental question is can you impeach somebody who is no longer in office? the second is if so, did those events, are they impeachable offenses? are they high crimes and misdemeanors? i think you have to answer the first question first, which is are the proceedings relevant for an office holder who is no longer in office? the constitution says clearly, shall be removed from office. if you are no longer in office, what is the remedy? host: with that in mind, you

have heard several legal scholars say maybe there is a question in the constitution of whether the senate is even capable to start this trial. guest: it is interesting. obviously, i have heard those auger -- arguments from legal scholars that you can do it. to me, it is an interesting argument on their behalf. the constitution says clearly, in article two section four, that the holders shall be removed from office. that is the remedy. the question is if the officeholder is no longer in office, you have to question it. i read some of the briefings and articles and information that these folks, these scholars claim that you can go through the motions. i have yet to have that discussion with them. i don't get how you can make that case. if the sole purpose -- in other

words, we have a criminal system of justice in this country so that if you are guilty of a crime or suspected of a crime, you go through that civil process. if you personally feel wronged by somebody, you can sue them for civil damages, money or what have you. we have impeachment, which is a political means of justice, so you can remove an officeholder who you feel or who someone feels has broken a law or committed high crimes and misdemeanors or treason and all of the other things the constitution enumerates. impeachment is a political form of justice, if you will. if the president is guilty of a criminal act, this is not the appropriate forum to discuss because there is no other remedy. you can't impeach somebody and send them to jail or impose a civil fine of a million dollars or $100. those are other forms of proceedings. the question if the president

was guilty for something, this is not the form to judge him in. host: it goes to the second part as far as the incitement, they write those who come to the rally rather than the crowd and carry on the fight for years to come, -- delivered to an angry crowd with militaristic demand, they must fight to stop what is fighting at the u.s. capitol at the very moment. when you see statements like that, what goes through your mind? as a show host and a person who used to work for the president? sean: it's interesting because you can cherry pick comments. he said to go to the capital and peaceably protest. he talks about doing this. you cover this on c-span all the time, the demonstrations, the protests, the rallies that

occurred in washington, d.c. in a pre-covid world if not weekly or multiple times a week some group gathers on the capitol steps on the national mall and other places in washington, d.c. and supreme court steps to highlight an issue or seek redress from the government. this happens regularly. the question is if you can find these comments and make one case or another. there is clearly in the impeachment managers brief they are making the case that while you look at these elements of the president's speech they point to x. his defenders will point to parts of his speech where he told them to make their voices heard and protest at the capital ol which is a time-honored tradition in america. i think either side can cherry pick a speech and pick out things they like. the thing that is interesting to me and the president's -- donald

-- defenders, rand paul brought it up. when you look at the comments from the last cycle that congresswoman maxine waters made where she said you get in the face of trump officials, when you see them make a crowd. when you look at eric holder who said when we go -- those are actions that did discuss violence. i question whether or not the democrat impeachment managers that will make this case are not going to be careful that some words of their own colleagues don't get thrown back into their faces. if you are going to say the president is guilty for telling people to do this, what do you say to your colleagues who incited violence and told people to get in people's faces. it's a very interesting path they are going down, because it will set an interesting precedent for what is permissible in terms of free

speech. host: sean spicer of the trump administration and a host on news masks. -- newsmax. you can ask him questions. our first call from eleanor in bedford, massachusetts on the republican line. you are on with sean spicer. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am trying to ask a question that has bothered me for years with all this horror going on. when i was a little girl i was told the devil made me do it. then trump made me do it. i wonder who the terrible behavior of the american people will blame next. it was outrageous. i'm shocked, i'm ashamed, i'm ashamed that they did it and nobody stopped them.

nobody stopped them from doing that. i can imagine -- i can't imagine the horror he and his family are suffering. host: eleanor from massachusetts. sean: there is no question when you look at the media coverage of donald trump and how we have seen the first three weeks of the biden administration is different. the press corps is in line and there is a vitriolic feeling among members of the press corps towards donald trump. this is something that on the right we have dealt with forever and it got amplified to a degree i had never witnessed by donald trump. the members of the media made it personal. >> the year began with republicans in control of the senate. with the induction of vice president biden and -- vice

president harris and president biden -- 20 years earlier, former senate leaders trent lott and tom made a power sharing agreement. they joined us to talk about that experience and how they think the senate works best. host: joining us is tom daschle. he led as the majority senate leader from 2001 to 2003. trent lott led the senate from 1997 to 2001. a republican from mississippi. thank you for joining us on washington journal. guest: good to be with you. guest: good to be with you. host: can i start with both of you? you both had experiences looking at issues concerning bill clinton. what did you learn during the

process with president clinton and how do you think that could play out in dealing with the second impeachment trial with president trump? guest: the leaders need to communicate regularly, every day. after the house voted on saturday to impeach william jefferson clinton back home, senator daschle said whether we like it or not, this thing is in our lap read i would like to work with you and make sure we can do this in a proper way and get to a conclusion where we can go back to work. i thought it would be relatively easy to agree on the rules of how to proceed. that took us a couple more weeks. we can talk more about that in a moment if you'd like. host: leader daschle? guest: i want to commend senator lott for the extraordinary leadership he showed through that process. he didn't have to call me. he didn't have to make sure that there was that kind of communication but he did. that is the key.

there is cooperation and communication. and what is normally a very -- in what is normally a political setting, consider the facts. recognize your constitutional responsibility and carry it out. host: looking at establishing rules, one of you said complicity, how did you make up those rules and keep true to the caucuses you had to serve? guest: that term probably came from tom. guest: compromise is not capitulation. when you are working through a very complicated process and issues like this, it takes compromise. it takes communication. whopper and and coordination and compromise is the essence of that. guest: after that call to tom on that sunday, we went back to

washington thinking we could come up with a way to proceed quickly. it turns out it was not easy. it took us, as i recall, a couple of weeks. we wound up going into the old senate chamber, the republican and democrat senators all in that room. we did not have staff in their and we tried to hash it out. there was a tutorial on how to proceed. i was wondering how it would work out. when ted -- and then 10 kiddie -- ted kennedy spoke and bill graham spoke and we all agree. that's it. we will go with the graham-kennedy proposal. we finally figured out exactly what that was and i think it was a unanimous vote to proceed with the rules. the fact that mcconnell and schumer have come to an agreement on the rules on how to proceed and it looks like it will be unanimous, that is a

good achievement. host: how much of establishing the rules was based on personal trust and how much trust do you think exists in the current senate on making the rules? guest: i think personal trust is key. we trusted each other. we had worked together on a number of other big challenges facing the senate and we worked through them. we began to trust each other and develop a relationship that has lasted to this day. it is essential. i like what i am seeing so far. i think trent is right. it looks like in this context, mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer have developed the trust necessary to move forward. they organized a resolution of week ago. they seem to be in agreement on the way to proceed on the impeachment. i like what i'm seeing in the last couple of weeks between the two leaders. host: leader lott?

guest: i agree with tom on that as i usually do. they have -- got to an agreement on the rules a lot further than we did. there had not been an impeachment trial in the senate for decades. maybe even a sentry. i don't know how long before. i was on the house judiciary committee in 1973 and 1974. the nixing proceedings did not go to a vote because he resigned. we were trying to figure out exactly how we could proceed. it went on for, as i recall, over a month. we had some depositions and witnesses. we had several votes. it was not a matter of voting on the articles of the impeachment. it was a long process. i think the leaders are committed to not dragging out this time. they are hoping to get it done

by next week. that will be a monumental achievement if they can get through the arguments in a satisfactory way and get to a conclusion. host: leaders, if you would not mind sharing your impressions of january 6 at a place where you used to work? what were your impressions of the day as you saw it play out? guest: i was horrified at what i was seeing. i worked in and around that u.s. capitol building for 39 years of my life, as a staff member. a whip in the house and the senate and leaders. i view that building as our citadel of democracy and freedom. to see windows being broken out and police being shoved out of the way and eventually people losing their lives, i was brought to tears and really depressed by what i saw. i hope that the leaders are giving some thought of security at the u.s. capitol.

i don't like the wire around the building and the fences. there needs to be an assessment of the security in that building for the future. host: leader daschle? guest: you can't say it any better than that. i agree with every word trent said. as a staff person and a congressman and a senator, i must say i think i know every inch of that building. i used to love to give tours of the building and still occasionally do that. so, i fought back tears as well. to me, it was a metaphor for politics in america today. i really lament that. it wasn't just the physical desecration of a sacred building, it was the desecration of a political process that we have been doing for some time. we will have to figure out a way to repair it. it was a sad, sad day. one of the saddest days i can recall. it brings back memories of 9/11, when trent and i were leaders at the time.

just extraordinarily nightmarish circumstances that we hope we never see again. host: as far as the security measures leader lotl spoke about, -- lead a lott spoke about, would you go further? guest: i must say, i look back -- in 1968, i was a college student and i came to washington, d.c. for the first time. walking into the u.s. capitol building, you could not find a security guard anywhere. there was nothing. i walked all around and i was in awe. it was like that happened yesterday. i lament the fact that it has become so much more secure in its nature and the environment around it. it is necessary. i remember the senator from arkansas lamenting 25 years ago

how much security had increased since he had come to the senate. that has gone way beyond that now. i don't know what the solution is. i agree with trent. we can't ever allow this to happen again. i would hope it -- it is a metaphor for politics and democracy in america. the more we enclose it and restrict it, that symbolism is one that concerns me a great deal. security has to be a high priority. host: leader lott? guest: i agree with that. when i was in the house and the senate, i worked with the leaders on the security. we improved it some. our policeman at that time had a pistol. we had our policeman on the steps of the u.s. capitol. we did some other things in case

there was a chemical attack. we spent some time, i wanted to put bulletproof glass around the gallery to keep people from jumping out of the gallery. we had that happen a few times. like tom, i loved it when i first went there and you could walk around. i love giving the tours. the book the lost symbol was a great book. it was special just to be able to go in. but, these are different times. people know too much. people right now seem to be just angry. we got social media. i think the leaders need to take a serious look at how to secure the u.s. capitol without shutting it down to the american people. host: as far as different times, i will get your thoughts before we take calls on president biden.

-- guest: i'm hopeful. when president biden talked about unity, i like that. they are struggling with how to do a covid package. make sure it gets to the people who need the help, the small businesses and so forth. i worked with senator biden on a number of issues, including the crime bill, the iraq situation. we did bipartisan deals. i think he has a good relationship with senator schumer and senator mcconnell. biden was referred to as the mcconnell whisperer. they came up with a budget agreement, the two of them that lasted for about four years.

i'm hopeful. but, he will have pressure from his progressives and he has some moderates in the senate that could swing the vote when it is 50-50. one senator switches positions and you have a different result. i'm hopeful for president biden. my attitude is look, i worked with democrats and republicans. i worked closely with bill clinton. we got a lot of good things done. i worked with george w. bush. the people have voted. joe biden is our breast and. we should be supportive when we can and help him when we can. host: leader daschle? guest: trent has enjoyed a remarkable relationship with people in my caucus the entire time he was leader, for one reason. he was inclusive. that word was -- is so important. inclusion. when i was elected leader, i got elected by one vote in 1994.

i had a tenuous bowl. joe biden called me and said i want to talk to you about something. he came over and said i realize that you probably only got one chairman vote in the caucus. he said that has to change. and i'd like to help you do that. once you -- why don't you invite all of us to lunch wednesday, that is the chairman or ranking members as it was at that time. and listen to us and hear us out and it could make a difference. two years later, one of the chairman, robert byrd, nominated me for reelection, in large measure because i took joe biden's advice. i would urge him to follow that advice that he gave me. invite the leaders down to the white house once a week. invite members of both sides

down frequently, both from the house and the senate. invite the leaders to camp david. talk about things you want to do for the coming year and announce it. those inclusive measures of a long way to create the bipartisanship. trent heard me say in a thousand times, the best way to persuade is with your ears. if he starts listening, i think you will start persuading. >> there was a lot of discussion on what should and should not be taught in schools. in may, former republican governor of indiana, mitch daniels, and now president of purdue university, explained why his institution would require a civics class for undergraduates. guest: it is hardly a new idea. for decades now, people across the political spectrum have noted and lamented the biz more -- abysmal lack of understanding of our free institutions, usually in young people. these days, it is across the

whole population. some of the data would be comical if it were not so alarming. only one quarter of american adults can name the three branches of government. 50% know how long a senator or congressman is there, is elected for. almost two thirds believe a defendant can be compelled to testify against himself or herself, that sort of thing. ideally, this would have been solved before a student gets to college. today's college students measurably no less about our history and civics traditions than high school graduates did in 1950. the k-12 system is not delivering for the country. at a public university like ours, we feel like we have the ability to do so. host: this is not a purdue or an

indiana problem, it is a nationwide problem. what do you hope and what do you expect students will get out of the program? and will they get a great coming out of this requirement? -- grade coming out of this requirement? guest: it will be a grade but it will be a requirement for graduation. they can fulfill it with low burden at purdue and they will get a certification. they will be civics certified. they understand at least the rudiments of their rights and their responsibilities in a free society. we just think that this, first of all, again, is a responsibility we have at a public university. we should not send people if they are not prepared to be a participating and informed

citizen of a free country. secondly, i regret to say it gives them a slight advantage over some of their peers that they are not part of this sad phenomenon of ignorance. host: when you say the word civics in terms of the parameters of what we are talking about for viewers and listeners, what is that range of topics that literacy will cover at purdue? guest: it is an important question. it should not suffice simply to know the facts. that is where it has to start. the facts of american history, the fact that this country has represented the steady progress of freedom in the past and present. it should not be limited to simply understanding the mechanics of our system, the three branches of government and their roles.

the y is just as important. why were there three branches of government? what is separation of power supposed to accomplish? why are the towers mentioned in the constitution -- are the powers mentioned in the constitution enumerated? not handed down by a monarchal government? not just federalism and the fact that there are 50 states and they have their own goal, but why? why is that? and what does it do to protect our freedom and diversity of the values in the country? that is what we hope will come from it. not simply a factual understanding, which has to be the starting point. but also some semblance of how this system operates in their favor to protect their personal

dignity and their chance to have a successful life on a basis that they determine and it is not dictated to them by a higher power. host: our guest is mitch daniels, talking about the political university civics program being introduced at purdue this year. the headline from the exponent from the purdue student paper, purdue plans to require a civics literacy exam. it is optional for current students. voted on by your board of trustees on june 10. i understand, governor daniels, that it was rejected by the faculty senate. what was the pushback? guest: timing, i think. some discussion about how it ought to be put together. there are three pathways a student can choose among. this has lots and lots of input.

the senate reflects one point of view but it is hardly the only one. so, some of their concerns were taken fully into account. the board of trustees believes that this is a responsibility they have any public university. having heard all the pros and cons, they decided to go forward. host: c-span has been involved in the civics literacy issue with high schoolers. with the annual cram for the exam. we bring in teachers to help prep students for the ap government courses and tests. we did that a week ago or so on this program. as you look at it, the students that come into purdue, are they prepared for those types of classics? those civics classes, do they give them a leg up? guest: better than their peers

because we have measured this. our students do substantially better than their contemporaries across the country. it is not good enough. 100% of our graduates should know the fundamentals of our system. i have to say that there is scarcely an institution i can think of that has done more to help americans understand their system of government than c-span. you will permit me to take a little pride that it was founded by a purdue alum, our school of communications is named for your founder. we house the c-span archives here. a tool that any citizen can access. i'm tempted to say that if every american watched a little c-span once in a while, we would not

need courses like this. we would not see distressing data about -- that we do annually about the lack of understanding and knowledge of -- that americans have. host: the podcast associated with this program are being produced at the c-span scholarship and engagement center at purdue university. at the brian lamb school of commune occasions, correct? guest: that's right. i said there were three pathways. one is to take a course in history and civics. a one semester course. an alternative is to attend at least six events and we will designate the ones that count. the third, however, is to go through a series of a dozen podcasts put together by our c-span archives friends. they are quite excellent and

available to the general public. followed by a passing of a fairly straightforward exam. c-span, we have taken advantage of the wonderful asset relationship we have and incorporated it into the civics proficiency process. host: there are math and english requirements. do you know of any other college or university that has introduced a civics requirement? guest: no. but, i think it is a coming phenomenon. we do see state legislatures getting into motion to require it at their public schools and universities. perhaps, at long last, we are going to see some vigorous action on this. i remember justice o'connor,

almost as soon as she left the supreme court, began an organization to deal with this. president obama spoke about it eloquently. i think we will see some action. host: in june, c-span released a historian survey of presidential leadership. we are joined by our advisors on that survey to hear their analysis of the results. we begin with douglas brinkley on how the survey was conducted. guest: c-span has put together a group, all of us that are on the air today are advisors to it, on how to actually rank these presidents. we want to make sure people realize this is not a scientific ranking. the purpose of it is to be fun and enlightening and stoke conversation around the nation about various presidents. what we really did is not just one ranking.

we are breaking them up into categories. a president will be judged on his foreign policy making for race relations or on the environment. on public persuasion. media relations, you get the idea. it is broken up into numerous categories. you go on a one to 10 scale in each of those categories. we add them all up. and there is the list. the key ingredients are the historians and scholars. there are only a few of us on air. the top biographers and academic historians and journalists who wrote important biographies, they are all part of this survey. we try to get around 150 people answering the surveys. we are proud every four years of this list. we can quibble over somebody we think should be ranked higher or lower but there is something

sustainable going on. every time, every four years, lincoln holds the number one spot, followed by george washington. then, franklin d roosevelt and theodore roosevelt. those are the big four. after that, we start getting presidents influx with their reputations going up or down and the fact that to dwight d. eisenhower has been able to corral the fifth spot is interesting. there was this talk about and eisenhower memorial on the mall. he had two terms and could have won a third. he got us out of the korean war. he avoided another war. the only time he used government troops was going into little rock on a civil-rights endeavor. he created nasa, the st. lawrence seaway, the interstate highway system.

he was moral, not a lot of corruption in the eisenhower years. i could go on. you could see the rise of somebody like dwight eisenhower, who not that many moons ago, was ranked in the middle. people thought he did not do much as president. now, with the archives open, we can see he was a hands-on president and not a hands-off one. the rise of eisenhower, i found particularly interesting. he is now one of the american greats in the poll before. host: you went through the top five. round out the top 10, in sixth place is truman, seventh is jefferson, eight, kennedy. ninth, reagan. the 10th spot is barack obama, joining the top 10 this year. of interest, president trump comes in at 41st overall in this year's ranking. the first year he is part of this historian survey of

presidential leadership. plenty of time to dive more into those results. why do this? is it helpful, historically, to do this and compare these presidents over so many years? guest: absolutely. it is always important to talk about what is happening, in terms of government leadership. it is important to look at them over a period of time. historians like to view history from afar. we don't like to look at current events so much. if you look at the ranking of these presidents over a period of time, to get a better appreciation for how they doing in terms of the country's memory of them or how the country views them over time. so, you are going to see these kinds of changes in rankings, because of the passage of time. and because each generation

makes -- comes to its own conclusions about how successful these men and hopefully someday women have been in their role as leader of the country. host: this is a c-span's ranking . a ranking of 142 historians. how do we select those historians? who gets to be part of the survey? guest: that's a good question. there has been a concerted, and i would argue successful, effort since we began this back in 2000 to enlarge and diversify if you will. there were 58 participants in the original survey. 141 this time around. that is up about 50% from four years ago. that did not just happen. there is a deliberate effort on

the part of the survey organizers to diversify. find more women. more people of color. and more conservatives. because -- 20 years ago, historians, academic historians and political scientists tend to vote left. even more than that, if you look at -- talking about the stability, the stability is the first thing that jumps out at you. not only at the top of the list but after bottom of the list. the same three post-civil war presidents who were deemed almost universally to have failed, they are where they were 20 years ago and where they have been in every single one of these surveys. in between, it is fascinating. if you look at where the

movement is, it is not at the top or the bottom of the list. it is in between. i'm sure we will talk about this later. if you look at someone like andrew jackson, who in the 20th century, was routinely considered one of the seven or eight most important and successful presidents, if you look at where he is in our rankings, he is down to 22nd. the fact that ulysses grant, who was traditionally seen as a scandal tinged and reconstruction era failure, the fact that grant has surpassed jackson in the overall rankings is really revealing about the different criteria that are being applied 20 years on. and of course, to some degree, those who are doing the voting. host: andrew jackson, as the

viewers saw, was ranked 13th in 2017. 22 this year. ulysses s grant, up from 33 to 13. that is the deep dive and the results we will do. this is your first survey that you have been on this advisory team to help run the survey. what was your impression of the survey in years past and in the previous three surveys? what surprised you about being on it this year? guest: thank you. i'm honored to be here. the survey always impressed me because you, we included not only star academics, but historians in the field who might not be phd professors. so, we are glad. there is no snobbery at c-span,

which has always been one of its strengths. that is, you look for people who work first. that is why you get such a sound pole. i was glad to see new diversity in the poll. the poles looked more like younger america -- polls looked more like younger america. host: this is the first time donald trump was in the survey. president trump came in at 41st. he had his highest rankings in the area of public persuasion and economic management. his lowest rankings were in the areas of moral authority and administrative skills. your reaction to the 41st debut? guest: the poll gets harder to do the closer we get to the presidency.

you have to ask yourself, worthy historians as subjective, answering would they vote for trump next time or were they ranking him? it is very hard to rank recent people. look at the recent jump up of president george w. bush. that is one of those factors in the poll, when you see president bush number 43, you had to change lenses when someone moves from being a live figure to history. president trump deserves a higher rank, personally, i think for economic history and history will bear me out on that. you see jackson going down. president trump is more like andrew jackson. more of a cowboy. cowboys did not do well in

american opinion in this pole. host: on preston trump's 41st ranking, i want to get -- president trump's 41st ranking, i want to get your reaction. public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills and relations with congress, vision setting and agenda, pursuing equal justice for all and their performance within the context of the times, do we get any further definition of what that should mean as historians make their rankings? guest: one of the problems is it is always best to have 25 years until you wait to judge a president. that is when the national archives released documents through the freedom of information act. you will tend to see after 25

years, we will have a few of the trump -- a view of the trump presidency that might be different than what we have now. it might be better and it might be worse. we don't do that. we included william henry harrison, who was president for a month. that creates a line in the sand of itself. do you want to be below the president who was in the white house for one month and died of pneumonia? that is where president finds himself. that means you are doing a negative job as president. that means you did not help the republic forge forward. i thought president trump would fight for the worst spot with james buchanan, who was in her and inactive -- inert and inactive in trying to reverse the civil war. trump has a chance to move upward, as we heard. his chances would be a

reelection. he would be a two-term president that led a revolt in the united states. his future is still wide open. maybe down the line, he will rise for other reasons. when people look at the program to get our vaccines so quickly distributed during the covid crisis. george w. bush was very low and people assumed he would stay low because of the great recession and because of the iraq war, which was unpopular, because of what some people saw was a speck on foreign policy and he is rising. because of time. he scores well on things like moral authority and a decency

factor. this past year, bill clinton and richard nixon fell from spots. you have to say why, i think because watergate was in the news so frequently. because the monica lewinsky affair was being talked about during the double impeachment of trump. and the little spiel by saying nancy pelosi said during the impeachments of trump, many democrats said we are going to taint tom in -- trump in history. we may not remove him from office but there will be a dent in his armor. when you have a double impeachment of a president, it is hard to see why people will be looking at that as being successful in uniting the nation .

>> cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet. cox, bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection of c-span apparel, books and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit organization. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org.

>> sunday night on cue and day, george weigle talks about some of the people he profiles in not forgotten. his book of reminiscences. >> henry, scoop jackson and sargent shriver, lindy boggs, a longtime member of congress, these were people who went into public life and public service to get things done. and some of them were sparkling speakers and whips like henry. some of them were norwegians like scoop jackson. some of them were utter charmers like lindy boggs. but they were all people who wanted to achieve things, not so much for themselves, but for their country, their constituents and for the common good. >> george weigle, sunday night

at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q and a. >> sunday, january 2, allen joins us live to talk about the early intellectual history of the united states. the civil war, and the reconstruction era. his book titles include redeeming the great emancipator, gettysburg and robert e. lee, alive, a biography of the confederate general in the civil war. sunday, january 2 on in-depth on book tv. >> at least six presidents reported conversations -- recorded conversations while in

office. here the conversations on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear the 1964 civil rights act, the march on selma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries new, because they were tasked with transcribing many of the conversations. they made sure the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to then through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will hear some blunt talk. >> yes sir. >> i want a report of the number of people that signed to kennedy on the day he died. >> presidential recordings, find

on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> both the house and senate have adjourned for the holiday recess and will return in early january for the start of the second session of the 117th congress. upon its return, the senate will take up the president's climate and social spending plan, known as build back better. despite joe manchin announcing his opposition to the bill, senate democratic leadership hopes to take up voting rights legislation that may require changing filibuster rules. there is a february 18 deadline for most -- both chambers of congress to pass spending legislation to avoid a government shutdown. watch this on the c-span networks or watch our full coverage on c-span now, our new mobile video app. also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to

stream video live or on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> each night this week on c-span3, we future -- future american history tv programs as a preview of what is available on c-span2. monday, it is oral histories from american war veterans who served in world war ii and the korean and vietnam wars. more stories from patty justice, who treated the wounded while serving in afghanistan. later, former senator bob dole, who passed away earlier this month at age 98, speaks about his life and political career. enjoy american history tv, beginning monday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3 and every saturday on c-span2.

>> the national disability institute is the first national nonprofit disability that works exclusively in issues of economic equality for people with disabilities. in the last 15 years we worked on research to relay increased opportunities for people with diabetes -- disabilities. host: tell us about your journey as a disability rights advocate. guest: particularly around economic empowerment, i was fortunate enough to have -- and i fell in love with it. as a person who is blind, i figure my economic future would be based on economic decisions that i made. for the last 30 years i have

been fortunate enough to work in and around economic empowerment for folks with his abilities and they were the complex drivers of economic inequality and trying to address them through research, policy and partnerships. host: have any people do you work with? are you a national organization or are you based in washington dc? guest: 15 of us are in the washington, d.c. office and others spread across the country impacting from the seat to alaska to colorado and california.

host: i want to show you what george h w bush said. >> we are keeping safe with our courageous forefathers who wrote in the declaration of independence, we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. these records -- words event our guide for two centuries to form a more perfect union, but tragically for too many americans the blessings of liberty have been limited or even denied and the civil rights act of 1964 took a bold step toward writing that wrong but the fact remained that people with disabilities were still victims of segregation and discrimination and this was intolerable. today's legislation brings us closer to that date when no

americans will ever again be deprived of their a sick guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [applause] this act is powerful in its placidity. it will ensure that people with disabilities are given the basic guarantees for which they have worked so long and so hard, independence, freedom of choice, control of their lives, the opportunity to be into the rich mosaic of the american mainstream and legally it will provide our disabled community with a powerful expansion of protections and basic civil rights. it will guarantee fair and just access to the fruits of american life which we all must be able to enjoy.

host: what made the americans with disabilities act so significant both legally and socially? guest: thank you for that. it is a great reminder. it was a moment in time where people with disabilities were recognized as the president said of being part of the society and having the same rights and opportunities as everyone else, to be able to pursue independent living, live in the community, to be self-sufficient, we are not -- were not only words used but promises made to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to be successful, to work and to build an economic future for themselves and their family. host: i want to take our audience -- i want to remind our audience to take part we will

open up special lines. that means for those of you out there, people with disabilities, and not just people with disabilities, families and caretakers. we want to hear from you this morning. for people with disabilities, we will open up a special line, (202) 748-8000. for people with disabilities and their families, we want to hear from you this morning at (202) 748-8000. everyone else, align for you as well, it will be (202) 748-8001. for everyone else (202) 748-8001 . keep in mind you can always text us at (202) 748-8003 and we are always reading on social media at @cspanwj. tom, heather been advancements

for people with disabilities since the law was passed and has technology been able to help in anyway? absolutely -- guest: absolutely. from just the civil rights legislation from this becoming an incredible issue we talk about in our communities. and clearly technology has played a role as well. as a blind guy logging in on zoom, i was able to join you and from that economic development standpoint, what i use every day allows me to do things around banking and investing and saving money that i couldn't have imagined 30 years ago when the ada was first signed into law. a lot has changed over the last 31 years but an awful lot of

economic and societal barriers that we still need to continue to address. host: want to read two pieces of the americans with disabilities act and then i want to get into those barriers you just talked about. the ada prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation and all private places open to the general public. it also guarantees equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities and public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services, and telecommunications. you just brought this up. given that the ada is in existence, what barriers remain for people with disabilities? guest: that's a great question.

we work on issues of economic equality and inclusion. according to the bureau of labor statistics in 2020, folks with disabilities were employed at a rate of 18% versus 61% for the rest of the population. when we look at the percentage of people who live below the poverty line, 26% of people with disabilities are below the poverty line versus 11% on average in the united states. i think this really catches it for people with disabilities across all groups, average net worth is $14,000. for people without a disability, it is nearly $84,000. even beyond that, if someone is african-american who is living with a disability, there that

-- their net worth is only $1221. we see not only a differentiation between disability and people without disability, but even within disability, that intersection of race and disability is an economic outcome that we need to address. host: i want to put those statistics up on the screen for our audience. you were just saying, and i want you to talk about this, that that 26%, one fourth of people with a disability live below the poverty line. that compares with 11% of people, a little more than one in 10, people that a disability -- people without a disability live below the poverty line.

having a disability seems to make you more likely to live below the poverty line in the united states. why? guest: there are a number of reasons for it. some are societal, some are around opportunity. let me just cover one thing. if someone is on federal benefits, such as ssi and medicaid, there is a $2000 asset limit for them. if a person gets a job and is trying to save money, the moment they save more than $2000, they can lose their ssi linked -- ssi or ssi linked medicaid. that is just a huge disincentive. assets and income limits are a disincentive to saving. it's a disincentive to work and a disincentive for hope. host: you brought up a second statistic. the average household wealth for

, a working age person with a disability, the average household wealth is $14,180. for that same working age person if they did not have a disability, that wealth would be $83,985. what do you think the government should be doing to address this huge income and wealth gap? guest: there are a number of policies that can be taken into consideration. one of which we are excited about is the beginning to address the asset limit i just talked about. by 2014, we passed a law called the "achieving a better life experience," which creates an able account. these are tax advantage accounts for people with disability that don't affect one's federal

benefits. for example you can save , $100,000 and not lose your assets. we have seen how these accounts can be transformational in the lives of people with disabilities. folks can buy a house, start a small business. they had some savings set aside for an economic downturn. it helps them stay more financially secure. even during the pandemic, employment for people with disabilities would hit harder than any other group. if you have a few thousand dollars in savings, you are going to be able to go through those periods of economic and employment downturns more comfortably. the think about able account is the disability onset has to be before age 26. if someone becomes disabled at

age 27 or later, in an accident or an illness or veteran is injured, they are not eligible for those special counts. -- special able savings accounts. host: even as vaccines for covid-19 became widely available the economic impact endured. , among the most hard-hit were women. the christian science monitor broadcast explored that issue. the host of the podcast joined us to talk about how what they found and how their show found its focus. guest: it became pretty clear that the pandemic was having a disproportionate impact on women, especially women in the workforce. we felt it was a story we couldn't ignore. we wanted to focus on women specifically. the monitor has tried to push forward our audio storytelling.

this felt like the story that would benefit from hearing voices, putting them in people's ears. that was the beginning of this podcast. we started reporting it in early 2021. we expect -- spent a few months putting the project together. host: the pandemic has affected everyone. what made you decide to focus on women? guest: when you look at the job numbers, it was striking to see how many women were forced to drop out of the labor force. at the beginning of 2020, we were celebrating huge gains for the first time, 50% of the labor force was women. the pandemic hit a few months after that. in some ways, we lost a generation of progress. by 2021, 11 million women dropped out of the workforce.

i think those numbers were so striking. we wanted to focus on not just why that was happening. the headlines focused on the numbers and a lot on the dramatic losses and how quickly we saw them. we wanted to focus on women to put a face to those numbers. we wanted to get to know these women, find a diverse group of women that could represent a lot of experiences. we felt that focusing on their stories would help people understand not just the statistics behind what's happening, but the individual people who are being affected by the pandemic. host: how do you find people to focus on for this? how do you make your choice of talking to this person as opposed to that one. what were your goals here? guest: one of the things we

wanted to focus on was a variety of women from a variety of different industries, places in life, age. we wanted to make sure that we were intentional about giving voice to a diverse set of women. that was one thing we kept in mind. we looked at the numbers. we looked at industries were most affected. we found that leisure and hospitality, which includes the performance arts, service workers, which includes the performing arts, they were a big part of that. combining all of those different factors and trying to find women who could speak to the experiences of other women who were working in those sectors, we wanted to make sure that we got women of different ages,

mothers, different socioeconomic statuses, we wanted to give voice to as many as possible and authentic as possible. host: she is part of a wider project at christian science monitor. it focuses around resilience. tell us what that focuses about. guest: when you look at news coverage of challenging events, the pandemic, this is an unprecedented challenge across the world. it can be easy to focus on the challenges and barriers that are happening. especially in stronger, when you talk to people about the challenges they are facing it, that is a big part of the story. women opened up about how difficult the past year has been.

at the same time, these women really leaned into the ways they felt the year had help them grow. how the year his brought their families closer together. we felt that resilience was important. not just for these individual women, but for us as a country. stronger actually, once we publish the series, the monitor decided to start an effort around resilience. we have a new series called finding resilience. it focuses on doors around the world where resilience is shining through in a way that is important to the biggest challenges at this time. host: jessica , the podcast focuses on six women and they are in las vegas. out of everywhere in the country, why las vegas? it's a great vacation town. guest: that's the question we get asked the most.

we wanted to find the city that was really affected by the pandemic. las vegas because of its reliance on tourism, gaming, it really felt the effects of the pandemic. in february, 2020, the unemployment rate in nevada was pretty average for the country. by april of that year, it was something like 28% or 30%, the highest in the country at the time. we wanted to capture what that was like for the people that were there. it's easy to imagine las vegas as the casinos and the strip. a lot of the income trickles out to the other industries and people who live in las vegas. a lot of those folks feel it when the rest of the city or the casinos are affected in that

way. that's why we wound up focusing on las vegas. one of the people we spoke to, the nurse worked for the county hospital. went we were talking to her, she mentioned how shocking it was for the city to see those casino doors close and see them closed as long as they were. her work was affected. she could feel the effects of the resources, the drain on the resources when there aren't tourists coming in. we felt that was a good way to capture those stories from the pandemic. host: you focused significantly on las vegas. i want when out that cnbc reported that that of the 235,000 jobs added recently, only 11.9% went to women.

that marks a sharp decline in job growth since july. there is also a concerning number of decline in women seeking employment. it went from 57 point 4% to 57.5% in july and has not dropped this low since 1988. we are seeing the pandemic have a huge effect on women. when you talk to the women for your podcast, you talk to women in different industries, different ages and races, what was the commonality of what you heard from them about how the pandemic affected them? guest: one huge thing across the board regardless of how old you were was the level of multitasking and pressure women faced. for many of these women who did lose their jobs, they wanted to be working. the stress of that, wanting to

work and you can't, was challenging. they are hustling trying to make it work and all these different ways. then you have the women who are working because they have to. it's not a choice, even if it puts their family at risk. in the news we've talked a lot about the caregiving crisis of women who have always been predominantly the ones at home providing care now they have to , do that on top of trying to support their families financially. whether that's having young children at home, if that's through remote learning or having older relatives that were more at risk and needed more care at home while trying to work. the nurse we interviewed, her story showed the pressure that women are facing when they tried to do it all.

sometimes you think about women's work as being extra. in her case, they are the primary breadwinners of their families. they don't have the choice to step out. i think they did a great job of highlighting the pressure in the multitasking of trying to do it all. host: thank you for that perfect segue. i want to bring part of your interview. she was a frontline health care worker and a mother who became the primary breadwinner for her family during the pandemic. host: thank you for that perfect segue. i want to bring it all to you. she became the primary breadwinner for her family during the pandemic. here is a portion of that interview. >> she just quit her part-time job at a private hospital. it felt like the right decision. a couple of weeks after she quit, her husband injured his

right hand, his dominant hand, at work. leo is a carpenter. the injury was bad enough that he could not use his hand. he couldn't do much at home or work. not only was that an unexpected pay cut for the family, she suddenly had to run the household alone. >> i felt a lot of responsibility. i was the one bringing money into the house. >> this was our last zoom conversation. >> he was getting unemployment, it wasn't the same. it was very stressful. he was already stressed out. i felt that i had to release the stress in the household. >> did you ever regret quitting the other job? >> i look at the glass as half full.

i always try to look at the positive. i looked at it that it was meant to be. i was supposed to quit so i could take care of my husband home. host: jessica, was that experience, and among the women that you talk to, juggling everything going on in their lives? guest: we spoke to six women. their experiences really varied. i think sam did a good job talking about the commonalities among them. being the breadwinner was something she had already been doing. she and her husband were both working prior to the pandemic. i think for her, it was this factor coming together. coalescing to create this really stressful situation. listening to her talk, it was inspiring. you could see how determined she was.

i think that was something we saw in all the women regardless of what they were facing. host: some is that there are over 2 million podcasts. in october, we talked to podcast posts. -- podcast posts. -- podcast hosts. they told us about the stories they gather on going for broke. guest: as a group with the economic hardship reporting project, we looked at a lot of the journalism going on about america's economic challenges. the economic challenges of everyday americans. there is not a lot of good coverage where people who are struggling with the current situation get to talk about themselves and their own lives. they get talked about. they get analyzed observed. -- analyzed and observed. they rarely get the privilege of self-definition. going for broke looks at some of the really severe downward mobility that workers have

experienced. it gives them the chance to explain to an audience what that's like, what it involves, trying to make ends meet, trying to make three weeks worth of money last until the end of the month. the economic hardship reporting project i will let alyssa , explain more about it. it had a pool of wonderful storytellers able to tell evocative, finally observed -- finely observed stories about what it's been like getting through pandemic times. host: i will let you take it up from there. tell us more about it. guest: the economic hardship reporting project started in 2012 with the great riot and she decided she did not want only the rich to write about poverty. she started this organization to

let people who are middle-class and working-class report and tell their own stories. we have supported hundreds, over 1000 writers and photographers to write about income inequality. up and down from the riches to the poorest -- richest to the poorest. i was realizing in these years of running the organization, we had these amazing stories. that's why i decided to do going for broke. i want to hear with the grocery store worker while her colleagues are chasing shoplifters in the store, what it's like in that store. i want to hear the story of the person being evicted. host: i will follow-up with that. how do you find these people to talk to? how to get people to tell them your stories? -- how do you get people to tell

you their stories? guest: you can write to us. that's our address. you can send in pictures. we also have people from twitter storms. tweets where i look at the veterans of tweeters and look for really good writers on there. blog things, who is writing about income inequality firsthand. there is a ton of layoffs. unfortunately, there is no shortage. hedge funds are buying up newspapers, trying to turn more than 20% profit. they have laid off their experienced reporters in different parts of the country. some of those people come to us. host: jessica, being a reporter

yourself, you are on one side of the microphone. on this, you are one of the stories. guest: that was not the easiest thing in the world to do. for a long time, the capital i key is not one you use. i had experienced lengthy unemployment. also challenges with my health and the confluence of those created some hard times. i had to come from behind the remove that reporters were cap -- reporters work at, the arms length, and talk about my own life. i think it's a good episode. alyssa had to work on me a little bit. host: you made that decision, did you do it willingly? were you hesitant in that idea? guest: i had to think about it. it didn't come naturally to me. i think there are so many late in career workers, in their 50's and early 60's who are

experiencing the downdraft of the labor market. things get really tough for men, the data tell a very discouraging story. there you are trying to prepare for retirement take care of the , obligations that remain, incomes decline, tenure and jobs declines. you are cycling through jobs more quickly and it takes you longer in your 60's to find the next one. i didn't tell my own story so much as tell it from the vantage point of a man in that time of life and what we are all experiencing. host: the common themes that run through the stories, what would you say they are? guest: i think the common themes are people blame themselves for the condition they found themselves in. we have a society that is very unforgiving for people who have

economic struggles. i see a lot of self blame in people who tell their stories. i see a lot of little things that could be done differently. we have a contributor whose mother couldn't afford hearing aids on medicare. being this is common in a lot of different programs. a lot of insurance doesn't cover. aids. that little fix would make a huge difference. she couldn't communicate with her mother during covid. when you lived closer to the ground, you have your finger on the pulse of these experiences. that's part of what we are trying to capture. how do we capture that struggle and get it out? we copublished that with the washington post. i just saw that policy and hearing aids is beginning to change. host: mr. florez, same rushing to you. guest: the stories that emerge

from our chapters tried to give us a fleshed out look at what's going on among workers facing headwinds at this time. one of our writers became homeless and tells a story about the difficulties of getting a good night's sleep and how that works against you trying to get free housed. one person put themselves through college with hopes of making a career in colleges and universities as an instructor. the academic market exploded and fell apart after the 2008 recession. now that person works behind the register at a supermarket. one of air contributors was a star reporter for one of america's great old newspapers, the san francisco chronicle. they ended up having to drive uber and do other jobs after the downdrafts.

the mass layoffs in american newspapers caught him, even though he was a veteran member of his staff. the stories are as individual as a thumbprint, but talk about broad streams of what's going on in the workforce and some of the challenges workers face. host: when it comes to the format of the program is it , straight interview? how does it work? how do you put these stories together? guest: it's a mixture. atmospherics, we visit washington heights in the northwest side of manhattan with the daughter of dominican immigrants. she talks about where she grew up. it's a chapter on administrative burden, how the challenges for people who are not english proficient have to fall somewhere. she became a social worker as her parents tried to get benefits during the pandemic.

one of our chapters talks about how difficult it is to go to the bathroom when you are living on the street. some of the stratification's and layers that show up when challenges come up. there is serious policy and a -- in a lot of them. we go to the world these workers inhabit. we talked to experts who can talk about how we could redesign some of these challenges and make these lives a little better. some of the problems that exist in the design of where homeless people sleep and how paradoxically it works against them getting re-housed. some really meaty policy questions in there but also moving stories and some serious

writing about what they are up against, the challenges they live with. host: i should also add that the nation magazine is also a to -- also a participant in this project. guest: they are our partner. host: this is frank in west virginia. thanks for calling. go ahead with your question. caller: on this infrastructure, why don't they let the people vote on it? in north carolina and virginia, their buildings down there that are abandoned that used to be clothing factories and things we made here in the united states. the congress goes in there and they vote on whatever they want. they don't ask the people what

they want or what they need. host: that is frank in west virginia. as the producer of these programs, one theme is i had a job in that industry went away. guest: that's the story we hear over and over again. just because things went away doesn't mean there isn't hope. we do have stories of people who have found second and third chapters. they are not as exalted as their earlier time in their life, but they are back on their feet. we see that again and again. these massive transitions have changed their lives. one of the subject of the show, i called him the forced gum of the weird american experience because he was a different places from being a war correspondent and then laid off to be an uber driver to working in a strip club. these are the cycles people are

going through. they are not staying with one job for their entire careers. host: in this case, this happened directly to you. guest: i've had to reinvent myself. i am now self-employed. a lot of the places that reached out to me after my last employer went belly up, declared bankrupt, went out of business and paid off all of his workers they just stopped calling back. , they ghosted me. they acted as if they'd never spoken to me in the first place. it happens. i make a living. i do ok. i have had to reinvent the way i work and who i work for. those mills he's talking about, it wouldn't just be a question of walking in and bringing her -- bringing in a workforce and turning on the lights and going back to work. the equipment was dismantled and shipped to other places where they are making t-shirts and toys and other things. it would take some time to

readjust the last 40 years of reengineering the american economy to get them back in places like north carolina. host: monica from kentucky who is unemployed. go ahead. caller: i'm in a different situation. i have no job. i have an adult child living at home with a grandchild because the economy is in the toilet. i spent the last 3.5 years living in another state taking care of my grandson while my son served in the military. it's really bit me. the financial situation, we are struggling. everybody says now hiring, now hiring, but there are low wages

despite everybody saying come work for us, we will pay you more. that's not the reality we see here. it's really tough. trying to reinvent yourself when you don't have the money, you don't have boot to poll on -- p ull on. host: your response. guest: childcare in the united states is a crisis. if people are reluctant to go back to the workforce, or if the numbers don't work when you write down what you are going to make for a day versus what you're going to spend on your -- on getting your kids taking care of, what's the incentive to go back to work? some people mocked the idea that childcare was in an infrastructure bill when the first version rolled out. it is a crisis. affordable childcare is

distorting the economy. -- affordable childcare, the lack of it, is distorting the economy. it is distorting the desire to go back to work. it is a big problem we are not supporting. it's a big problem. guest: i found when i was reporting. my last book, middle-class life the cost had increased by 30%. with childcare in particular, we have a non-system. the caller has other concerns they are responsible for as well. that is part of why i think these childcare payments should be made permanent. a care oriented universal income to help people care for disabled loved ones or the elderly. right now, i think what we see, even if this doesn't get

through, the bill that is of -- is so stymied, the overton window has opened. there is a window where people will not lie back and say paid family leave is an impossibility, childcare is an impossibility. that's been accomplished in the last year or so. it's a recognition that we need these things as citizens. i think the caller, kudos to her for doing this. host: critical race theory was one of the hotly debated issues. it became a flashpoint in the virginia governor's race. we explored the issue with a fellow and a studies director. guest: trickle race there has been around for a while, since about the 1960's in that specific language and it comes

out of legal study. some of the tenants of critical race theory are that we can and we should look at racism as normal in the united states. it points to property issues and property rights. also, looking at the way a counter story can and should be used to combat racist norms or ideologies in all fields. it started in legal studies and has been adopted to all disciplines. to me in education, one of my favorites is -- in 1996 and it is a title that you can google. it's available in quite a few places. and what that article does and

critical race theory in education helps us understand some of the inequities that exist and ways to combat them. the way i think of critical race theory and why it matters is it gives us a framework to better understand what exists, ways to analyze current situations. host: on critical race theory in education nearly one dozen , states are looking to ban the teaching of critical race theory in schools. why is this controversial? guest: thank you for having me on. for the purpose of this conversation, i'm coming from the perspective of a tactician. -- perspective of a practitioner. for the last decade, iran charter, elementary and middle schools in the heart of the south bronx, almost exclusively low income kids, almost 2000 students and 5000 on a waitlist.

it very much comes from not looking at critical race theory as just a theory, but how it plays out in the schools. a number of states are going after it. in preparation for this conversation, i looked at the data. one thing we can agree on is we -- is that critical race. tells us to look at america through the prism of racial oppression, white supremacy, white dominance. if you look at the national assessment for educational progress, the most recent assessment in 2019, the test is english, language arts, reading, math, and the test is always given at the fourth grade eighth , grade, 12th grade. only a little over one third of all students in the country scored proficient in reading.

when broken down by race, fourth grade, eighth grade, 12th grade, there were 3.7 5 million or 4 million white students who could not read at a proficiency level. there were 1.4 million black students who could not read at proficiency levels. yet there are more white students in the population overall. the number of white students not reading at proficiency dwarfs that of black students not reading. critical race theory has it that any racial disparity must be due to systemic racism and it is unlikely that systemic racism is the reason that nearly 4 million white grade students are not reading at level. what we have to realize is our country is in the midst of a decades long literacy crisis.

they are due to in school and out of school factors. lack of content rich curriculum, increasing instability in families, lack of access to choice to a high-quality schools, lack of teachers who can effectively teach reading. my concern is that critical race theory is becoming a massive distraction to what the core issue is for kids of all races. i think leaders and states are trying to stop the spread of critical race theory, but we really have to hone in on the fact that only one third of all of our kids are not reading at grade level. there are massive numbers of white kids that are not reading at level that dwarf black kids. host: i got the sense that you wanted to respond to some of that. so go ahead. guest: thank you.

i think that critical race theory can help us better understand why there are more -- why white children aren't able to read in the way this test assess. critical race theory helps us to pinpoint race, also in the ways in education, it also can look at interlocking systems of oppression. all of those things work together in the education system to create inequities for many students. critical race theory helps us to understand the ways the united states education system was created was for rich white men. that's not the only population it serves. if we are thinking about the

founding of this education, all the other ways that poverty or homelessness or food insecurity, lack of access to quality health care, all of those things are working together in the way education is happening. people will look to schools and teachers or standardized tests. critical race theory doesn't want us to only look at race but it doesn't want us to discount race. in a normalized conversation, people will talk about race -- about all of the inequities but will not talk about race because it is something that people in this country don't feel comfortable doing. critical race theory wants us to think about everything and make sure that race is at play. if we are thinking about race a t play, we have to look at the teaching population.

and as a teacher educator i have , to look at teacher education programs and the way we are serving student teachers who will be going out into the field to be in-service teachers. critical race theory helps us understand all of those things, recognizing that race matters in addition to other factors. students don't just come as black students or white students. they come with everything else. everything that is happening in the school building is the result of social inequities that are outside. they converge in the space. as educators or people, we expect the education system is a level playing field or common ground.

and meritocracy will rule because students have access, outcomes will be --. that is not true. host: we have plenty of colors on this. let me ask a basic question. in the news recently, i want you both to answer this, is america a racist country? dr. wilson? guest: america is based in racist ideals. in the ways that this country was founded on unseeded land, european colonizers came.

there were millions of people here already. those people were relegated to the term savages. thinking about human beings who are then termed to be subhuman, based not in the language of race, it came soon after as a justification for inequity and genocide and barbarism. i would say america is a racist country in its founding and ideal. i think that recognizing that's how this country began can help us move beyond it. if we refuse to recognize that or if we want to whitewash history in a way that makes some people more comfortable, we won't be able to get very far. guest: america has a history of racial discrimination. its founding ideals have been the tools to elevate millions of people of all races and genders from persecution into prosperity. i agree that race certainly matters. one of the issues of critical race theory is it posits that

any racial disparity that we see must be do to systemic racism. just looking at the educational progress, since 1992, there is never been a situation less than half of the nation's white students scored proficient in reading. there has never been a case in which a majority of white students are reading at proficiency. the sad irony that achieving racial equity or closing the black-white achievement gap would simply mean that black student outcomes would move from sub-mediocrity to full mediocrity. it ignores the fact that of all of our kids, only one third of all students are reading at grade level. the focus on racial equity close

s out the ability to understand all the factors. it's not just about race. there are more dominant factors that are driving why we have so many kids not able to read at grade level, which becomes the basis of all the social issues we are concerned about down the road. host: i want you to jump in on this as well. to bring it down to practice, sometimes examples can be helpful. explain what the 1619 project was and how it fits into this conversation. guest: you want me to do that? host: yes. guest: thinking about the 1619 project, thinking about the fact that there are students who are not achieving this particular level of achievement, i have issue with standardized test. we don't have to get into that today.

looking at this statistic that keeps coming up that white , students are not able to read, if we are thinking about race. it matters the way schools are funded. it matters for who teaches. it matters for the services that are offered. thinking about this idea of the achievement gap, who sets the benchmark? the achievement gap isn't quite -- it doesn't help us see what opportunities are not met. i frame it more as an opportunity gap. what on a systemic level is failing students? how is education as a system not doing what it needs to do rather than looking at students as the people i might not blame for not achieving a level of success. the 1619 project, it is a project that helps to uncover ignored history and ones that

are not taught in school because they are uncomfortable. in my experience as a black woman who went to a traditional teacher education program and went into the classroom and did graduate work behind that, i didn't know what culturally relevant pedagogy was. i'm not that old. it's not that long ago. in the ways we think about the 1619 project and what isn't taught, i was raised by women who was an educator. my mother has a doctorate degree in education and she helped my sisters and i and raised us to be proud of who we were. those are being supplemented in my home. there are quite a few students whose parents maybe don't have the wherewithal, the knowledge, or the skill to do that work. the 1619 project helps to see the way that race matters for the founding of the country.

it's also a project to illuminate things that people don't know about and would not think to research on their own, wouldn't know where to begin. putting those ideas together and making it something that is documented at a crucial time in american history, i see it as necessary for confronting truth. in the way that education systems often times cherry pick and move around what actually happened and goes along with information. it's not comfortable to talk about slavery or racism. it's not comfortable to talk about genocide. because people who are white have been in power in this country since its founding, because marginalized people have

not been in power, they've not been able to share those stories widely. is there information shared between communities? yes. does it need to be something that everyone reckons with? absolutely. the 1619 project is one of the ways of doing that. host: why did the 1619 project become so much of a focus of concern and controversy? guest: one thing the project did reveal is there is a strong interest in more information about the african-american experience in the united states. the problem with the 1619 project is that it has been widely discredited. the year 1619 was the true founding with the slaves and the founding ideals were written where they claim that the american revolution was fought

to preserve slavery. all these items have been debunked. the last thing, many kids, particularly the schools that i lead, want to hear the country was determined for their destruction. they have to have an aspiration that they live in a good country with founding ideals for been embraced by millions of black people to move from persecution to prosperity. it is why i joined a group of black scholars. we determined not just to criticize the 1619 curriculum, but to tell a more complete history of the african-american experience. the 1619 project doesn't include any mention of something called the rosenwald school. it was one of the most incredible examples of black resiliency in the face of unimaginable adversity during

the jim crow era, where booker t. washington partnered with the founder of sears roebuck. booker t. washington had a vision for black excellence. even though kids were not able to get access to a high-quality education, he said we are going to build schools. they build nearly 5000 schools throughout the south. incredible achievements of black teachers, principals, black students. incredible successes, like in the brown v. board of education decision, it led to the demise of the rosenwald school. . that is such an amazing story for children of all races should understand. for every oil of -- for every sort of black annihilation of

their is a story of resilience. -- black annihilation, there is a story of resilience. >> that is it for this christmas day edition of the washington journal. we take your phone calls and your comments on social media, our guest tomorrow is jonathan alter. he is kicking off authors' week. that is tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time, two are for joining us, goodbye -- thank you for joining us, goodbye.

>> watch holiday week authors' series. journalist jonathan discusses his book his very best, jimmy carter, a wife -- life. starting at 7:00 eastern for our special holiday week authors' series. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are

funded by these companies and more including midco. ♪ >>midco supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> queen elizabeth's christmas message, she talks about the death of her husband, climate change, and the impact on the pandemic on the holidays. it goes back to a radio address.