Hi i am Suzanne Spaulding director of the Democratic Institution project and the International Security program at the center for strategic and international studies. I want to welcome all of you to part one of a twopart conversation, connecting the issues of racism, National Security, and Civic Education and empowerment. This conversation is part of a broader Strategic Dialogue with civics as a National Security imperative. The Broader Program and todays program are generously funded by the Craig Newmark philanthropy. We are very grateful for his support. Todays amazing lineup of speakers will focus on the ways in which systemic racism in addition to being a fundamental violation of our commitment to human rights, is also a National Security issue. From sidelining essential voices and talents and National Security to undermining our influence around the world to presenting an all too tempting targets to exploit. address the inequities in the National Security threat. All of us must be engaged in sustaining our democracy. Civic education can help equip us to be better, more effective to see change and to hold our institutions accountable for doing a better job of living up to our aspirations. It can remind us of our shared values and of the value of democracy and that it is not inevitable but must be fought for every day. Moderating todays panel is my friend and colleague, beverly kerr. She is a fellow and director of outreach for the center for strategic, for the International Security program. She also heads our smart women, Smart Power Initiative and she hosts a smart woman, smart power podcast. Prior to joining csis beverly was a journalist and worked for a local and National News organization, including nbc, npr and pbs or stay focused largely on Domestic International politics and government. But first, i have the privilege and honor of introducing today my former boss, secretary jeh johnson to help set the scene for our next two days conversation with secretary johnson is currently a partner in the Litigation Department at all whiteware, i believe he was working in 2001, when he and i served together on the American Bar Association committee on law and National Security. Prior to that time he had been assistant u. S. Attorney general for the Southern District of new york and also had been gentle counsel for the varmint of the air force. In 2009 he was tapped to be general counsel for the entire department of defense. Waiter i had the honor of working for him when he came in as secretary of Homeland Security from 20132017. During which time i was responsible as the undersecretary responsible for Cyber Security and critical infrastructure. I saw firsthand how secretary johnson prioritized outreach efforts to communities around the country that might otherwise still feel marginalized. Devoting significant time to travel and meeting, particularly with communities of color. He devoted significant time and effort to recruiting black americans and other minorities to our workforce our workforce including our cybersecurity workforce. I cant think of a better person to kick off this two days of conversation about systemic racism as a National Security threat and the role of Civic Education. That, my friend, secretary jeh johnson. Thank you for joining us and i know you are supposed to be cheering another meeting and we are very grateful so lets get right to it. Over to you. Thank you very much, suzanne. Good afternoon everybody. Suzanne, i want to thank you for your Public Service as well and for your work as secretary of the department of Homeland Security. As many of you know there is a new agency and the executive branch called the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency. What you may not know is within the executive branch Susanna Spalding is the Single Person most responsible for the creation of that agency. She pushed for the creation of that agency and never gave up and as the result today we have an agency of our government devoted to cybersecurity. Thank you very much for that suzanne. I was asked to speak to you this afternoon about racism and the importance of Civic Engagement. If anyone asked me to Civic Engagement important in bringing about social change my answer is a resounding and unequivocal, yes. I think i know why suzanne asked me to talk to you this afternoon. I recently gave an interview about black lives matter and the aftermath of minneapolis and the interviewer quoted my grandfather. My grandfather was a sociologi sociologist. He lived in the middle part of the last century and died in october 1956. He wrote a lot about civil rights. He lived his entire life in the jim crow south in the desegregated self, road in desegregated Railroad Cars and notwithstanding all of that, not extended the fact that my grandfather, my own grandfather once had to testify before the House Unamerican Activities Committee in 1949 to deny he was a member of the communist party. One month before he died he wrote this which the interviewer asked me about. This was an essay from the new york times. This is a man who lived his entire life in the jim crow south. It is expected that negro southerners, as a result of our limited status, in the racial system would be bitter or hostile. Bitterness grows out of hopelessness and there is no hopelessness in this situation. Faith in the ultimate strength of the democratic philosophy and code of the nation as always been a stronger than the impulse to despair. I believe that too. I have quoted it many times in speeches i gave while i was secretary of Homeland Security. That was charles s johnson, my fathers father. On my mother side of my family, my mother was a native washingtonian bird her family were all native washingtonians. They were all postal workers. They found job security and stability living in the Nations Capital and the postal service. They believed in federal service. They believed in Civic Engagement. In my experience as a Public Servant and as a africanamerican who has lived 63 years now. In my experience any Great Movement for social change needs to have within it as a centerpiece Civic Engagement. You look at the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s, something that my own grandfather not have the opportunity to live to see. We had within it conservative elements more moderate elements and for lack of a better phrase, more aggressive elements. This is on the more conservative side you had, for example, naacp and on the more aggressive side you had the black Power Movement of the mid late 1960s and in the center was Martin Luther king. Doctor king realized that Civic Engagement, engagement with our government was crucial to bringing about social change. Though, some may have been critical of efforts to engage the government, many believed that it was certainly important for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights act of 19625 and i saw this myself and government. Being on frankly the receiving end of efforts to bring about social change. When i was general counsel of the department of defense we repealed working with congress. Dont ask, dont tell. I met and interfaced with many parts of the movement to repeal that law and some more aggressive, ambitious elements, more moderate elements and those who knew how to have a seat at the table to negotiate policy change. That is critical to any movement for social change. Same thing with the movement to inform our immigration system. When i was secretary of Homeland Security very often there were those who would engage in peaceful protests even disrupt some of my own speeches but there are also people who we could sit down with and engage in a Meaningful Exchange of bringing about better policies. All of these different elements of a movement complement each other, frankly. While some within a movement may be critical of others they all complement each other. When you look at the present day efforts, black lives matter, we see elements that call for defunding the police. Well, it doesnt literally mean if you ask what that means it literally doesnt mean Public Safety in its entirety but it means redirecting a lot of resources, funds toward things that might have the effect of influencing the community, rebuilding the community in a positive way rather than pure policing. Many on the right would be critical of the message to defund the police but the reality is all of these elements of the movement complement each other. I think it is critical to understand that and i think it is critical to understand that and how our democracy works. I too have confidence in the code of the nation and our ability to effect change through Civic Engagement. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. Suzanne, back over to you. Thank you so much, secretary johnson. I will take it from you here. And beverly kirk and i direct the smart woman, Smart Power Initiative here at csis and i am a fellow in International Security program. We have a panel of National Security experts here to talk about systemic racism and National Security. Let me introduce them. Wendy parker is the National Security advisor to the office of the u. S. Speaker of the house of representatives. Prior to joining the Speakers Office she served as deputy staffed director and general counsel for the Health Permanent select committee on intelligence. She has also been an assistant state prosecutor and previously served as an attorney at the cia and fbi. Elizabeth scott parker is dean america of the Mcgeorge School of law at the university of the pacific. Prior to becoming dean she was general counsel of the National Security agency, nsa and cia. She previously served as the executive director and ceo of the state bar of california and early in her career she worked as a cooperating attorney with the naacp Legal Defense fund. Doctor skinner is the top professor at Carnegie Mellon university and director of cmu institute for politics and strategy and also directs the center for International Relations on politics, Washington Program and the institute for future analysis. Prior to joining cmu doctor skinner served as a director for policy planning and Senior Advisor to the secondary of state. I should also mention she is a fellow at the Hoover Institution and a visiting fellow at the heritage foundation. Welcome to you all and thank you so much for being here. For our audience please know that you can ask questions of the panel through the ask a question button that is located on the csis. Org website on the events page print please find nat and be thinking of your questions and in about 20 or so minutes we will turn to the audience questions and prevent them for the panel. Welcome everyone. I want to start with a very general question and ask it this way. It was two years ago i read an incredible oped who is the president of the naacp Legal Defense fund and the headline on that oped said it is time to face the fact that racism is a National Security issue. Are we now facing that fact, given everything that is happened in this country over the past several weeks and i guess almost one month now. We will start with you, wendy. Wendy, if you are speaking you are on mute. Doctor skinner, lets move to you print lets have you answer that question. I do believe that racism is a National Security problem and i have seen it as an academic and as someone who is been a president ial campaign for the National Security side and more recently from the standpoint of u. S. Diplomacy at the state department. The Common Thread that i see in all of these is that when you do not have people of color at the table you cant represent america very well. For whatever reason we are in a multigenerational time in which there are just not enough africanamerican, hispanics and asians at the court aspect of Foreign Policy. Let me be a bit more specific. I think in order to represent the best of the United States, the worlds most fully functioning multiethnic democracy you have to have people of color in every level of government. At the state department, for example, they are needed in greater numbers in the regional and functional bureau and they should always be at the table. I dont believe in identity politics but it makes sense to me to have china specialists who happen to be chinese who speak the language and africanamericans who spent time on the continent of africa involved in regional discussions about u. S. Foreign policy. We dont have many at this time. We had very few as a result in the interagencys discussion of the u. S. And the making of u. S. Foreign policy. We have almost no one at the top of the state department who is of color and we have very few diplomats and those representi representing. It seems almost impossible to me to represent the best of the u. S. When you dont have the best of the u. S. At the table. There is something missing. What we have will bring a more Diverse Group together and is that what we get different perspectives and that you would not hear otherwise bring i see that in the classroom and with my faculty but i dont see it happening with diplomacy. If i could followup what type of issue or problem or challenge doesnt create what we are sending diplomats to other parts of the world and we may even be commenting on their internal situation where it concerns ethnic minorities and what kind of challenge doesnt present when those countries points back at us and say what about your own problems . I think let me answer that at a couple of levels. What it does is we have only one demographic representing us abroad for the most part and we get a particular point of view and that doesnt represent 300 million American People who live in a very vast land and very different state. I think we just get something that doesnt really represent us. That is what worries me and it may be someones interpretation of what that policy is today. As a another level i thank you asked me about what people point back at us and ask our own inequities on the race side. I understand that but i see its a little differently than i think what you were implying. Often they look at the inequity of the u. S. And think people of color, who are always agitating for change, and often i think that gives them hope because no one does it better than americans in terms of peacefully making it happen. It takes us a long time and we expose a lot of flaws but we do the hard work so often i think our International Partners have more respect for us as a result of the weight we address race but i worry now that we are inflicting wounds on ourselves by not doing the obvious things. At the state department for example we have enormously talented people of color who should be in more senior roles and who are talented and women as well. I would like to see some structural approach to this because the outcomes would be phenomenal and the secretary of state would be, hugely surprised, at how we ought are received around the world if we do what im talking about right now. Elizabeth parker, let me bring you into this conversation and get your perspective on th this. Thank you, beth. I really hope that doctor skinners more optimistic view is the one that will prevail as we go forward. I would like to turn the conversation in a different way and i totally subscribe to but i will capture insane unless we are diverse we dont show who we are in these international settings. I like, if i might, start with a personal experience. After leaving federal government i was involved for several years in multilateral conversations on disarmament and overall several of these i got to know two russian counterparts and on one occasion they said to me we know what your vulnerability is. I said what is that and they said obviously it is your diversity and your racial and ethnic diversity. Oh no, i said thats our strength. Thats who we are. Well, its very interesting because as you look back on that comment i worry that both sides may have had something right about what they were saying. I say that from this perspective. We have learned now that the russians are looking at our diversity, ethnic diversity, racial diversity and for that matter Economic Diversity and they are targeting gnats and looking at that as a way to weaken us and so what i heard from those russian counterparts were certainly accurate and so far as russian policy was concerned. Csis has done a very fine job in its reports on why Vladimir Putin targets minorities. Beyond the ballot talks about this. Putting my hat on again as a Law School Dean i use to say to every entering class, you are coming in as stewards of something very precious and its the Cultural Diversity that links us together. That Cultural Diversity is supported by a sense of shared values and understanding of our constitution, essentially Civic Education but im afraid i was a bit naive because as we will hear tomorrow unfortunately we have not paid much attention to Civic Education and so to that end secretary johnson commitment and wisely so that weve got to have Civic Engagement may have been somewhat disempowered because unfortunately we are producing not just one generation but for decades students, now adults, who dont really understand our civic, Education Needs and once again the burden falls most heavily on those who are most at disadvantage but they are the ones not getting this kind of education and they need it. We need to have them, because frankly it all boils down to if it doesnt work for any part of us, it doesnt work for any of us. So, we really do have and we see this now and what the coronavirus and certainly the protests and Police Violence have revealed that there is a huge set of structural issues which we are going to develop, pardon me, developed or will have to address and develop new approaches and that means Civic Engagement and that has got to have a Civic Education preparation. If i could followup with that string on the russian disinformation and the way that our adversaries are choosing to use and target information, particularly as it relates to issues of race. What more should be done to counter that by the United States . There is a lot of as i referred to it as income means targeting people on social media and these different messages containing disinformation. What has to happen because that is the threat of the very fabric of this country if you can get people fighting each other or disagreeing with each other then your job is done with an attack on the United States and in essence. Is that a question for me . Yes, it is. Well, of course i would start with the notion that we got to be educating, not just our k12 population but our more Adult Population is wellpaid weve got to be alerting them to this attack at what is perceived by some externally as a vulnerability. We have got to embrace the notion that diversity is a strength, not a weakness but i think one of the hopeful signs to the recent set of progressed is that they are finally bringing in, not just minority populations, but also the majority white population which has got to be a part of this solution. I think there is hopefulness there. We are going to have to be able to listen and be able to educate ourselves somewhat on the fly here. I thought that secretary johnsons description of what defunded the police really means was very helpful. And so, i am hopeful that as we go forward there is going to be a National Conversation that will serve to educate. Candidly, i have been amazed. I thought i understood something about civil rights for my time working in the south but learning deeply about the failure of reconstruction and what jim crow was all about and a much more profound way the 1619 project we really are going through what i think is a national reeducation project and i think my hat is off to those who are writing and talking about this that doctor skinner, as an educator, has a bigger role in this than i do but i think this, if you will, learning even as the challenges arise will be helpful. I think to to the International Perspective how amazing that what we have done in response to the killings of so many africanamericans over a number of years has now suddenly erupted as a parallel set of responses overseas and what better example of what doctor skinner has said that we need to show our face as americans as leaders, not just with their own country on subjects of diversity and inclusion but as an International Level as well. Let me bring you into this conversation with tommy what your responses. I couldnt agree more. I was so heartened to see the response around the globe and people protesting outside of our embassies initially and those protests grew, they grew to the main streets and the main streets in london and germany and beyond, just all around the world, france. People were so moved by that and they were saying the same thing that people in the United States are sane and they were saying i cant breathe and sane likewise matter and they were saying and end to injustice and equal treatment for all people. We were so heartened to see that but what that did for me as just underscores the fact that it has bent over the year the perseverance and the determination of the American People that has led to change in this country. America has been a beacon of light and hope, a standardbearer and im so proud to say that about my country. We have truly, truly led and inspired others around the world and our Democratic Values and institutions mean so much. If we are going to ensure that we maintain our values and also promote our values we have to show that when we are all confronted with information and the reality of the systemic issues and failures of our system that we address them and i think the world is looking to us to address them so we are happy to see that because of the response by our Civil Society and the strong engagement here and because also responsible governments at all levels we are seeing some change and that is why to at the federal Level Congress we at the house of representatives passed the george floyd policing act which identified some things and our current law that need to be changed with respect to Holding People accountable and holding our Police Officers accountable, holding our system, more importantly, accountable. This is not to target Police Officers but this is to make the entire system stronger for everyone here in the United States. Again, over the course of the year america has corrected its course and right now this is the time where we need a citizens and as a government to have right communication to do that. With respect to, we hear about china, for instance, and there is great concern about the threat posed by china and also the chinese disrespect of the human rights by the mainland at the people of hong kong and we need to also be mindful of the fact that human rights has been the cornerstone of america values. I want to quote this quote from Suzanne Spaulding. She mentioned in her oped this week in the hill that systematic racism is a betrayal of our commitment to human rights and equality. That is why we have to continue to stand up for human rights here in the United States and around the world. If we dont do that we lose our moral authority and we cant, you know, exchange it for economic interests, trade interests or anything else. And so, as we advocate or try to do better and we also advocate for our National Security interests with perspective china we have to be mindful of the fact that people are looking at us and quickly looking to our faults which we need to correct. Why do you think it has taken this particular moment or maybe the better question is what is it about this particular moment that has precipitated such rapid change . The Mississippi State legislator just agreed to revamp the flag and remove the Confederate Flag part of it and do a new flag. What is it about this moment that is different because these arguments are absolutely not n new . That is the critical question. Thank you for asking that. I agree with the other panelists so far that wendy parker and i are on different sides of the political aisle but i could have given her speech. She did it better than me. I think to answer the question is to say that it has been right under the surface for a very long time and we need needed a triggering event. Why people are surprised is a surprise to me because many of us, africanamericans and other people of color and women who are fighting in the professional realm to open doors for ourselves and others arent surprised by anything that is happening. We live it every single. But it is just time in our country to put to fed some of the worst practices that our nation has put forth in our statehouses and our local government at the federal level. It is well overdue but a status of forces came together that i think took the lid off of problems that were right under the surface and that we cant keep the lid on anymore. Let me speak to one thing that wendy parker said. She said when someone said diversity for the sake of diversity, i believe in diversity for the sake of diversity. I think it is part of the key formula which makes a nation great, which makes a business great which makes a university great. Something happened when you have got intellectual, racial, and gender and even religious diversity and religious diversity in a workforce and community. Something happens that would not happen otherwise and it just changes the society and world. The historical pattern that the United States is that every time we take on the problem of africanamericans in this country we come out stronger. In the wake of the civil war we got the 14th, 15th amendment and i tell myself tell my students all the time if i have only one amendment to the constitution and if i had to pick one it would be the 14th amendment, section one, equal protection and due process. Im good. That became, you know, something that was a model for other countries around the world. Out of the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s we get the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights act. We always do something that is transformative when we take on the black problem and it helps everyone and we are doing it again. Let me follow up on that. What do you think, what else do you think may come out of this moment . We have seen monuments coming down from some not willingly the protesters have brought them down but you are also seen Different Community leaders and places around the country saying okay, time to take them down. It has been done in a systematic fashion. What else do you foresee happening out of this moment . Let me speak for one moment about the monuments coming down. As a historian i want them archived. Ive been to the Holocaust Museum and ive had students visit there in washington dc and this is the Holocaust Museum and to have a living witness to what has happened so i want a living witness with both statues of many and images that can be captured so that i can take my students there and say this is who we work for as a nation but it is not who we are now. In terms of big systemic changes i worry and i do worry that we will get some new laws and there will be diversity commissions and more diversity officers hired and very little institutionally will change. My immediate concern is that we diversify the Foreign Policy community and the National Security community of the United States because these are National Security threats that if we do not. We are not representing and i think the best donation is the creativity that that diversity will bring and the United States, for better or worse, is the hope and destination for so many oppressed people around the world. They need to see us at the top of our game, not somewhere in the middle and so i do worry speaking to your question that we get the kind of massive overhaul of how we hire and retain power. Thats for me is a problem every day as a faculty member and is a problem for those in the diplomatic and government realm as well. I want to give elizabeth and wendy an opportunity to respond to that question as well. Wendy, did you want to go first . Go ahead, elizabeth. You will not be surprised to know that i will default back to same more Civic Education. Let me put it in this context i think the end list survey shows theres been a precipitous decline in trust of our government. Particularly among, again, the disadvantaged communities. There is a lack of trust because they are not educated and they dont understand and they have not been given an opportunity to do the kind of engagement that secretary johnson talked about. A recent piece of litigation out of detroit is interesting. The students their claim they have a right to learn how to read. Another lawsuit in rhode island where my students claimed they are not being given a chance to learn about civics and the statistics are overwhelming and the time and the attention given to Civic Education is the late 60s has been a precipitous decline and with it a lack of testing so teachers dont learn about how to teach civics and how to teach students and how to engage in it and Something Like 20 in a recent survey do only teaching and civics mainly as an addon. The result is a group, large group of people, all those who voted in the elite schools and high school dont understand their government and they have every reason to mistrusted and they dont know how to engage it. I think this is really where a fundamental change is necessary but at the same time we will have to learn how to educate ourselves about who we are and how we got here. This is in order to begin to achieve the structural change that we need. The final thing i will say is i think what happened in the 1960s and i was happiest to be a part of it was wonderful. There were a lot of important legal changes but we didnt Pay Attention to the cultural underpinnings that needed to make certain that those are not just changes on paper and that they make a difference. We have an opportunity now in the crises that we face and we dare not fail to take advantage of them. Wendy. Yes, i cannot agree more with elizabeth and doctor skinner. I think definitely we are going back, congress has gone back and taken a hard look at laws, laws that lead to unequal treatment of individuals linked to the system and so forth and we are looking to amend some of those because a lot of these things [inaudible] but i also think that it goes beyond the laws and it ultimately goes to education and mindset. Another thing that is disturbing and of concern to me is what is happening with our military. In our military each individual military enlisted person ill take an oath to uphold the constitution. That is why when there is a suggestion that the insurrection act be invoked and used to control the protesters that people became who really knew what the military was therefore became quite [inaudible] and the first people to speak out and speak truth to power our our fourstar generals who served as the highest levels of the United States government and some that served in this administration and, you know, the former joint chief of staff and general mattis who was most recently our secretary of defense but also fourstar general who joined the army 50 years ago they said and they cautioned against using the military against our civilian population and in our communities because as they said our communities are not battle states to be dominated and that is something that many of us who are older and we know that but we have to make sure that our children understand it in the world understands it and our children and generations fight to ensure that happens in that hour communities arent used as battle stages paid me, as citizens, have a duty really to support the pursuit of Peaceful Assembly and the right to be heard in our First Amendment rights which are of paramount importance. Also, we have to make sure that people know that our military is not there to be overly aggressive. It is to ensure that National Security interests are protected and that is why when congress has been looking closely at the insurrection act because people do not wanted to be of use. They dont want to be invoked inappropriately and so many of us think about it when we think about rodney king in los angel angeles, 1992 and the use of it there. The governor requested it and they requested assistance and so but there are ways to use the insurrection act right now without a formal request from the government if the president does sign a proclamation. I think that people are looking at that but they are taking a long look at the laws that are on the book and Civic Engagement so important because people have to understand that the laws that govern our country and why the laws need to be respected and why the laws cannot be exploited and if they ever are our citizens must know that they should stand up against it and fight for our american values. I want to remind the audience at this point that you are free to ask a question paid go to the csis website, this event page and there is a little button that says ask a question and you can submit it and we are beginning to get this i want to turn to one of those questions. Its from a csis colleague and he says spoken about the benefits of diversity in National Security spaces and to the world the best america has to offer. However, there are a lot of diversity skeptics who think that quote, lowers standards. It is political correctness. Its a zerosum game to the overall majority and that is part of the question. So how should we be making the argument to the people who are skeptics and diversity in the staff to back it up, diversity makes, decisionmaking better, to keep you in business and increases your profit margin and there have been studies about these things that how to make this work in the National Security space where there may be for a great deal of resistance to diversity. If i may, i would like to jump in. It is critical. I think the skeptics are becoming a smaller set of people and the empirical evidence is against that viewpoint that diversity lowers standards. We have so many false binary opposites that govern our political discussion of the United States. If you have diversity you have lowered standards but if you hire a black person in a leadership position they must be hard because they are affirmative action and on and on and on paid that is, i think, rooted in a fundamental lack of understanding of scientific research, of what has happened in this country when it has been at its greatest from a historical standpoint so i think it is not to be taken very seriously but just suppose you take it seriously and look at what is happening in the world and when i was at the state department i was one of the only people, if not the only one, i heard say over and over we got to be concerned about the coming power of the global south. When you look at there is so much focus on china now but what about india, pakistan, nigeria, south africa, brazil, the countries that on a whole bunch of demographic factors and other statistics are going to be power players in the world. If you just happen to agree that with this particular reality which cannot be stopped america has a lot to do if it wants to remain a predominant power on earth. So, for those who are skeptical, i say, do you want the u. S. To be a predominant power on earth . Usually they say yes. Do you want to buy the United States a couple more generations of freedom in the world, at home and abroad and they say yes and they have no choice but to do something that is different that america has done for the better part of 70 years in the postwar era. Elizabeth, wendy, did you have anything you wanted to add paid we are getting a number of questions and i want to get in as many as possible. I would like to be brief. I think there is this assumption that now everyone can plot but we know that it takes more than just simply that kind of open door. Look at what is happened in our military where they are as, i think as successful as any had been in integrating the enlisted ranks and ranks up to the flagstar situation but then we see that there has been a failure to advance. You have to ask ourselves why. We know we have highly confident, very diverse officers in our military core so why havent they advanced . I think that is not being look at and that is a structural issue. There is some problem that we are not addressing but certainly part of it is interested. Are we doing the kind of things we ought to be doing to take talented people and making sure they achieve their highest level of potential. If i could do a two finger on that one. I know this speaks to what elizabeth is pointing to aphis point about structural problems where you hit a brick wall no matter how talented you are as a person of color that we could put lots of controls in place to account for certain part of Structural Racism but it is hard to change hearts and minds and that is something no one has cracked the code on. You can also figure out ways to begin to punish people who block other people because they look different or think differently. We have never really addressed how to do that but there is going to have to be a new set of controls and that is what i would like to see in terms of a concrete institutional mechanisms coming out of all that is happened this spring inspired by the massive killing of africanamericans for no reason. There is a question from the audience but its a great follow on to this part of the conversation from the commerce department. You said you need more education and you said it will not release the biases and wealth gap that holdbacks certain groups of how would you respond to that . That would be one for me . Go right ahead, lists. I think we start not just at one place but start and a number of different places. Im not saying there ought to be other things we look at two but when you consider the limited amount of support we give for my favorite topic, Civic Education you have to say there is something we can do here. We dont assess it in the same way but we assess stem topics and we dont require and therefore it is not taught so again, wendy, this may be one for you but if we were to require the National Assessment treat civic histories geography and as civic topics in the same way that we treat all of the stem topics that we require the same veracity and that we report not on a National Level but statebystate level we would be taking steps at the National Level to make a major improvement. Clearly, there are any number of other things that can be done as well and i come up for one, im not no longer backing away from the idea of reparations and that is a topic we need to talk about and as weve talked about defunding the police and may not be the same thing to everybody but we have to Start Talking about how we make amends for an aggressive, historic, many centuries, keeping one group of people in a position where they cannot thrive and survive as their natural potential would allow. I cannot agree with you more, elizabeth. That is why forums as these are so important to ensure that we are focusing and having meaningful dialogue about these topics and i agree, we had the hard push for stem and Stem Education and we have now a beautiful statutory architecture that relates to education and advancing it because we realize we were behind other countries. We saw japan in the 80s going leaps beyond that and we saw the threat posed by a china that was catching up to us and some fear has now kind of gone beyond us in the area of these technical capabilities including Artificial Intelligence and quantum computing and so many more things. But now it is time. It is time to focus on Civic Education and i think that one of the things that is so important as congress is working on legislation, legislation that impacts all initiatives including education advantages through k 12th graders as for as a Higher Institution that we really like to be informed as we do that and so i think that this sort of dialogue and recommendation that come out of these thoughtful forums are very, very helpful. They are hopeful for the general public as well as lawmakers. I look for two more. The next question comes from cory cooper from a law firm and it gets back to the issue of nasa security. What are specific changes that military and defense organizations should make in order to combat systemic and cultural racism from within . Id like to speak to that one. I made the suggestion formally at the state department and it went nowhere because i didnt have the opportunity to stay longer but im in pittsburgh where the Pittsburg Steelers are a dominant force in our town. The rooney family instituted something that had a big impact on the nfl that i think should be represented all throughout our federal government. Every time there is a job open that there is a person of color that has to be interviewed and we need something as severe as the rooney rule to begin to change the career trajectory to the General Office in the military and to the diplomatic core of the state department. I think we will have to take those measures and i dont see it any other way beyond something that profoundly is clear to everyone. Another question we have in this specific topic area. To believe the Public Perception of National Security institutions as more nonpartisan could be affected by recent protests and unrest and what greater dangers could arise from a job in faith in the objectivity of National Security institutions . Any takers on that question . Yes, the idea that National Security or Foreign Policy is somehow different than the domestic and economic policies that is nonpartisan or is bipartisan i think those in the trenches know that that is not true and that there is always the contest about what the National Interest is and that it is not something that is subjective as much as many people would like to believe is the case. I dont think what is happening in the streets of the United States makes us more vulnerable from a National Security standpoint. I want to go back to my point. I think it is who is not at the table that makes us more vulnerable. What is happening in the streets, i think, is a reflection of who is not at the table in the National Security community. In that way they are one in the same. You know, there is a way in which we want Foreign Policy to stop at the waters edge and as we go abroad we are speaking with one voice but when your country is complicated as ours ultimately the commanderinchief speaks for us all but all of those working under him have a slightly, sometimes, different take. I do think International Partners understand it if we are something of a cohesive nation but it is expected. Wendy. Yes, i just go back to, mike mullen and his oped penned in early june following George Floyd Death he warned against the use of military for political purposes and i think we have to be mindful of that that, you know, we just have to be very mindful of that about the role and the duty as i described earlier of the people in our military but also International Security community and so we have years ago with respect to the iraq war we warned against the politicalization of intelligence so we do have to ensure we protect the integrity of the important institutions so they can most effectively pursue their mission. I actually agree with wendy but i would like to add a little bit of a different twist. Im a great admirer of mike mullen and have worked for him on the sano executive panel and did work when he was chairman of the joint chief so i get the larger points. I think what he is concerned about goes back to elizabeths concern about Civic Education. In the United States steadily since the 1980 to do a course correction on some of the diversity issues we are talking about an american in Higher Education we move away from teaching about the west and we moved away from teaching asic economics, military history, the medic history, many times those histories were presented in a biased fashion, biased white scholars who did not have a more comprehensive look but along the way it became possible in k6 team to get through without the core courses and ideas that you need to go to washington where i see lots of students are sent to the hill and began writing legislation. I say this all the time, it is hard to defend the west when you dont know what it is. There is something worth defending and weve got to teach it. It is not about the insurrection act in making sure that you go on wikipedia and when it should not be applied. You have to have a deeper understanding as a citizen and we dont have it because of what we have allowed to happen in k6 team. While i think by diversity issue is a big national severity problem i actually think k6 team which includes that is the biggest National Security threat we have in this nation because of what it now does not do. Well, i could hardly agree morbid i dont know i will add anything. That is exactly the point. We have hollowed out our understanding of our own nation and what it should be and as obama said yes, its an imperfect union and that is what we should be striving for to make it more perfect but if we dont understand it and we dont appreciate what it has done so far and how to improve it becomes a very challenging process. I would also add that its important that we, you know, we incorporate these important things into the curriculum for k12. I think its also important that we accurately portray our history and what has happened and quite frankly when many of us were in school there were critical parts of our history there were just left out of our textbooks. We cant afford to allow that to happen again but i think there is a very unique opportunity here and to look at this and look at it from the bottom up and to make sure that we are doing the best job in presenting the material in an unbiased and, you know, very accurate fashion to our k12 who deserved that. If i could add one comment to that which i am in complete agreement with, our teacher corps has a real presents a real problem for us because they too have not been educated and and how to handle these terrible and important topics. As we try to figure out ways to improve our k12 educational process we will have to keep in mind that we will have to get professional training to our teacher core who have simply not been required to understand these things either. I want to add that i think education is the biggest National Security threat issue that we never speak of in that context. I think we need to talk about it in those kinds of terms because it really, really is. This brings us to the end of this conversation. Doctor skinner, Elizabeth Parker and wendy parker thank you so much for being here. Thank you for this great discussion with i want to invite the audience to tune in here again tomorrow at 4 00 p. M. For part two of this discussion which will be led by my colleague Susanna Spalding. We also want to again give a special thank you to our philanthropies and now here is the president and ceo of csis with closing remarks. Beverly, thank you. This has been just a remarkable conversation but i think this is the first time and i have been here 20 years, this is the first time when we have had five women who have led a discussion. Others skin. They dont care about the passion of their religions. Here they lie, a perfect democracy. They fought and died for america not for what it is, but for what they can become. And i think that is in the spirit of this conversation. Thank you all. A House Oversight subcommittee focused on the coronavirus held a hearing on the Strategic National stockpile. Several Administration Officials testified including the leader of the supply Chain Stabilization Task force. This is two hours and a 15 minutes. Good morning. Welcome, everybody. Today the select subcommittee some members will appear in person and others will appear remotely. Members are appearing in person and let me first remind everyone pursuant to the latest guidance from all individuals must wear a Face Covering. We will allow you to remove them as you see i am getting to speak. I know a bit about how your classes get folded up and then you dont see where you are going. Members are not wearing a Face Covering are not permitted to remain in the room and will not be recognized to speak. So when you are not speaking, we expect for you to have
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.