|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Bush Administration Speaks Out on Affirmative Action; New Study Examines Name Discrimination
Aired January 15, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: The Bush administration goes on record against a university program that gives minority students an edge. Can the Republican Party reach out to minorities if its leaders oppose affirmative action?
Also: If you have a name like Tamika, Ebony, Rasheed or Kareem, will your resume be filed in the trash? A new study looks at name discrimination.
Also today: horror stories about sex slaves rescued in Detroit.
And the Confederate flag issue keeps burning in Georgia. We'll run this one up the pole again.
The talk begins right now.
Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
Should universities use race to give some students an edge in admission? Well, one of the most important affirmative action cases in years is now before the Supreme Court. And President Bush is expected to go on record opposing the University of Michigan's affirmative action program. Now, the program gives preferences to black and Hispanic students. And three white students claim the policy amounts to discrimination.
CNN White House correspondent Dana Bash joins us now with more on the White House's stance -- Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Arthel.
Well, sources do tell us that the president will instruct his aides at the Justice Department to -- he's likely to ask them to file a brief that opposes that affirmative action program at the University of Michigan. Now, this is a very important case. Some court observers say that it's perhaps the most important case on this issue before the Supreme Court in about a generation.
And the White House isn't, by law or anything of that sort, required to file any kind of brief. But because this is such an important issue, the White House aides are saying that they do feel the president himself feels like he has to do it. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer not (AUDIO GAP) or giving any hint at all that president will for sure oppose this. But he did make clear earlier today that the president is against racial quotas.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president believes that quotas and racial preferences do not serve to lift up our country and to help the average American. Instead, they have a tendency to divide people, to separate people who are deemed to be worthy of something and have it taken away from them, not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of simply a quota or something that is driven exclusively by race.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: Now, Fleischer also said that the president feels that it's important, though, for there to be some sort of diversity in universities and across the board. And, for that reason, he is going to, we understand, make some kind of statement with regard to what his position is on this issue.
Now, in the past, he has supported what the White House called affirmative access. In Texas, he supported a program which allowed the top 10 percent in the class of high school students to be admitted, no matter what their race is, to be admitted to the university system there. But no matter how you cut it here, this certainly is a very important issue politically at a time when Republicans are trying to reach out to minorities, and particularly with what happened with the Trent Lott controversy, where he said that he supported a segregationist candidate.
And since then, the Republicans, particularly here at White House, have made clear that they don't want to alienate this sector of the population. They want to reach out to them. But, on the other hand, the president has a lot of pressure on him from conservatives who say this is just wrong. Philosophically, it's wrong to have any kind of quota at all and any kind of preference, racial preference.
Now, Democrats are weighing in on this, of course. Already, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said earlier today that this is a watershed moment for the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: I think the burden of proof will be on the administration. I think the burden of proof will be on Republicans to show us how they can be for diversity and yet be against the laws that promulgate diversity. That, I think, is a hard case to make, but I look forward to their response.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: So, Arthel, you see the debate is already raging here in Washington. We're waiting to hear what the president himself has to say. The White House is saying that he will make some kind of statement before the brief is given. And that will be tomorrow -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Well, Dana, you know we love a good debate here on TALKBACK LIVE.
Dana Bash, thank you so much for being here today. Good to see you.
OK, listen, do affirmative action programs discriminate against white people or do they ensure diversity and equal opportunity? Here to talk about it is Roger Clegg, vice president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity; and Ron Daniels, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
I want to welcome both of you gentlemen to the show.
Mr. Ron, I'll go with you first.
Is it discrimination against white people or does it ensure equal opportunity?
RON DANIELS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: Well, it's...
NEVILLE: Go ahead, sir.
DANIELS: Oh. I was unclear which one you were talking to.
NEVILLE: Ron.
DANIELS: Well, no, it ensures equal opportunity and it ensures diversity.
And, of course, the case pending before the University of Michigan is not at all about quotas. This is a racially-charged word. Bakke outlawed quotas. It's about diversity. And Bakke certainly upheld diversity. So, the case at the University of Michigan has really been tailored to take into account all of the concerns about racial preferences and racial unfairness to make sure that there can be a racially diverse environment, which is considered to be of inherent value to the learning environment at universities. And that's what this case is really all about.
NEVILLE: OK. And I want to go ahead and talk to Roger now, talk a little bit more about how it works at the University of Michigan, the affirmative action program there.
ROGER CLEGG, CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: Well, it is discrimination, no matter how you slice it.
The fact of the matter is that the University of Michigan treats student applications very differently, depending on what the skin color or ancestry of the applicant is. And if you have the right color skin or have ancestors who come from the right countries, you get a tremendous leg up in the application process. And it's not just whites vs. blacks either. Asians are discriminated against. Arab- Americans are discriminated against.
And I think that, actually, the biggest losers in this whole ugly system are African-Americans, because they're being told by the University of Michigan that they cannot be expected to compete with Asians and whites on the same level, that they have to have the standard lowered for them. How does that advance the cause of African-Americans? It doesn't. It's insulting and it's discrimination.
NEVILLE: Roger, do you think that's what the message is there to black kids, to Hispanic kids, Native American kids, that they in fact are not able to compete with the white kids, maybe, perhaps, not prepared to compete with the white kids?
CLEGG: Absolutely, Arthel. This is what the president in another, but similar context called the soft bigotry of low expectations.
We are telling kids that we don't expect them to be able to perform at the same level academically if they have a certain color skin or if their ancestors came from certain places. And that's just wrong.
NEVILLE: So, Ron, do you agree with Roger?
DANIELS: Absolutely, I don't agree with that.
The fact of the matter is, racism and racial discrimination against blacks and Latinos still exists in American society. The message ought to be that, in spite of longstanding discrimination or the reality of current discrimination, that this society will affirmatively see to it that African-Americans and others have an equal opportunity at education in American society. And that can happen within a diverse environment.
That's an affirmative goal. Many of us believe in diversity as a principle. In fact, when you look at the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision that overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson, it talked about the fact that to be racially isolated was inherently unconstitutional and damaging in relationship to education. So, this whole nonsense about, we're going to feel bad because the standards are being lowered. They're not being lowered, first of all. They're not being lowered.
CLEGG: They are being lowered.
DANIELS: Everybody within a certain pool is qualifiable within the context of interests in the university. There's nothing that says that because somebody has an 89 and somebody has an 87 that the person that has the 89 is much more qualified than the one that has the 87. That's arbitrary. And that's why universities take into account things other than test scores in order to get people admitted to a university.
CLEGG: I don't have any problem with universities taking into account things beside test scores. I don't have any problem with them considering high school grades, teacher recommendations, extracurricular activities, any of that.
The only thing I have a problem with is them taking into account whether you have a particular skin color or whether your ancestors came from a certain country. And it's not just this little tiny thumb on the scale that we're talking about here. This is a significant amount of discrimination.
NEVILLE: So, then, Ron, is affirmative action the best way to promote diversity or is there a better way?
DANIELS: Affirmative action is the best way to do it, because absent affirmative action, given the reality of racism in American society, which is a drag on the performance of African-Americans and other groups, there is a need to promote affirmative action and to give people some consideration on the basis of their experience, not exclusively based on race, but as a factor. And, certainly, Bakke, in outlawing quotas, said that certainly race could be used as a factor, but not the only factor.
NEVILLE: So, Roger, do you think there is a better way to promote diversity?
CLEGG: Absolutely.
And let's talk about the weight that's given to race as a factor at the University of Michigan. And the University of Michigan is not unusual in the way that it approaches this. You get 20 points toward achieving the 100 points that's necessary to order to be admitted to the University of Michigan simply for having the right skin color, simply for having ancestors who come from particular countries.
The most that you can get for writing a perfect, brilliant essay on your application is one point. That's the difference that we're talking about here. This is not just a tiny little plus factor. This is severe discrimination, and it's wrong, and it's illegal. And the Supreme Court is going to strike it down.
NEVILLE: OK. And on that note...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Excuse me, sir. You know what? I have to take a break right now. I'll get your thoughts when we come back.
And I know we have lots of phone calls. The phones are lighting up on this one. I will get to your phone calls after the break.
And later this hour, I want to hear from you as well on our "Question of the Day": The National Football League, the NFL, wants to distance itself from Las Vegas during the Super Bowl. So, it's refusing to run any ads for the gambling capital. The ads don't mention gambling, but the Super Bowl is one of the city's biggest betting events of the year. The NFL says any association between the organization and gambling would hurt the public's perception of the sport and its athletes.
Well, do you think the ads should run? Give me a call at 1-800- 310-4CNN or you can e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.
And we're back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: Does an affirmative action program at the University of Michigan promote diversity or discrimination? That's what we're talking about.
Weigh in when the talk continues after a short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, welcome back, everybody. We're talking about affirmative action.
I want to go to Nevada now, where Chris is standing by on the phone.
I want to ask you, Chris, do you think affirmative action is a good way to promote diversity or not?
CALLER: Absolutely not, Arthel.
I'm a white high school senior this year. And it's more difficult for me now than ever to get a college education because of my race. Affirmative action tells me, OK, Chris from Nevada, we don't care that you're an amazing musician with straight A's. We'd rather take in someone who barely passes with a D just because of their race.
NEVILLE: OK, Chris, thank you for calling. And I hope you get into any college you wish, OK? And keep up good grades. That's important.
And I'm going to Holly now.
Holly, are you there? You are -- did you graduate from the University of Michigan or are you currently a student there?
CALLER: I graduated from the University of Michigan 10 years ago.
NEVILLE: Ten years ago. And what do you think about this idea of affirmative action? Do you think it promotes diversity or there should be a better way?
CALLER: I think that the sole purpose of affirmative action is to promote diversity. Affirmative action, I'm sure it played a role in me being able to be accepted into the University of Michigan, but it didn't promote, do anything in terms of me working hard, being a dean's list student, which is what I was, and doing very well in all of my classes and graduating from there. The sole purpose is to promote diversity. It doesn't hand a black student or a Latino student a degree. That's my opinion of that.
NEVILLE: OK. And, Holly, you know there are some people -- and I'm going to ahead and ask you, are you black?
CALLER: Yes, I am.
NEVILLE: OK.
There are some people who say, yes, well, you know what? Maybe you got in just because you're black. So what you worked hard. But you may not have been there in the first place. What do you say to that?
CALLER: Well, let's just say, is, the only way that would be true, there's no way I would have been able to do well in my classes. I would have easily been cut...
NEVILLE: You would have failed.
CALLER: I would have failed all my classes. And like anyone else, if you don't pass your classes, if you don't get a 2.0 or higher in all of your classes, you get -- you're kicked out.
NEVILLE: Holly, what do you do now for a living?
CALLER: I make a living as an artist.
NEVILLE: Oh, you're an artist. OK. Well, listen, Holly, thank you so much for calling in.
I'm going now to Daffney here in the audience.
Do you think affirmative action is a good way to promote diversity?
DAFFNEY: I don't think it's the solution for creating diversity. I think, if you really want to create diversity amongst college campuses, you have to go back to earlier in a child's education. If you want to promote better resources for minority groups, you have to give better funding to their elementary schools and their middle schools. And then, hopefully, by the time that they would be applying for college, there wouldn't be the problem that affirmative action would be necessary.
NEVILLE: Roger, I would like to hear your thoughts on that one.
CLEGG: I think that's absolutely right. I agree with that.
You can't expect to have a diverse student body if you leave unaddressed the inequalities and the disparities in educational opportunity at the K-12 level. But those disparities should be addressed in a nondiscriminatory way, because there's plenty of white kids and Asian kids, as well as Latino kids and black kids, who don't have the resources when they are in grades K through 12.
It's a mistake to look at this problem through the lens of race. It leads you to all kinds of discrimination.
NEVILLE: But you just...
DANIELS: The problem here is, you're talking about solving a discriminatory problem without using race as a question -- in the equation.
First of all, I agree with the last person, that you do have to invest in education. The problem is, there's already racial inequalities in an education. That's why you have a problem at the end of the spectrum. The second point I want to make quickly, the black student who came on who graduated may have been give that 20 points, but clearly was not inferior, because she performed quite well once she was admitted.
NEVILLE: Dean's list.
DANIELS: That was the point I made earlier.
The last point I want to make to Chris, who was at Nevada, or wherever he was -- and I hope he gets into whatever university he wants to get into -- the fact of the matter is, this is the mythology. There's no evidence that large numbers of white students are being deprived of getting into the colleges or universities of their choice.
And the fact of the matter is, they have options that maybe other African-Americans or Latinos don't have. This is a part of the kind of demagogic thing that the Trent Lotts of the world are propagating in order to divide the races.
NEVILLE: Let me jump in here now with Matt.
Do you think that there are white students who are not getting into universities because of affirmative action?
MATT: Yes, I do.
I'm going to disagree with Ron. According to Ron -- from my understanding, there's been a number of white people who have not gotten into the University of Michigan because they were white and who have had superior academic qualifications than a black student. So, I really do feel the Bush administration should look at this at the University of Michigan and other universities, so this doesn't occur.
DANIELS: The question is, are they blocked from getting into other comparable universities? I'll bet you that the person who didn't get into Michigan can get into Columbia, NYU or so forth. That's the real question within the broader spectrum of what we're talking about in terms of diversity.
(CROSSTALK)
CLEGG: Those universities all have racial and ethnic preferential programs as well.
DANIELS: Yes, but my point, Roger, is, there's no evidence -- and I defy you to put it on the table -- that there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of white students who are being deprived of a quality education because of affirmative action.
You're turning things on its head. It's the other way around. Historically, there have been thousands and thousands and millions of black people have been deprived because of racial discrimination. And it's outrageous that we have conservatives and Trent Lott-type- mentality people trying to persuade us that somehow a few slots at a school is somehow depriving white people in this country. It's absurd.
CLEGG: Look, Ron, don't call me a Trent Lott-type person.
(CROSSTALK)
CLEGG: You are the person that wants have racial and ethnic discrimination, not me.
NEVILLE: Roger, go ahead and make your final point. I'm going to give you the last word. You've got 15 seconds, please.
CLEGG: I'm the person who wants to get rid of racial and ethnic discrimination in college admissions. You are the person who wants to have a system where people are treated differently because of their race. And if you want evidence of that...
(CROSSTALK)
DANIELS: I want inclusion based on diversity.
NEVILLE: Let Roger finish. I'm out of time.
Go ahead.
CLEGG: If you want hard evidence of this, visit the Center for Equal Opportunity's Web site, CEOUSA.org. We've done a number of studies and we've found consistently that colleges all over the country do discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity in their admission processes.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: I'm sorry. I'm out of time.
Roger Clegg and Ron Daniels, thanks so much to both of you for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE. The debate will continue on this one, I know.
We have to take a short break right now.
Up next, Charles Barkley joins us, along with a new CNN contributor. Former Congressman of Georgia Bob Barr is here as well. We'll find out what's in a name and whether Georgia is going to raise the Confederate flag.
We're back after this break. Don't go anywhere. The talk continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back.
And a big Wednesday welcome to CNN contributor and TALKBACK LIVE regular Charles Barkley.
Nice to see you here, as always.
CHARLES BARKLEY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you.
NEVILLE: And also with us today is a new CNN contributor, former U.S. attorney and former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr.
Good to see you as well, sir.
BOB BARR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Great to be here. Thank you.
NEVILLE: All right.
Well, listen, President Bush has decided to weigh in on the University of Michigan affirmative action court case.
And, Bob, you're up first on this one. Does affirmative action create diversity or discriminate?
BARR: Well, it does both.
And the first goal is laudable. The second one is not. And that's why we need to find better ways of increasing diversity that don't either keep out of our universities and colleges deserving students that don't benefit from the affirmative action, as well as really treat students that come in under affirmative action programs as full citizens and not say, well, you're coming in here, but we're giving you a special advantage.
That's a disservice to those students. They need to be treated with all the equality that all other students are. What we need to do is one, as I did as U.S. attorney, attack discrimination anywhere we find it, attack it and prosecute it, as I did, but also look for ways to improve the overall educational system, so we that don't have to address this problem at the university level. And that's where we as a society have fallen flat on our face.
NEVILLE: Right. That was raised in another earlier segment here.
But let me ask you, then, is there a better way, then, to achieve diversity if affirmative action is not the way to go?
BARR: Well, what you do is, you recognize that the purpose of giving and receiving a college, a university education is something that ought to -- we ought to encourage all students to apply for. And we ought to recognize that there are different backgrounds.
I think, for example, it would be entirely appropriate for college admission programs to set aside -- voluntarily to set aside a certain number of admission slots for deserving students. There might be some deserving students where they want to increase a particular number of a particular racial background. They might want to add, bring in a few students who are sons and daughters of alumni. They might do it for athletes. And I think that's entirely appropriate, as a voluntary way to make sure that they do get that diversity. But, in terms of a program that gives special weight to one group over another, the fact of the matter is that, if you do that based on race, it is discriminatory by definition and it's unconstitutional.
NEVILLE: One way or the other, you're saying.
BARR: You can't get around it.
NEVILLE: OK, Charles, then, what do you think about it? There are white students saying: It's discrimination against us.
BARKLEY: After I got up off the floor laughing when I first -- I've been waiting on this ruling from the Supreme Court, to be honest with you.
But, No. 1, it does discriminate. But the fact that, if people think the white folks are not getting a fair shake in America, that's absurd. And though they picked out three students who filed this complaint, for them to file this and take it all the way to the Supreme Court is absurd to me. White people have all the advantages. They have all the money. They have all the power. And blacks have never gotten a fair shake.
And now for them to take this to the Supreme Court and probably will be overturned -- because I do think it is somewhat unfair. We all want the best people to get the job. But blacks are never going to get the best jobs, because white people have all the power and they control all the jobs.
NEVILLE: That's an interesting paint you make, because, when it comes to application, job applications, apparently, there's a study that was released that says that, if you have so-called black name, that you are less likely, or your resume is less likely to be looked at by the potential employer.
We're going to talk about that when TALKBACK LIVE continues. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We are talking to TALKBACK contributor Charles Barkley. Also with us is a new CNN contributor, former U.S. Attorney and former Georgia Congressman, Bob Barr. And now we're talking about this. A new study caught our eye.
The University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and MIT conducted a little experiment. They sent out e-mail resumes and discovered that those with names like Emily Walsh or Brendan Baker were more likely to get responses than those with names like Lakisha Washington or Jamal Jones. The conclusion: there must be name discrimination going on among employers, and it could be contributing to the unemployment among African-Americans.
And Charles, I want start with you first. Does this surprise you, the results?
CHARLES BARKLEY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you know, it's unfortunate that we live in a society that discriminates; always has, I think always will. But I think that, number one, people -- when black people complain about it, they look at us, we're bitching, we're complaining, we're ingrates or whatever. But the truth of the matter is discrimination happens. There's a reason we got all these black men in jail. It's not just because they're crooks.
Now some of them are. But there's a reason the majority of these black guys are on death row. You know the governor just helped them. But discrimination happens in this country. But it's like white folks don't want to admit it's happening.
You know why? Because they're insensitive because it never happens to them. It never happens to them, and that's unfortunate.
And you know those three students who filed that lawsuit? I'll speak for black people today and today only. We'll switch places with them any day, right now, and take all the advantages they have in the world in general and be happy as hell.
BOB BARR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah, but there are a lot of white folks that would switch places with you, too.
BARKLEY: Well they can't play, so they won't be there.
BARR: Well that's not going to do anything. They wouldn't last very long. I know that.
BARKLEY: See, I think that's one of the big problems. I think that white America looks at black people as black famous people. Yeah, black famous people are doing really well financially.
BARR: And that's a good role model.
BARKLEY: But that's not -- no, no. That's not a good role model because...
BARR: It can be.
BARKLEY: It can be, but it's unfair...
BARR: You're a role model.
BARKLEY: It's an unfair advantage to think they're all going to play sports or be great entertainers.
BARR: Sure, you're right about that.
BARKLEY: But the majority of black people in this country -- but not just blacks. Hispanics and poor white people are really struggling. I look at America now as like a very few rich people and a really lot of poor people, and that's just the way it is now.
BARR: Well, this really is an interesting study, though. And I think it's doubly unfair to those that are on the receiving end of it. One, because you're being discriminated against because of your skin color, which none of us have any control over. And secondly, you're being discriminated against because of your name, which none of us have control over, except those people that want to go out and change their name.
I mean, I didn't choose the name Bob. Charles didn't choose the name Charles. His parents did. And for somebody to discriminate against you because of that is, one, it's terribly stupid. It's self- defeating, because you're ruling out of your workforce or your employment force probably some very, very good people, and it's terribly unfair and leaves a very bad taste in the mouths of those that are on the receiving end of it.
NEVILLE: Well we have someone who is on the receiving end right now on the phone. Kim (ph) is standing by in Pennsylvania. Tell us your story, Kim (ph). Kim (ph), can you speak up for me, please?
KIM: Yes, sure. Are you able to hear me now?
NEVILLE: Go ahead.
KIM: Yes. My maiden name is Kim Blakeny (ph). And although that is actually an English descent or background, I am completely not that. My married now is now Kim Blakeny Small (ph). And even applying for jobs, going on interviews, once they see me they can't believe it. They don't believe it because my name does not look or fit who really I am.
NEVILLE: Because your name is what, a Native American name? And you are what?
KIM: Yes, my -- that's right. My maiden name is now Native American. But I'm actually Native American and Polish and African- American. But when you look at me, I look like an African-American. Very dark skinned, very dark hair. So once they see my name, they're not...
NEVILLE: And then what happens to you when they see you?
KIM: Right. Oh, I get the look. I get the look. I am a teacher. I am an elementary school teacher, and now I'm a school administrator, and I can't tell you how many times the first day of kindergarten the parents looked at me like, oh, my gosh. Who is that? Because they're not expecting me to be who -- what my name says.
NEVILLE: OK. Listen, Kim (ph)...
KIM: Yes?
NEVILLE: Thank you so much for calling in. I have Bill (ph) here in the audience who wants to weigh in. Do you think there's something to this study?
BILL: I think you'd have to look at the entire study, just like anything else. There's probably other factors that were involved there.
NEVILLE: Same qualifications, same resumes, same credentials, and just a different name.
BILL: I mean, I'd have to look at it myself. Having my own staffing company, I know that we don't look at names. We look at qualifications, specifically. And there's a very systematic way that we go about evaluating a resume. A name has nothing to do with it.
NEVILLE: Right. But you're black. And so the whole point is that perhaps potentially white employers are the ones who are discriminating in these particular cases.
BILL: Well, it's hard to say what white employers are doing.
NEVILLE: So what do you think, Bill (ph)? More specifically, what do you think when you see a name like Tamika Jones, Terrell Owens, or something like that on a resume?
BILL: Well, I look at the name and I look down at the qualifications. I don't rule it out just because of the name. It has no...
NEVILLE: But does it click any -- does anything click in your mind at all?
BILL: Possibly some ethnicity. If the name does look like it is ethnic. But you know my judgment is more along the lines of the qualifications, not the name. And that's me specifically.
NEVILLE: All right. Listen, thank you very much. We have to take a little break right now. And coming up next: will the confederate flag be flying again over Georgia is the question. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE, a sex ring is uncovered in Detroit, and what one mother called a "house of horrors." We're going to talk to the lawyer for one of the alleged victims. Don't go anywhere. The talk continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Here is an issue that just doesn't seem to go away: the confederate flag as a state symbol. Georgia's new governor, Sonny Perdue, is under a great deal of pressure to hold a popular vote on whether to revive the old state flag, the one with the confederate symbol prominently displayed -- now that was one of Governor Perdue's campaign promises, and flag supporters already are out in force to remind him that he better keep it. And this is definitely an interesting conversation. I want to start with you, Bob Barr, on this one. First of all, there's going to be something that's called an unbinding vote, correct? A non-binding vote is what it's called.
BARR: That's one option that they're talking about.
NEVILLE: Yes, that's what they're talking about, which means that the voters will go to the polls, they'll vote, and it's not necessarily legally binding, the decision. Yet hopefully lawmakers will heavily consider that when they make their decision on what to do with the flag. And -- which is actually a quicker solution or a quicker way to get to a solution, because if they did otherwise it would be years from now, it could take up to four years.
BARR: Right.
NEVILLE: OK. So is this the right way to go?
BARR: Well, if, in fact, you made a promise to the people of the state of Georgia, whether it's a good promise or bad promise, if you made a promise and you were elected based on that, then I think the governor has a moral obligation to do something to follow through on it. To be honest with you, if the question is, is this good policy, I would say the answer is, no, it's not good policy at this point.
The flag we that now have in Georgia -- and my congressional office was the first one to fly the new flag as soon as it became official, because it is the flag of our state. It's not the prettiest flag, it's not a particularly distinguished flag, but it is our flag. And we may disagree with the process, whereby the former governor went through to come up with this flag, this terribly ugly flag that in a survey that I recall seeing it was considered the ugliest flag of all 50 states, it's our flag.
And at some point in time, and I think we've reached that point in time, you move on. You don't keep looking back. You look forward.
NEVILLE: So leave the flag as it is right now?
BARR: Right now, yes. There are so many other important issues that the governor has to face and needs to deal with, including a terribly -- a terrible deficit, unemployment, education. We continue to remain last or next to last in education. These are the issues that Georgia needs to focus on.
NEVILLE: OK. Charles, let me get you in here now. Is this one of those subjects you were talking about? The flag and finding it offensive, that some people may not understand why certain parts of the community, particularly the black community, would be outraged by something like this?
BARKLEY: This is a very personal issue for me, because if white people want to fly this flag, it just to me is like they have no respect for me as a black person whatsoever. And why I say that -- and there is a certain thing in life called common decency that we should have for each other. Even if you don't like a race or a person, there's like a code of common decency.
So when I see that on a bumper sticker or somebody wearing it on a garment, they're saying to me they don't respect or they dislike black people totally. Because, to me -- and I said something about this in my book -- if I had something that was offensive to another person, out of common decency I wouldn't wear it or I wouldn't put it anywhere just out of common decency.
And black folks and Jewish people -- and I equate that with the swastika. If I had a swastika on one of my garments or on my truck, out of common decency to Jewish people I would get rid of it. So when white people want to fly this flag, I can't even believe we're debating, because it's a symbol of hate. And (UNINTELLIGIBLE) say, well it's our heritage. First of all, they shouldn't be proud of that heritage.
NEVILLE: So, Bob Barr, how do you think Georgians will vote? Do you think they'll see it as a symbol of hate and say we need a smaller emblem or no emblem at all regarding the confederacy?
BARR: Well I think we sort of got a foretaste of that in the election. It was an issue in the election, despite the fact that some people are now saying that it wasn't. I think it was an issue. It's one of those that engendered a great deal of animosity toward the former governor. Not just the fact that he changed the flag, but how he did it.
So I'd say that if there was a referendum, it probably would pass. Now whether it would have any meaning or whatnot, as I say, I think it's time to move on, to be honest with you. But apparently there were promises made and they have to be kept. But my preference would be to see us tackle the real problems that confront our state: taxes, spending, deficits, education, transportation, water. We're running of water in Atlanta.
NEVILLE: Right.
BARR: These are the issues that we ought to be focusing on.
NEVILLE: Right.
BARKLEY: Yeah, but we can't move forward if it's a big deal in the just recent election. I mean, obviously, we all want to leave slavery and all that hatred and all that bigotry behind. But obviously, if it's a big deal in the last election a month ago, it's not going anywhere.
BARR: But the governor can decide what issues to bring up. And the other issues are the issues that ought to be brought up right now.
BARKLEY: Well the governor should say, you know what, this symbol is wrong, it offends black people, and that's wrong. And get rid of it.
NEVILLE: OK. Before we move on, I want to talk to Marshall (ph) over there who is from Georgia. What do you think? How do you think Georgians will vote regarding the flag?
MARSHALL: Well I'm from south Georgia. And south Georgians feel very strongly about the flag. I'm sorry Mr. Barkley feels that just because you may support the flag, that you're a racist. That's not true.
NEVILLE: So what does the flag mean to you, sir?
MARSHALL: Well, how does it denote racism?
NEVILLE: What does it mean to you, sir?
MARSHALL: Well it means heritage; it also means hate to some people. So you can take it either way.
NEVILLE: What does it mean to you?
MARSHALL: It just means that it was a flag flown by the confederacy of the state. It doesn't mean hate, it doesn't mean heritage. It means what you want it to mean.
NEVILLE: OK. Well then so it means something to you, it means something different to Charles.
MARSHALL: I can take it or leave it. I don't wake up every morning saying, man, we need the confederate flag back over the state capital. I was making a comment earlier that this issue is not going to go away until the state of Georgia is allowed to vote, because people like you see on the screen are going to continuously bring it up. I know because of where I live at.
But I think the injustice was done by the '56 state legislature when they changed the flag to include The St. Andrew's cross. I believe to undue that injustice, you need to go back to the '56 flag. And I believe that if you appeal to the state of Georgia's -- Georgians' common sense, I believe that you will not see the confederate flag back over the state dome.
I think it's that simple. Give the people a vote, but appeal to the common sense. Because people -- the flag should be something that unites people and not divides people, and unfortunately, this flag does divide people. It does not need to go back over the state dome.
NEVILLE: OK. Marshall, thank you so much.
We're going to move on now, because, as I mentioned earlier in the show, the National Football League wants to distance itself from Las Vegas during the Super Bowl. So it's refusing to run any ads for the gambling capital. Now the ads don't mention gambling, but the Super Bowl is one of the city's biggest betting events of the year.
The NFL says any association between the organization and gambling would hurt the public's perception of the sport and its athletes. Charles, so is this ridiculous or a good idea?
BARKLEY: First of all, they're hypocrites. I mean, that's all football's good for, betting on. I mean, seriously, I cannot wait for the weekend to call my guy to put my bets in.
NEVILLE: That's because you love to bet.
BARKLEY: I know. But you know what? They're hypocrites. They put lines in the paper, all the games on the board, and they're just being hypocrites. But you know why? Because they can. Because the ads are going to sell out for the Super Bowl and they do not need Las Vegas at all.
NEVILLE: Do you care about this at all, Bob?
BARR: Well, I agree. This is one of the many issues that Charles and I agree on. I think it's terribly hypocritical. You can't open the weekend papers without seeing what the latest line is on college games, on basketball games, on football games.
They take money from beer companies. I mean, if they were really serious, they would say we're not going to condone alcoholic beverages. So we're not going to take ads from alcoholic beverage companies. It's hypocritical and contradictory.
BARKLEY: Hey and I know -- I'm not pumping up Coors. I do ads for Coors. But I was reading "USA Today" on the way down here. I'm going to watch the Super Bowl. I don't want them to make sure they run that commercial with the chicks fighting.
NEVILLE: Oh, no. Are you serious?
BARKLEY: I do.
NEVILLE: OK. Wait, that's the Miller Light ad we're talking about.
BARKLEY: It's a great commercial.
NEVILLE: Hang on now. This is the Miller Light ad. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great taste.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great taste.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, man. Now that would make a great commercial.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What fool wouldn't want to watch that?
ANNOUNCER: Life is best toned (ph) over a great tasting Miller Light. The place called Miller Time.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Less filling. (END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: I have 30 seconds, Charles. You'll take 15 of them to comment.
BARKLEY: That's a great commercial.
NEVILLE: Some women find it offensive.
BARKLEY: Why? It's a commercial. First of all, people don't get their values off television. First of all, they watch "The Bachelor," "The Bachelorette" and "The Osbournes."
BARR: But now wait a minute. I thought you said that if some people find something offensive, they can take it off.
BARKLEY: They can take it off. That's exactly right. They don't have to watch that.
NEVILLE: OK.
BARR: But you would.
BARKLEY: My television will be on watching...
NEVILLE: Oh, he's going to Tevo (ph) the commercials. All right. Bob Barr, Charles Barkley, thank you both for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE. We'll see you again. OK.
You can answer the "Question of the Day" a little bit later this hour. Should Las Vegas ads air during the Super Bowl? Give me a call: 1-800-310-4CNN, or e-mail at talkback@cnn.com.
And coming up next: sex slaves in a house of horrors. Find out how a security guard helped uncover an alleged kidnapping ring that forced young girls into prostitution. That and more as TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. Detroit police have uncovered what one mother describes as a "house of horrors." A place where police say girls were held in virtual slavery forced to prostitute themselves to strange men and engage in other crimes. And with us is today is Avery Friedman. He is a civil rights attorney who represents the young woman who bolted from her alleged captures.
And I want to welcome you to the show, sir. And, first of all, how is your client doing?
AVERY FRIEDMAN, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING ALLEGED VICTIM: Arthel, I want you to know that she is back here in town. We had her at the doctor today. And a wonderful family surrounding her. So she's starting on the path of getting better. NEVILLE: OK. Avery, tell us her story.
FRIEDMAN: This is extraordinary. If there were ever a story of raw courage, and I've heard a lot of them, and you have, too, Arthel, this is it. Last Thursday night, waiting for the bus, after she finished her job at the mall, she was approached by an individual who wanted to sell her jewelry. And little did she know that this was the device to lure her in to what became a multi-state prostitution ring. What happened is that after efforts by this other individual to have her buy the jewelry...
NEVILLE: And let me jump in there, Avery, because it was a young woman as well who approached her, right?
FRIEDMAN: Exactly.
NEVILLE: OK.
FRIEDMAN: This is how slick this process was. After saying, well, if you can't afford the jewelry, you know what? We're going give it to you. Just follow me. And as the young woman who was 17 -- let's call her Pamela, Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK.
FRIEDMAN: As she followed and approached a large SUV, men jumped out and immediately pulled off her coat and her purse. Why? Because they know the young women will often carry -- and in this case, Pamela was carrying mace and a razor to protect herself.
NEVILLE: And Avery, I'm running out of time. But how did she finally escape?
FRIEDMAN: Well what happened was that she broke away at a mall when she saw a security guard. And what happened, Arthel, she hid behind him. They tried to talk the security guard out of it. He had better sense, called the police. And this is the beginning of busting this statewide or multi-state ring in prostitution.
NEVILLE: Right. But before she escaped she was taken to where, Detroit?
FRIEDMAN: She was taken to one of the residences where these homes are operated and she was taught about what happens if you don't provide sex to the customers. You are beaten. And these are girls from 13 to 17 years old. And there were several dozen of them there. So after going to Chicago, where she went from Cleveland and she went to Detroit, then when they were at the mall broke away.
NEVILLE: Good for her. Listen, quickly, are these folks behind bars now, the people who were...
FRIEDMAN: The good news is they are behind bars. We're working with local enforcement and we're going get a handle on this criminal enterprise. There are a lot of people involved. Were at the start of the beginning of getting the bad guys. NEVILLE: OK. Avery, we'll see you again to talk more about this story. Avery Friedman, thank you so much for joining us here today.
FRIEDMAN: Nice to see you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Nice to see you.
OK. I want to know if you think the NFL should run those Vegas ads and why. It's the "Question of the Day," and I'll take your answers right after this.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Time for the "Question of the Day." Should the National Football League run ads for Las Vegas during the Super Bowl? Going to Las Vegas now, or at least somewhere in Nevada, Judy (ph) is standing by. What do you think? Speak up, Judy (ph).
JUDY: For the NFL to suggest that Las Vegas ads would tarnish the image of their athletes is ludicrous. Their athletes have been involved in illegal drugs, illegal gambling, sexual assault, homicides, DUIs.
NEVILLE: All right, Judy (ph). Judy (ph), I have a feeling you're going to go on. I'm going to an e-mail now. Thanks for your call.
JUDY: OK.
NEVILLE: Let's see the e-mails coming in. John in Florida, "What a joke. The mob makes more money during the football season than any other time of the year. Professional football is a business, not a sport."
OK. Coming in, Robert in Maryland. "They advertise the Lotto during football games. Why not advertise vacations in Las Vegas?"
All right. Thanks so much for answering our "Question of the Day." We're out of time. And thanks for watching as well. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll see you again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern, 12:00 Pacific on TALKBACK LIVE. Now "INSIDE POLITICS" with Judy Woodruff up next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Study Examines Name Discrimination>
|
