PRIMARIES. >> THANK YOU BOTH SO MUCH.
A LOT O COVER TODAY.
I WANT TO TURN TO ANOTHER LEGAL
CONTROVERSY.
CONTROVERSY. IN 2011 AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN
SINGLE MOTHER FROM AKRON, OHIO
WAS SENTENCED FOR USING HER
FATHER’S ADDRESS FOR GETTING HER
KIDS INTO A BETTER SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
DISTRICT. MANY ARGUE THAT SHE IS NOT THAT
DIFFERENT FROM ACTRESS FELICITY
HUFFMAN.
HUFFMAN. BOTH DID WHAT THEY DID TO GET A
BETTER EDUCATION FOR THE
ARGUMENT.
ARGUMENT. THERE IS ONE DIFFERENCE.
HUFFMAN WAS SENTENCED TO 14 DAYS
IN JAIL.
IN JAIL. WHAT WAS YOUR IMMEDIATE REACTION
TO THIS?
TO THIS? >> MY PROCEEDIMMEDIATE REACTION
COURSE, SHE IS WELTY, SHE IS A
WOMAN OF PRIVILEGE, AND AS AN
ATTORNEY THAT PRACTICED HERE IT
IS NOT UNCOMMON TO CEASE A
DISPARITY TO SEE HOW LITIGANTS
ARE TREATED WHEN THEY’RE RICH
AND WELL THINK VERSUS POOR.
AND I THINK WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE
FIND DIFFICULT WITH THIS CASE IS
THE CONCEPT OF ACCOUNTABILITY.
BEING JUDGED AND HANDED OUT A
LOT HARSHER.
LOT HARSHER. NOT THE SAME AGAINST FELICITY
HAUFMAN, SO SHOULD SHE HAVE
GOTTEN MORE JAIL, OR SHOULD THE
OTHER WOMAN HAVE BEEN SENTENCED
TO LESS JAIL, RIGHT?
BUT HOW DO WE DEAL?
>> IT IS AT LEAST A
CONVERSATION, RAIDING A RED FLAG
TO TALK ABOUT IT.
WE WEREN’T TALKING ABOUT HER IN
2011, WHAT IS YOUR REACTION?
>> I THINK IT IS INCREDIBLY
FAIR.
FAIR. FELICITY HUFFMAN SHOULD HAVE HAD
MORE JAIL TIME.
SHE WAS CHEATING TO TRY AND GET
HER DAUGHTER IN TO A BETTER
UNIVERSITY.
UNIVERSITY. THESE ELITE UNIVERSITIES NOW
HAVE AN ACCEPTANCE RATE OF 5% TO
10% AND IT IS BECOMING AN ARMS
RACE TO TRY TO GET INTO THESE
UNIVERSITIES.
UNIVERSITIES. I CAN SEE PARENTS LIKE THIS
ENGAGING IN THIS BEHAVIOR, BUT
UNIVERSITIES HAVE CULLPABILITY.
>> THIS IS NOT -- THESE ARE
NONVIOLENCE CRIMES AND WE HAVE A
LOT OF PEOPLE IN JAIL IN THIS
COUNTRY AND THAT SECTION
PENSIVE.
PENSIVE. >> I THINK IT IS THE LATTER.
I THINK WE SHOULD BE TALKING
MORE ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY AND
WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE.
DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO PUT A NOER
JAIL WHEN SHE COMMITTED A
NONVIOLENCE OFFENSE.
NONVIOLENCE OFFENSE. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WE HAVE
TO TALK ABOUT IS SENTENCING.
HOW ARE JUDGING SENTENCING THE
PEOPLE THAT COME BEFORE THEM.
ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTE IS WHEN
YOU HAVE HAVE A WHITE PERSON OR
PERSON OF PRIVILEGE ABOUT TO BE
SENTENCED THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL
LEVEL OF GRACE AND UNDERSTANDING
THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH
THIS PERSON COMMITTED THE CRIME,
AND YOU DON’T SEE THAT GRACE
BEING GIVEN WHEN THEY’RE A
PERSON OF COLOR OR WHEN THE
PERSON IS DOOR.
WE SAW THAT OF BROKEOK TURNER,
RIGHT?
RIGHT? THEY SAID HE HAS HIS WHOLE LIFE
AHEAD OF HIM, WE CAN’T PUT HIM
IN JAIL, AND THAT’S FINAL, A
REASONABLE ARGUMENT TO MAKE FOR
A HUMAN BEING, BUT IS THAT
ARGUMENT BEING MADE WHEN THE
PERM TRAY
PERM TRAY PERPETRATOR IS A PERSON OF
COLOR.
COLOR. AND WITH RESPECT TO HOW BLACK
PEOPLE ARE SENTENCED TO WHITE
PEOPLE BEING SENTENCED, THESE
ARE JUST FACTS NOW, IT IS
CLARING.CLARE
CLARING.CLARE GLARING.
GLARING. >> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT ANOTHER
STORY OF PRIVILEGE.
M.I.T. AND THE MEDIA LABS
RELATIONSHIP WITH JEFFREY
EPSTEIN.
EPSTEIN. LAWRENCE LESIG DEFENDED THE MAN
WHO TOOK MONEY FROM EPSTEIN AND
COVERED IT UP, BUT HE IS ARGUING
THAT THE REALITY TODAY IS THAT
UNIVERSITIES NEED TO TAKE MONEY
FROM QUESTIONABLE SOURCES
BECAUSE THEY’RE USING THE MONEY
FOR GOOD.
FOR GOOD. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT
ARGUMENT?
ARGUMENT? >> I WAS SHOCKED AT HIS ARGUMENT
IN OTHER PARTS OF HIS LIFE HE
HAS CALLED FOR GREATER
TRANSPARENCY IN AMERICAN
POLITICS.
POLITICS. AND I ANY THERE IS A
DISTINCTION.
DISTINCTION. MIT TOOK MONEY AFTER THE
CONVICTION.
CONVICTION. HARVARD TOOK THE MONEY AFTER IT.
WHAT HE DID WAS MUCH WORSE, AND
THE FACT THAT THEY TRIED TO HIDE
IT MARKKES THE OFFENSE GREATER.
>> PEOPLE LIKE BELL GATE THAT’S
HAVE THEIR OWN WELL STAFFED
FOUNDATION, AND THEY’RE
DIRECTING IT THROUGH EPSTEIN,
MANY OF US ASKING THE QUESTION
WHY?
WHY? >> I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS
THAT IT HAS TO BE THAT WE MUST
TAKE THIS MONEY FROM THIS
PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL.
PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL. THERE IS A LOT OF OTHER WAYS
THEY CAN RAISE MONEY AND OTHER
WAYS THEY CAN BRING THE MONEY
IN.
IN. IT ISN’T NECESSARY TO TAKE IT
FROM A CONVICTED PERSON WHO IS A
REGISTERED SEX FONDER.
THERE SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING THAT
WE’RE NOW UNCOVERING IN AMERICA.
HOW ARE WELTY PEOPLE OPERATING,
RIGHT?
RIGHT? AND I THINK MOST OF AMERICA IS
GETTING THAT FRONT SEAT LIKE
WOW, THEY DO GET OVER ON A LOT
OF WAYS.
OF WAYS. SO THIS ARGUMENT THAT THIS JUDGE
MAKES THAT YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE
BIG DEAL IS SORT OF INDICATIVE
OF WHAT WE SEE IN THIS COUNTRY
WHICH IS LAX STANDARDS, RIGHT?
NO ONE HAS INTEGRITY, WHO CARES,
AND WE NEED TO GET BACK TO
STANDARDS, INTEGRITY, CHARACTER,
AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
>> HAVE THE RULES OF THE GAME
GOTTEN SO WARPED.
DARYLE, YOU KNOW THAT
FUNDRAISING HAS BECOME A BLOOD
SPORT.
SPORT. IT IS A WHOSE WHO OF NEW YORK’S
RICHEST AND MOST FAMOUS PEOPLE
IN THE WORLD OF HIGH FINANCE.
SO IS THE REAL PROBLEM NOT
NECESSARILY THE INDIVIDUAL BUT
THAT THE PRESSURES HAVE GOTTEN
SO GREAT TO RAISE MASSIVE
AMOUNTS OF MONEY AND THESE
PEOPLE ARE SAYING I WENT INTO A
WORLD OF ACADEMICS NOT TO BE A
FUNDRAISING MACHINE, AND THAT’S
WHAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE TURNED
INTO.
INTO. >> THE PROBLEM IS THAT WEALTH
HAS CORRUPTED EVERY PART OF THE
AMERICAN STORY.
AMERICAN STORY. WHAT MIT DID NOT JUST ON THIS
FRONT BUT IN OTHER AREAS I
BELIEVE CROSSES THE LINE.
SO I THINK PEOPLE JUST HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND THE WAY THAT WEALTH
IS HAVING ALL OF THESE NEGATIVE
CONSEQUENCES
CONSEQUENCES CONSEQUENCES.
CONSEQUENCES. BUT THE GOOD NEWS IS THERE IS A
PUBLIC
PUBLIC PUBLIC BACKLASH AGAINST WEALTH.
PEOPLE SUPPORT RAISING TAXES ON
THE WEALTHY, EVEN THOSE WITH
WARREN’S WEALTH TAX ARE POLLING
PRETTY WELL.
PRETTY WELL. WE SEE THE NEGATIVE
RAMIFICATIONS AND THEY’RE
STARTING TO PUSH BACK AND DEMAND
MORE POLICIES.
MORE POLICIES. >> HOW DOES IT GET DOES IT?
PEOPLE WANT TO BE WEALTHY IN
THIS COUNTRY.
THIS COUNTRY. THEY WANT TO BE IN A POSITION TO
JOIN THE BOARD AND GET THAT
OPPORTUNITY FOR THEIR KIDS.
>> I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO
FOCUS -- I THINK WHAT PEOPLE ARE
MOST CONCERNED ABOUT IS FAIRNESS
AND I THINK THAT THAT’S THE LINK
THAT I SEE BETWEEN THESE TWO
STORIES.
STORIES. AND THAT I THINK IS HOW IT GETS
FIXED.
FIXED. YOU FOCUS ON THE CONCEPT OF
FAIRNESS.
FAIRNESS. WHAT IS FAIR?
AND I THINK FOR SOME REASON ALL
OF A SUDDEN PEOPLE HAVE SORT OF
GOTTEN CLUELESS ABOUT THAT.
I’M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT’S FAIR.
YES, YOU ARE.
IT’S PRETTY SIMPLE.
IT’S PRETTY BASIC.
>> YOU KNOW WHAT’S FAIR, THREE,
FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN EIGHT
YEARS OLDS AND YOU’RE TALKING