(Music)
  - Good evening, everyone.
 It is such a wonderful
 thing to see such a
full room, such an excited room.
 It's really an honor
 and a pleasure.
My name is Cybele Raver,
 and I serve as Deputy Provost
 and on behalf of both the
 Provost and the President,
I welcome everyone here tonight.
  It's just terrific
  to see everyone.
 I really want to especially
 thank Dean Sundaram
 and his office for
 inviting me to share
 a few words tonight
 and especially
 to extend an
 extremely warm welcome
 to the Javits family
 and, of course,
 to their colleague, Jeff Keil,
  and his partner, Danielle,
 and of course to all of you.
 This evening, we are
 really honored to hear from
Professor Michael Posner
 of the NYU Stern
 School of Business.
 Stern is led by, as you know,
 by our wonderful Dean,
 Professor Sundaram,
  and he will introduce
  Professor Posner shortly.
  But I just want to take a
  few moments to recognize
 the accomplishments
 and the legacy of
Jacob Javits and
Marian B. Javits,
particularly because of
the support we receive
from the Marian B. and
Jacob K. Javits Foundation.
 We are so grateful
 for that partnership
 and we thank the Foundation
 for their continued support.
 The Jacob K. Javits
 Visiting Professorship
 was established in 2008
  and it's to honor the
  memory and accomplishments
of the four-term Senator Javits
  and to promote the values
  for which he fought.
The professorship is
awarded to an academic,
  a lawyer, a policymaker,
  a journalist, an historian,
 or a former elected
 official whose work focuses
 on issues close to the
 Senator's interests.
  And those include health,
  civil rights, labor,
  foreign policy, disability
  rights, education,
 employment fairness,
 and economic security
 for working Americans.
 We can think about those
 issues as incredibly timely
for our times today and
incredibly important
  for this institution. As
  you know, NYU is very much
 a private university
 in public service.
 We have a very strong
 focus on inequality,
equity, and opportunity
at this institution.
  Senator Javits has a long
  and distinguished career
of dedicating his life's
work to his community.
  Born and raised
  in New York City,
 the Senator earned a
 law degree from NYU.
  We're so glad to
  have our esteemed
 NYU Dean and President
 of NYU Emeritus,
  John Sexton, here as well.
 And Senator Javits
 was elected initially
  to represent New York's
  21st Congressional District
  in the U.S. House of
  Representatives.
 He subsequently served as New
 York State Attorney General
 for several years
 before being elected
  to the U.S. Senate,
where he served for four terms.
  I think many of
  you already know,
and I think it's really
important to highlight,
 the incredible force
 and policymaking that
 Senator Javits had in
 terms of his impact
 on our nation and
 our nation's future.
 He helped, for
 example to create the
  National Endowment for the
  Arts and the Humanities.
 In 1973, he sponsored
 the War Powers Act.
  And he helped to pass the
 Employee Retirement
 Income Security Act,
which ensures fair
private pension system.
 In recognition of his
 commitment to public service,
Senator Javits was
awarded multiple medals,
  including the Presidential
  Medal of Freedom
  for his exceptionally
  meritorious contributions
to our country.
 The Senator believed strongly
in the power of bipartisanship,
in driving social progress,
  and he was well
  known for building
 effective coalitions
 to pass legislation
  that benefited the
  American people.
 To honor this legacy, in 2016,
 the Javits Foundation
 established
  the Jacob K. Javits Prize
  for Bipartisan Leadership.
  Professor Posner's
  talk tonight on
 restoring bipartisanship in
 the public and private sectors
is a wonderful tribute
to the Senator's legacy.
 And with that, I'll go
 ahead and turn it over
  to Dean Sundaram.
 Thank you so much
 again for joining us
  and we really look forward
 to all the comments
 that will follow.
(claps)
 - Thank you everyone
 and welcome.
  I am the Dean of the
  Stern School of Business,
Raghu Sundaram.
 It's my pleasure to welcome
 all of you here today.
 In many ways, I have the
 easiest and most pleasant task
  of all, introducing a
  truly wonderful colleague.
 But, before I do that,
 just a few words of thanks.
 My thanks to the Javits
 family, the Javits Foundation
for making this event possible.
 My thanks for Cybele
 for her introduction.
  My thanks to John Sexton,
  who's hiding in the back.
  The person who introduced
  us to Mike Posner
 and made it possible for Mike
 Posner to be here at Stern.
 And one last acknowledgement,
  a truly wonderful alumnus
 celebrating his
 hundredth year now,
 a graduate of 1941 from Stern
  who is back at Stern for
  the second time this week,
 who attends many of our
 alumni events, Alfred Abraham.
  The class of 1941.
(claps)
  Thank you, Alfred.
 This is
 the first time Stern
  has had the opportunity to
  host the Javits Lecture,
 and we are particularly
 delighted about that.
 Because the subject matter,
 the broader subject matter
  of the Javits Lecture, of
  the Javits Professorship,
  is something that is very
  close to Stern's heart.
Some 20 years ago, a
few colleagues of mine,
 who had significant foresight,
 saw the importance of
 the way business was
 evolving away from the
 traditional shareholder focus
  more into broader concerns
 and we became the first
 school to set up what is now
 in its twentieth year, the
 Business and Society Program,
 that looks at
 the intersection of
business and society, of
business and its publics,
  business and law, business
  in the broader world,
business and democracy,
business and ethical leadership,
business and professional
responsibility.
 These have been incorporated
 into our curriculum
 in very deep ways by
 the wonderful faculty
 that lead the Business
 and Society area
  into a social impact core
  that every one of our
  undergraduates
  has to go through,
 in addition to the
 liberal arts core
 and the business core
 into professional
 responsibility courses
 that our MBA
 students go through.
 It is, in some ways,
 the richest part
  of the business education
  that they get today
  because it brings together
  the technical skills
 that they acquire
 over their course here
 into analyzing
 problems of importance
 that they will look
 at, not only from the
 business point tomorrow, but
 for the society of tomorrow.
 One of the exemplars of the
 Business and Society area
 is the person it is my
 privilege to introduce today,
 Mike Posner.
 Now, all of you have
 read Mike's bio and
 Mike's incredible achievements
 both in the private
 and public sectors,
 but especially in
 the nonprofit world,
 in government over the
 last three decades.
 So, I'm not going to revisit
 that part of his biography.
 But this I will say:
there are résumé virtues
and there are the human virtues,
 and the nicest part about Mike
  is the human side of Mike.
  Dealing with the
  kind of questions he does,
 on business, on human rights,
 it's remarkable how
 cheerful he always is.
 But whenever there's
 anything to be done,
 he truly is the first person
 to put up his hand and say,
 "I will volunteer to do this."
 So Mike came to Stern in 2014,
 as I said, courtesy of John
 Sexton's introduction to us.
We established in 2014,
under Mike's leadership,
the Center for Business
and Human Rights,
 the first center of
 its sort in the world
and I think still the only real,
 well I know there are some of
  Mike's protégés
  who have gone on
 to start other similar centers
 in Switzerland and in Sweden,
 but I think, it's
 still the only real
 center of its sort.
  I've often told Mike that
  we should think about
 renaming the center,
The Center for
Business and Democracy,
  because the hardest issue
  we are handling today
  is issues around
  liberal democracy
and the ways in which business,
 not deliberately,
 not with any malice,
 is undermining some
 of the most difficult
institutions that have
been the most difficult
 to build over several
 hundred years.
Liberal democracy suffers under
threat in many ways today.
And Mike has been at
the forefront of leading
  the discussion around this
  through his center's work
  around fake news,
and the topic of today,
how to resolve bipartisanship.
  Fortunately, it says, I
  just looked at the topic,
 it says both in the public
 and in the private sectors.
 The private area, I
 think it should be
 a little bit easier to handle.
 He just had a piece on this
 topic in Forbes Magazine
 and I was pleased to
 meet one of the editors of Forbes 
 when I came in, 
 who was talking about that.
So, without further ado,
let me introduce Mike.
 Thank you all.
(claps)
  - So, thank you Raghu for
  those really warm words.
I'm delighted to be here
and really honored
  to be selected by
  the Javits family
 and their foundation
 as this year’s
 Javits Visiting Professor.
For the past six years,
I've really been lucky
to be here at Stern
and to call it my home.
 In 2012, when I was at
 the State Department,
 a colleague and I
 decided to start this
 center on business and human
 rights at a business school.
  I went to many of my West
  Side, Upper West Side,
liberal friends, some of
whom are sitting here.
 And I told them what
 I was trying to do
 and they said,
 "Mixing human
 rights and business
  sounds like an oxymoron."
 So I thought, "Oh my gosh."
  But I came to John Sexton,
  who's an old friend,
 and if you don't know John,
 he's an incredibly
 persuasive character.
 And he said this is
 the right place to be.
 And he sent me to Peter Henry,
 to the business
 school, the Dean then.
And they were both unbelievably
immediately receptive.
John understood,
Peter understood,
  that human rights
 is vital to the success of a
 twenty-first century company
  and it is to our society.
  And they saw an important
  gap that NYU could fill
and supported the
creation of our center.
 I'm really, as I say,
 incredibly indebted to John,
 to Peter, to Raghu, to Stern
  for allowing us
  this opportunity.
 Our vision was then,
 and it is still today,
  to challenge and to guide
  business in charting rules
of the road for the twenty-first
century global economy.
Too often, the business
model for companies
  is to do whatever
  they must do to
 make money in the short term
 and then to give some
 money away to charity,
 to community, to arts groups,
 or to enhance their brand.
  We urge companies to
  move beyond this model of
corporate social responsibility,
  which, all too often, has
  been more about protecting
 a company's brand reputation
 than how to change
problematic business principles.
  We focus on how companies
  are making money,
  not how they give it away.
 And this is a tough agenda.
Over the last six years,
 we've built a terrific team.
 Privileged to be
 working alongside some
 similarly committed people
 at Stern, who Raghu mentioned.
 When I arrived,
 Peter connected me to
 Bruce Buchanan, who
 had the foresight
 20 years ago to create the
 Business and Society program.
  He's now handed the
  baton to Batia Wiesenfeld,
another great colleague
 who continues to lead
 this great program.
Among our colleagues,
one here is Jon Haidt,
 an author and very
 prominent ethicist,
 and Tensie Whelan, who joined
 Stern several years ago
 from the Rainforest Alliance
 to create a Center for
 Sustainable Business.
We've benefited greatly
by NYU's commitment
 to taking risks and
 to thinking big.
President Hamilton and
Raghu, our current Dean,
 don't just tolerate
 untested ideas
  and try to manage change.
As you'll see, if you go
to the Stern website,
 they embrace change.
  Stern now is about how do
  you encourage new ideas.
 This is a core value
 for NYU and for Stern.
 It's also something that John
 did in his years as president.
 This is not a static place.
It's a dynamic institution
that's willing to take chances.
 So, I want to reflect on one
 chapter of NYU's history,
 the story of a great
 American change agent named
 Jacob Javits.
Javits grew up in a crowded
tenement on the Lower East Side.
 He graduated from NYU Law in 1926
and beginning in 1947, he began
a career of public service
that took him to the U.S.
House of Representatives
for seven years,
New York State Attorney
General for two,
and then for 24 years as
United States Senator.
 He belonged to a group known
 as Rockefeller Republicans,
  politicians who championed
  liberal social policies,
 prudent economic policies,
 and integrity in government.
Sadly, today,
Rockefeller Republicans
  are an endangered species.
In fact, I hope they
aren't actually extinct.
Their decline, in part,
is why we're having
 such a hard time
 finding common ground.
 So today, I want to
 talk about the decline
  in bipartisanship in our
  politics, in our society,
and offer some
thoughts, in particular,
 about what the
 private sector can do
  to address our growing
  divisions and rekindle our
  capacity to reach out to
  each other, to the other.
Senator Javits, just to
spend a few more moments
 on his unbelievable career,
he devoted his professional life
 to reaching across the aisle,
 looking for opportunities
  to forge links between
  Republicans and Democrats,
 liberals and conservatives.
He was a problem-solver,
intensely focused
on achieving practical results.
If I can borrow a phrase
from New York Times
columnist, Tom Friedman,
"He aimed to make a difference,
not just to make a point."
 And his track record
 of accomplishments
 points to the value
 of bipartisanship.
 In 1957, he sponsored early
 civil rights legislation
that laid the foundation
for the landmark
 civil rights laws we
 all know of the 1960s.
 He was an enthusiastic
 supporter of workers' rights,
understood the important
role unions can play
  empowering working people.
He helped shaped reforms
of our pension system,
 --there was a mention of
 ERISA. In a time when
 old age and poverty
 were often synonymous,
  ERISA, along with
  Social Security,
made secure retirement possible
for millions of Americans.
 He was active internationally,
 as was mentioned again.
  He was troubled by
  the escalation of
 U.S. military
 involvement in Vietnam
  without adequate
  congressional say,
  and so he was a major
  force behind the adoption
 of the War Powers Act,
 and he actually wrote
 a book about it.
 Though he was mindful of maintaining 
control of our borders,
 he supported continued U.S.
 leadership on refugee rights.
The list of his accomplishments
goes on and on and on.
  His success was rooted in
 pragmatism, passion,
 and principle.
His actions were fueled
by his commitment to
fairness, equality,
dignity, and integrity.
  A frustration with
  the corruption
 of Tammany Hall first
 drove Javits into politics.
 What's amazing is that
 he never became jaded.
  He maintained a
  firm moral compass
 and a devotion to principle
 throughout his long career.
Unfortunately, these attributes
seem in short supply these days,
amidst our growing
political polarization.
 Now, it's all too easy
 to blame our divisions
solely on our current president,
  whose actions and demeanor
  I find deeply disturbing.
  But I realize that
  the 2016 election
 and his continued popularity
with a sizeable minority
of our population,
  reflects deeper divisions
  within our society,
often driven by anger and fear.
 Though the president clearly
 exacerbates these divisions,
often on a daily basis,
 he didn't create them.
  Whatever our beliefs, it's
  incumbent on each of us
 to go the extra mile
 to understand the
 perspective of others
 whose views are
 antithetical to our own
  and even to look
  for common ground.
 Much has been written about
the growing polarization
in our society,
what one analyst calls,
  "the culture of contempt."
 A recent Pew study confirmed
 our partisan divisions
  are more intense
  and more personal
 than they've been in
 an awfully long time.
58% of Republicans now say that
  Democrats are more immoral
  than other Americans.
 Most Democrats say the same
 thing about Republicans.
 Men, older people are more
 likely to harbor these views.
These negative
feelings run very deep.
In 1960, this is one statistic
that jumped out at me,
  when pollsters asked people
  how they would feel
if one of their
children married someone
from the other political party,
 5% of Republicans
 and 4% of Democrats
 said that they would be upset.
  They did the same
  polling in 2010,
half of the Republicans,
 and more than a third
 of the Democrats,
  harbored those sentiments.
 Today, 83% of respondents say
uf they discuss politics
more than once a day,
they feel angry about something
they've heard or read.
  It seems that the only
  thing we can agree on now
  is how angry we
  are at each other.
There are various explanations for
 how we've descended in
 this partisan rancor.
  Some are obvious:
increasing religious,
racial, ethnic diversity
  in our society; growing
  gap in employment, income,
 health, even longevity
 between Americans;
the demise of
traditional news media,
which once offered daily
description of events
 that were widely
 accepted as accurate.
Other factors are less obvious.
  Some people say it
  was the Cold War
  which united us
  against Communism.
 Or the passing of the World
 War II Greatest Generation.
 But I want to focus tonight
 on three broad trends
 that I think deserve
 special attention.
 The nature and scope
 of these things
  would deeply shock
  Senator Javits
if he were alive today.
The first is the rapid
expansion of the global economy
 and its residual
 effects here at home.
  As I stress to my
  students in every course,
  the benefits of
  globalization are obvious.
  In the last 35 years, more
  than two billion people
 on our planet have been
 lifted out of extreme poverty.
 The private sector has
 played the key role,
 generating hundreds
 of millions of jobs.
 A globalized economy
 has given us access
  to more goods and services
  and greatly reduced costs.
  We enjoy blueberries and
  melons from Latin America
 in the dead of winter.
 We buy cheap clothing
 online, manufactured in Asia,
  and it's delivered to our
  doorsteps in a day or two.
We spend hours every day
on these various
 electronic devices we love,
  powered by batteries that
  are built with minerals
mined in Africa.
 While we enjoy these advances,
 we've been too slow to address
 the social consequences
accompanying this global growth.
  Because wages are so low,
 much lower in places like
 Mexico or China or Bangladesh,
a significant portion of
U.S. manufacturing jobs,
especially low-wage industries,
 have migrated to other places.
 Factory workers in Youngstown
 or Scranton or Flint
who have lost their jobs
have every reason to be
  upset and afraid
  for their future.
 But instead of finding ways to
 mitigate these
 negative consequences,
 politicians of all stripes,
 too often fuel popular anger
by demonizing trade agreements,
dismissing the value
of economic progress in
developing countries,
or trying to build walls
around our country.
 These bromides fail to
 address the real challenges
facing working and
middle-class Americans.
A second related change
fueling polarization
is economic inequality.
  The statistics are stark.
Over the last 40 years,
 CEO compensation in
 the U.S. has increased
 by 940%, it's 940%.
While the salaries of
the lowest-paid workers
  in the same companies,
  has increased by only 12%.
 In fact, the average
 income for the majority
 of American workers have not
 risen at all since the 1980s.
  The gap between rich and
  poor is actually widening.
The top 1% of all Americans
are richer than the bottom 90%.
 These discrepancies
 have serious costs.
 Life expectancy in this
 country has actually fallen
  for three years in a row,
 effecting low income
 communities disproportionately.
Globally, Oxfam calculates,
this is another wild statistic,
the 26 richest people on
our planet have wealth
that's equal to the bottom 50%.
  That's 3.8 billion people.
 The need to right this
 balance is obvious.
The third seismic shift
relates to technology,
 the so-called fourth
 industrial revolution.
 Every day, we see the benefits.
We see advances in
artificial intelligence,
 improving efficiency
 in everything
 from commuting to lifesaving 
 medical procedures,
 instant global communications,
 has suddenly become
 free of charge.
 In the 1980s, a phone call
 from Tokyo to San Francisco
  cost about $30 a minute.
 Now we get grumpy if our
 free video conferencing app
  takes a minute to upload.
(laughs)
  We take for granted the
  easy and immediate access
  the internet affords to
  us massive amounts of data
 on virtually every subject.
 But as with globalization,
 the explosion of technology
also has brought new challenges.
 The power of states
 to collect data
 often results in
 unchecked surveillance
  that violates our privacy.
Misapplication of data
leads to discrimination
  in areas ranging from law
  enforcement to home loans.
Discrimination amplifies
racism and biases
  that already exist
  in our society.
 Automated production means
 robots are replacing people,
 many of whom find a struggle
 finding another new job.
 And as we've witnessed
 in recent years,
various form of
political disinformation
  now pollute social media
 and threaten our very
 democratic discourse.
 It's easy to get overwhelmed
 and at this moment,
 and what I'm saying,
you're probably feeling
a bit overwhelmed,
 and to retreat into
 our partisan corners,
 curse our political rivals.
But inaction's
actually not an option.
  There's too much at stake.
Each of us needs to
find a way to contribute
 to solving these
 difficult problems.
 As the first human rights
 center at a business school,
 we're convinced that
 it's really possible
to persuade the world's
largest companies
 to help tackle these
 vexing challenges.
We take a pro-company,
high standards approach.
We focus on what it
will mean, practically,
  to integrate human rights
  into core business models.
If these issues are regulated to
 the margins of
 corporate management
 progress is never going to occur.
 Once companies do recognize
 these as business priorities,
  we stand ready to
  work with them,
 to develop industry specific
 standards and metrics,
 and to build credible
 systems to assess
  their performance
  in a way that will
 enable fair comparison
 against their peers.
Our industry-based focus started
  with the apparel manufacturers
and their global supply chains.
  Five weeks after
  we came to Stern,
 the Rana Plaza Factory Complex
 in Bangladesh collapsed.
  1,100 garment workers,
  most of them young women,
 were killed.
  2,500 others were injured.
 We quickly organized
 a working session,
 in this room,
  where we brought together
some of the largest
Western clothing brands,
the Walmarts, the Gaps,
 along with their local
 Bangladeshi suppliers,
  representative of about
  seven Western governments
and international organizations
like the World Bank.
  We became part of
  a larger effort
 to forge industry
 government cooperation
 on factory safety
 issues in Bangladesh.
And these efforts
really have contributed
 to measurable
 improvement conditions
 in the first-tier factories.
  But as we pursued
  our engagement,
 we also saw the
 widespread existence
  of largely invisible
  subcontracting factories.
 These are the
 places where workers
  are often in the
  greatest jeopardy.
 We did exhaustive research,
 we documented the existence,
 it took us a year,
 of several thousand
subcontracting factories
across Bangladesh
 producing for export.
We came up with a
chart, which is online,
 names and addresses
 of 7,100 factories.
  Recognizing resource
  constraints in Bangladesh
 to tackle this really
 massive challenge,
 we're now proposing working
 to build a model of,
 what we call, shared
 responsibility,
 where Western
 government's brands
  will work with their
  Bangladeshi counterparts,
 the World Bank, philanthropy,
 to create a common fund to
 fix these neglected factories.
Bangladesh is a front-line state
  in the struggle to make
  respect for human dignity
 a minimum standard for
 global supply chains.
 As Western consumers
 and investors,
 we each have a responsibility
 to support companies
  that dedicate appropriate
  resources to improving
  these working conditions.
With respect to the
challenge of inequality,
we believe the investment sector
has a uniquely
important role to play.
  And Stern has been
  a proud school
 with a very proud and
 excellent Finance department
 for many, many years.
 Raghu has been a
 proud part of that.
  I'm also proud to hold the
 Jerome Kohlberg Chair
 in Ethics and Finance.
 And I think that our
 work with this sector
 advances the late Mr.
 Kohlberg’s vision.
 Recently, financial
 leaders in this city,
  Larry Fink, Jamie
  Dimon, Ray Dalio,
have warned the gains generated
by our current financial system
are not being adequately shared.
 In August, a quite
 remarkable statement,
 180 corporate CEOS, through
 the Business Roundtable,
 underscored this
 point, acknowledging,
  and they haven't done this
  very often in the past,
 that corporations need
 to serve the interests
not only of their shareholders,
 but also their
 workers, contractors,
 and the communities
 where they operate.
But for these aspirational
pronouncements to gain traction,
 Wall Street firms need
 to abandon a model
  primarily focused on short
  term shareholder returns,
  and move toward a
  broader approach
that also better serves
the long-term well-being
  of our society as a whole.
 As they do, we will
 need better measures
of corporate performance
on human rights.
My colleague who's here,
 Casey, wonderful colleague,
 Casey O'Connor-Willis,
 is leading our efforts
 in this crucial area,
  working to give greater
  coherence and practicality
to the social component of what
 the investment
 community calls ESG,
meaning environment,
social, and governance.
 Investment funds that include
 ESG factors are expanding,
driven in part by women
and millennial investors
 who assign greater
 priority to these concerns.
  But our research has
  concluded that the current
 measures investors use
 to assess social human rights
 performance are failing,
 and actually quite miserably.
 They assess promises,
 not performance,
analyze what's most convenient,
not what's most meaningful.
 Investors need better
 and more reliable
comparative information
on which companies
 are actually doing a good job,
especially in addressing
factors that lead to inequality.
Though we're still at
an early stage of this,
 our aim is to build
 a model for the S,
 the social element, that
 would better enable investors
  to respond to this
  urgent challenge.
Inequality also presents
itself in the lack of diversity
 in the upper echelons
  of the investment
  sector itself.
 In 2017, the Knight
 Foundation did a study
 which found that investment
 firms owned by women
or underrepresented
minorities only oversee
about 1% of the roughly
$70 trillion dollars
 in assets under management.
 In addressing this
 daunting challenge,
  we look to Eleanor
  Roosevelt for inspiration.
 She once wrote that,
 "Human rights begin in
 places close to home."
  In that spirit,
  we're working with
 Robert Kennedy Human
 Rights organization
 to encourage greater
 diversity within university
endowment funds, including NYU,
 which collectively hold
 about $500 billion.
 Without asking schools to
 sacrifice financial returns,
 we're encouraging university
 investment offices
 to go the extra mile to give
women and minority-owned
firms a serious shot
at competing for this business.
 Last year, we hosted
 a conference with
trustees, investment officers from
 13 of the wealthiest schools,
 including NYU.
  In the spring, we're going to
  hold a follow-up meeting.
  We're going to invite
  representatives
  of the 30 schools
 with the largest endowments.
 Schools like
 University of Chicago,
 Georgetown, NYU are stepping
 up to accept this challenge
and we're their eager partners.
 Finally, last point,
 with respect to the
 breathtaking advances
 in technology,
 we focused on
 internet governance
 and the growing threat
 to our democracy
posed by political
disinformation on social media.
  Our deputy director
  who's here, Paul Barrett,
 is leading the charge.
 We were very fortunate
 to lure Paul away
  from three decades of
  excellence in journalism,
  both with the Wall
  Street Journal
 and Bloomberg Businessweek.
  He's now applying his
  very considerable talents
to authoring, now, four reports
 we've done on disinformation.
 Initially we
 focused on misuse of
the internet platforms
by foreign governments,
 notably the Russians.
 This year we turned
 our attention inward,
 examining disinformation
 generated by domestic users,
 including extremist groups,
who have an utter
disregard for the truth.
 Our most recent report
 focused on the 2020 election.
In each of these
reports, we concentrate
on the responsibilities
 of the internet
 platforms themselves,
  outlining practical steps
  they can and need to take
  to counter this
  pernicious disinformation.
  These issues are
  ever more critical.
 As newspapers
 continue to decline,
  Americans are getting
  more of their news online.
 Because so many
 online sources peddle
false political content,
our failure to moderate
online content sensibly
 is itself contributing
 to the significantly growing
 divisions within our society.
 Finally, the important
 part of our mission
 is to encourage other
 business schools
  to adopt the Stern model,
  embrace human rights
 as part of their
 teaching and research.
 Next week, we're going to
 cohost a meeting with
the University of Geneva
School of Management,
  where representatives of
  about 30 business schools
 from around the world
 are coming to discuss
 how they can get into this.
Early stage, a lot of
them are still trying to
  find their way, they
  don't have a John Sexton,
they don't have a Raghu
Sundaram to help them.
But I'm confident we're
going to make that happen.
  The common theme
  in all of our work
  is a commitment to
  applying core human rights
 principles and
 standards to business.
  Taking a page from
  Senator Javits,
 we endeavor to tackle
 these challenges
 in a manner that
 builds broad alliances
and achieves practical results.
And while the corporate
sector, by itself,
 cannot eliminate
 polarization in our society,
  or restore greater
  bipartisanship,
  without meaningful
  private sector engagement,
 these larger efforts
 are sure to fail.
 Senator Javits once said that,
 "Business, properly
 understood, is central
  to every aspect of
  our civilization."
 We share that
 prospective and we see
 growing opportunities
 for business schools
and the future business
leaders we teach,
 to build responsible
 global supply chains,
 an investment
 system that promotes
  greater economic equality,
 and well managed
 social media platforms
 that advance, rather
 than detract from,
 democratic discourse.
To say the least, this
is an ambitious agenda.
But as Senator Javits also said,
 "There's nothing to be gained
by waiting for a better situation.
  You see where you are,
  and you do what you can."
So we invite you to join with us
 in doing what we can
in pursuing this timely
and exciting agenda.
 Thank you very much.
(claps)
 Now I know we have a
 few microphones around
 and I'd be glad to
 take a few questions,
have a little conversation here.
I'll call on people if
you don't ask questions.
(laughs)
 I've been known to do that.
So please, who wants to
ask the first question?
I must've said something
to provoke somebody,
 there you are.
There's a microphone
coming to you right now.
- Ah, thank you.
 As a retired newspaper editor,
  I have given some thought
  to how one might moderate,
as you said, the bad
actors on the internet,
 but I can't think of
 any way to do that
 other than to
 eradicate free speech
  as the Chinese have done.
  Do you think there
  are ways to do it
that will actually work?
 - Yes, the key word you
 used, or that we use a lot,
  is to mitigate
  the worst effects,
 we're never going to eliminate
 bad things on the internet.
It's too pervasive, the
volume is too great.
But I think when you
talk about free speech,
 I think there's a different
 standard that applies
  to the internet platforms,
 as it does to the news
 media you used to work for.
So if you start from a premise,
we start from some
really simple premises,
  especially in the
  political sphere,
 if there is provably
 false content
 that is flooding the system.
 The Holocaust never happened,
Obama was born in Kenya,
the Pope endorsed Trump,
  there's a range of things,
I could give
you a long list.
 The students in
 Florida were actors,
 they're really not students.
  If there's things like
  that that are going viral,
 the companies ought
 to take it down.
 Now, the companies moderate
 content all the time,
 but they say,
 "You know, we're not editors
 of the New York Times.
 We're more like plumbers or
 like telephone companies.
 Stuff runs through our pipes."
 And we say, we need
 a third paradigm.
 You're not editors of
 the New York Times,
but you're not plumbers.
 We sent very simple
 recommendations,
  which they so far
  haven't accepted,
 but we're going to keep at it.
 One is, that they
 find somebody like you
and say,
 "We're going to have a
 senior news person,
 somebody with news judgment,
 as a content moderator
 of our sites."
 Paul and I,
 and Paul deals with
 a lot more than I do,
when we go and talk to Facebook,
 there may be eight different
 entities at Facebook
 or YouTube, which they
 own, or Instagram,
 dealing with aspects
 of content moderation.
  They may not even know
  what each other are doing.
 There's nobody senior
 in that company,
nobody senior at Google,
which owns YouTube.
 Nobody senior
 reporting to the CEO,
  who's a content overseer.
 So the first thing is
 coordinate internally,
  that's just good
  business practice.
 If it's provably false
 and it's going viral,
  especially in the
  political space,
 take it down.
They demote it, there's
lots of conversations.
 But they have to,
 we have to together,
figure out this third paradigm.
  It's not going to be perfect
 but it can be a heck of a lot
 better than what it is now.
  The internet is
  out of control now
in the political sphere.
You just go on every day and
take a look at what's going on.
 And it is undermining
 our politics,
it's creating massive confusion,
 and it is increasing
 the polarization
  that I was talking about.
These are issues that
are going to help determine
 whether we maintain
 our democratic vigor.
So I think there's room to move.
 Yep, please.
 - Thank you.
  You mentioned that there's
  140 companies’
 CEOs got together to discuss
 that they were making
 900, much, much, much
 too much money,
 something like that.
  - Yeah, well what
  they said is that
  they have to have
  a broader mission
 than just short-term
 shareholder returns.
 - But what did they
 do about, in part,
 what did they do about
 their own situations,
 as well as what do they do
 generally in their companies
 to change that kind of agenda?
- So you know, my view is I
take a kind of Ronald Reagan view,
 you know, trust but verify.
  I think it's great that
  they issued the statement.
I think it gives us a beachhead.
These 180 CEOs have
Said, “We have to rethink
 the way we operate.”
  Do they know what
  they mean by that?
 I don't think so, not exactly.
Do they have a practical
plan for doing it?
 I'm sure they don't.
But it's an opportunity.
 And so, you know,
 we will undoubtedly,
 I'm trying to go down
 actually and see them
and sort of say,
 "What are you up to?"
I'm hoping to do
that next month.
- How long ago was that meeting?
 - What's that?
- How long ago was that meeting?
 - The statement
 came out in August.
  And it, never saw
  anything like that before.
 So I think we're early stage.
We may be on the
three-yard line,
but we're heading
towards the other goal.
(laughs)
  - That's not encouraging.
 Can you give us your thoughts
  about conduct and culture
  in corporate America,
  and particularly
  with reference to
 you know, what
 officials might do to
 encourage appropriate
 conduct and culture,
  change the norms
  within companies.
 - Yeah, it's a really
 important question.
It's actually what Jon
Haidt, my colleague,
works on a lot with his
ethical systems program.
  So much is determined by
  the culture of a company.
 So much of the
 culture is determined
 by who's running the company.
 The best companies
 are run by people who
  would agree with virtually
  everything I said
and they're trying hard.
 One of the challenges
 we face, I think,
  even the best companies,
  the best public companies,
 is the ferocity of the
 investment model that says,
 "Every three months
 you have to give us
your quarterly earnings
and you have to say
  that you met your number."
 It forces companies, often,
 to do things in the short term
that aren't even in the
company's best interest
in the long-term.
  It puts pressure on them.
  So I think one of the
  things that we have to do
 is create some more
 space for good leaders
 of good companies to do what
 they know is the right thing.
You see it a lot more in Europe
  European investors are
  much more attuned to this.
  Some of the public funds,
 say pension funds and others,
 want to do the right thing.
 I mentioned that
 women and millennials
 are much more inclined to be
 thinking about these things.
 All the surveys
 say twice as likely
  as old white guys like me
to pay attention
to these things.
 But I think the answer
 to your question is
 it's really critical to look
 at these issues of culture
and try to figure it out
in a more systematic way
how do you instill these values.
  Hopefully, we're
  doing it at Stern
 with the people we're teaching
 that are going out the door.
 I tell my students, I'm
 teaching you for your seventh job.
 When you go to Goldman
 Sachs or McKinsey,
 they're not going to ask you
 your views on human rights.
But if you're running a
big Fortune 500 company,
  these are the things that
  keep you up at night.
 So I think part of
 our role, as I see it,
 is to prepare them
 for that seventh job.
But it's also what Jon's doing,
 really trying to
 think systematically,
  how do we think mindfully
  about what the culture is
  and how to encourage those
  leaders that are the best,
  they're out there.
There's actually
quite a few that
are trying to do
the right thing.
  In the back there.
 - Going back to the question
 about social media moderation,
 - Yeah.
 - How do we deal then,
you know, we're talking
about the private side,
 the public response.
Because, and
especially in Congress,
even though, you know, companies
might want to moderate,
 when the do moderate,
 they get this
  very, very large
  negative backlash.
  If you look at especially
  some of the responses
 among conservative politicians
  to some of the moderation.
  You know, there's been the
 last three, four years,
 the last two years,
 on the Conservative side, a
 massive growth and interest
 in breaking up some of
 these tech companies
because they think
they're being censored.
 So even if companies
 want to do that,
 they have this fear.
How do we deal with the
bipartisanship on getting rid of
 fake news on the
 public site, as well,
  to encourage these
  private companies?
 - Yeah, it's a great question.
  I think our instinct has
  been, and continues to be,
content moderation
by governments,
 dictated by governments,
 often leads to a bad place.
  So, when I was in
  the government,
 one of the first
 things I dealt with
 was the Green
 Revolution in Iran.
  And the Iranian Government
  announced that they were
 creating the Halal internet.
 And I thought,
 "Oh boy, here we go!”
Every government gets to decide
 what's Halal, what's Kosher.
So I worry about that
and there are plenty of,
 you know, ill-suited
 governments now
  that are trying
  to control access
  to the internet or
  control content.
  There are some specific
  things I think governments
  can and should do.
 There's a bill in
 Congress, Amy Klobuchar
  and Senator Warren
  and Mark Warner
have introduced a bill
with Lindsey Graham now,
 it was McCain,
  called the Honest Ads Act.
 We're in an odd place, where
 political ads are regulated.
 If you have an ad on
 TV or in a newspaper,
you have to say,
"This ad was paid for,
sponsored by, whoever."
  We don't have it
  for online, crazy.
  That should be, government
  ought to regulate that.
 And frankly, an agency
 like the FCC or FTC
  that has real regulatory
  power ought to be on that.
 The companies say, again,
 “We're doing that voluntarily.”
 I’m back to Ronald Reagan,
 trust but verify.
 I want some government
 agent making sure that
those ads are regulated.
  So, there's a role
  for government,
 but I'm very nervous about-
there the First Amendment issues
really do make me nervous.
  Government regulation and
  especially, as you say,
 where we are in such
 a partisan moment.
Government interference I think
is going to cause a
lot of mischief.
  - Thanks, Mike.
  Two questions.
 First, could you just
 summarize for us,
  what are the main
  recommendations
  to restore bipartisanship?
 I have: reduce inequality
 and rein in the platforms,
neither of which
sounds very easy to do.
  Were there others?
  What were the main
  recommendations?
 - Well, I talked
 about regulating the
 supply chain, yeah.
- But would that
restore bipartisanship.
 I mean that's a good
 thing to do but-
- Yes, so that's
a good question.
 I think that in this sense,
we are living in a world
where lots of people
 are affected negatively
 by loss of jobs,
  by a sense that the
  system isn't fair.
 And they're looking
 for some sense that
 they're not the only
 ones being singled out
 and it's incumbent on
 American companies,
  global companies, to say,
 "You know what, we actually
 do care about workers,
we care about them
here, we care about them
  in the rest of the world."
  So to create a kind of fair
  system across the board
 will send a signal.
 It may not restore,
 if you're the worker
 who lost their job
  in Scranton, Pennsylvania,
 it may not restore your job.
 Again, there's not an
 easy answer to that
but I think that the
act of companies saying,
"We're global citizens,
we're paying attention
 to these issues,
 we're concerned about
workers' rights here and there."
We have to make that connection.
 You know, one of the
 challenges we’ve faced
is this discussion
often kind of deteriorates
 into how do you
 protect American jobs.
 And we ignore what's
 going on globally.
 We need to bring
 those two together.
 American workers and
 workers in Bangladesh
  share a common
  set of challenges,
they need to be
reinforcing each other.
 And companies need
 to signal the fact,
  "We care about you here,
  we care about them there,
 and we're trying to be fair,
  we're trying to
  be good citizens."
  - Okay, thank you.
 On the question of how
 to have less toxic,
  less destructive
  internet platforms
  and social media,
 you hear there's
 some skepticism about
 what happens if we try
 to moderate content.
 I've been very
 interest in ways to
 be more careful about
 who can open accounts
 that can reach large
 numbers of people
  with zero identification,
  zero accountability,
 zero identity checks.
 So I've been writing,
  I have an article in
  Atlantic then this month,
  arguing that we
  need to end that.
  Not that you have to
  show your driver’s license
to Facebook, I wouldn't
trust them with it,
 but that there could
 be third parties.
 My point is trying to
 moderate the content,
  I mean the content is
  almost infinite every day,
but the number of users,
 that is much lower.
  And so, what we proposed is that,
 if you want to open an account
 you have to at least 
 show that you're
a real person somewhere.
And that would eliminate
a lot of the trolling
and a lot of the death threats,
 some of the racist threats.
 What are your thoughts on
 what the platforms should do
to do something about verifying
that a person is a human being.
 - Yeah, again, Paul
 sitting behind you
 probably can give you a more
 complete answer to this.
(laughs)
  I'll just give you
  a couple thoughts.
 One, I think it's a piece of
 the puzzle, for sure.
 One, this is not either or,
we ought to be looking at both.
 One of the three big platforms
 we're looking at, Twitter,
 lives on anonymous accounts.
And I think some
people have said to us,
 "If you eliminated
 the bots, the robots,
  the fake accounts,
 their business would
 change dramatically."
 Now, it's also true, and
 my human rights friends say
 if you start to
 require disclosure,
 put yourself in the
 context of China
  or Russia,
  a lot of activists
  say the anonymity
actually gives us the
ability to communicate-
- Oh no, you could
still post anonymously,
  it's just that to
  open the account,
 you have to prove that
 you're a human being.
- Prove to who?
 - To somebody, no, not to the
 platform, to a third party.
 A nonprofit
 - So that's the conversation.
  It's clearly part
  of the discussion
and to be fair to the platforms,
sites like InfoWars, Alex Jones,
 they did take the
 site down eventually.
 So some of that is going on,
  but I think we acknowledge
  this hugely complicated,
 both in terms of the
 amount of material
  and the number of
  users, you know.
  Facebook has what,
  2.3 billion users.
 We’re not talking about- 
That's not a small task
 either, to keep track of them.
  We've got to do
  all of the above.
  And it seems to me, again,
there is a way to do better.
  We can't do worse
  than we're doing.
 And so I think we start with
 some very simple things,
straightforward things.
 These are businesses that have
 grown unbelievably quickly,
 faster than they anticipated.
 They have to behave like big
 global responsible citizens
and they are going to need
to spend more money.
 The part of my conversation
 they least like
 is when I say to them,
 "You've got some
 huge global problems
and you're going to have
to put a lot more money
 to get this right."
 Yeah, please.
- We've now heard the term global,
 in terms of solutions
 and problems.
You mentioned the Plaza
issue in Bangladesh.
Obviously many of
these issues are beyond
 one government or on country,
  especially in the
  developing world.
So my question would be
whether you’re concerned
 about the continued
 erosion of the
 multilateral platform.
 The World Trade Organization,
 many of the UN organizations
 are being defunded by
 governments everywhere
 due to populism and the rise
 of Right-Wing extremism.
 So is this an issue you see?
- So, I'm proud to call
myself a globalist.
 I believe in the UN.
  I believe in international
  organizations.
 They haven't done a great job
 on these issues, honestly.
 You know, we do a
 lot of work with the
 International
 Labor Organization.
  They have good standards,
  good conventions,
 good structure of
 what ought to be done,
 but they're not very
 good at implementing.
  And so, I never will give
  up on these institutions
 but I'm also not waiting
 for them to be the solution.
 They're a platform, for sure.
I'll give you an example
 with the International
 Labor Organization.
 It took them 25 years
 to agree to do a study
on global supply chains.
 They did that two years ago.
It got so contentious internally
 that they suspended the study.
  So I'm not waiting
  another 25 years
  for them to figure
  out how to deal
  with global supply chains.
  Good people there,
  well-intentioned.
The tripartite,
 you know, industry, union,
 government, and 190 countries.
  Boy, that's a tough, it's
  tough to get consensus
 on almost anything.
 So I believe in the system,
  I want it to work,
 but our view is we've got to
 take the bull by the horns.
 We're in a business school.
 I want businesses,
 global businesses, to
 be leaders on this.
  Over in the back.
 - One of the trends
 that's parallel
 to a lot of the things
 you've discussed
 is an increase in CEO
 political activism
 and we've observed a lot of
 that in the recent years.
Do you think that's
exacerbating the kind of
 polarization you talked about
  or is that simply
  required to have
  a meaningful conversation
  on the issues
related to the S in ESG?
  - Let me put it this way.
 If I were given a
 choice between a CEO
  deciding to figure out
  how to fix their business
 and how they're making money
 or getting involved
 in some cause,
 even one I agree with,
I'd want them to focus first on
  getting their own
  house in order.
 Now, there's plenty
 of things, where,
  CEO speaking and speaking
  out is a good thing,
 but I think oftentimes
 that's a substitute
for fixing their house.
So, we have not taken
positions, you know, on
CEO joint statements on
one thing and another.
Again, I'm sympathetic
to some, not to others.
I don't think there's any reason
they shouldn't speak
out as public citizens.
  They're leaders
  of our community.
 But I'm always
 sort of coming back to
how you're running your company
 and what are the core issues,
again, how are you making money?
  What's your core business?
  What's the business model?
  What's inherent in
  the business model
 that's causing the problem?
And what are you doing about it?
 And what are doing about it
 with you competitors?
 This is the one area
 where competition
 should be left at the door.
If you're in the apparel sector,
  the energy sector,
  the tech sector,
 you got to work with
 your competitors.
 You have to develop
 industry standards.
All these things
are easy to say,
  they're not so easy to do.
  Please, one more
  question we're going to take
  right in the back.
- Thank you, Professor.
  If it's the case
  that businesses have
 a shared responsibility in
 so many parts of civic life,
 then are there limits
 to where that
 responsibility ends?
- Sure, you know,
again, one thing I said,
 sort of in passing, I believe
 in the capitalist system.
I believe in the market.
 I believe that companies
 are supposed to make money.
So I'm not sitting there
and telling Facebook
 to become a nonprofit.
  I think they're
  making a lot of money
 and they could spend
 a bit more of it
 getting their house in order.
So the issue here is not
 is there unlimited capacity
 to do these things.
 I don't expect that.
  But we're a long way
  from getting to the line.
 And so, so often the case is
 the kind of mentality, again,
that this is about the culture,
 the culture is we're
 going to maximize profit
every quarter, every quarter, 
whatever it takes to do it.
  And that sends
  you down a path to
 making a lot of bad choices,
 both for your company
 and for society.
I think we can modulate
that, moderate that,
in a way that will allow
for healthy capitalism,
healthy returns, healthy profits,
 and make our society better.
 There's not a science to this.
 It's really a
 question of engaging
 and trying to come to
 some principled, practical way to
 moderate those two things,
Alright, thank you all. 
(claps)
  - Thank you all very much.
  I'd like to invite you all
  to stay for a reception,
  continue celebrating Mike
  and the Javits Foundation.
 I'm going to do something
 slightly unorthodox.
 I know that everybody
 wants to talk to Mike
 and I don't want
 Mike to get mobbed,
 so I'm going to do something odd.
 I'm going to introduce
 you to a few other
of our amazing faculty,
 there's lots of our amazing
 faculty in this room,
you will enjoy talking to them.
There's Jonathan Haidt,
  one of the world's
  leading ethicists.
 There's Paul Hardart, behind,
 who heads our Entertainment
 and Media program.
 There's Dick Berner, in the
 back who asked a question,
who runs our Volatility
and Risk Institute.
 Dick, you should put up
 your hand, otherwise
 they won't know who you are.
(laughs)
  And there is our wonderful
  President Emeritus,
 John Sexton.
  I think one of
  the most visionary
  university presidents
  the country has ever had.
  So please do stay,
  please do mingle,
 please do talk to everybody.
  Thank you all for
  being here, again.
(applause)
1287
00:57:56,640 --> 00:00:00,000
